1933 Uncle Jacks INSANE PSA Grade/Comparison (Video)

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jws57

It's clearly at the minimum 2-3 grades higher than that 1. It's not an automatic 1 if it's has slight water damage vs. being halfway mangled.

No it isn't. It absolutely can, and looks to, have attributes of a 1. It doesn't matter for value...someone will buy that on aesthetics. It is a great looking coupon but I can see a 1 to 1.5, technically speaking. That's just me though...btw, we never saw the backs either. They can be the reason for low grades sometimes, as we all know.
.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Leon

No it isn't. It absolutely can, and looks to, have attributes of a 1. It doesn't matter for value...someone will buy that on aesthetics. It is a great looking coupon but I can see a 1 to 1.5, technically speaking. That's just me though...
.

Wow. I'm not gonna keep pushing this. But I'm glad everyone is so confident this is a fair grade haa..PSA obviously has everyone still wrapped up. Crazy.
AND definitely has attributes of a 7-8. If you owned the card you'd see the sharp corners and overall good-excellent front.

[Jws57]

You guys think the same thing regarding this batch this guy posted?? Same PSA defense here?

https://www.reddit.com/r/baseballcar..._bag_of_dicks/

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Jws57

Wow. I'm not gonna keep pushing this. But I'm glad everyone is so confident this is a fair grade haa..PSA obviously has everyone still wrapped up. Crazy.
AND definitely has attributes of a 7-8. If you owned the card you'd see the sharp corners and overall good-excellent front.

I think the issue is that a "1" today encompasses a very large bucket and covers everything from total beaters to items with technical flaws that do not really affect aesthetics. In many regards, old standards were better because a 2-7 meant more and had wider application. If you look at some PSA 5's from the early years, many could not get a 3 today. The problem is not so much PSA today as how PSA's standards and requirements have changed so much over the years.

All that said, Leon is right - aesthetics matter most, especially with an item like yours, which I expect is pretty rare.

[Pat R]

I don't collect or follow these but I think this would get a 1 from any of the grading company's.

03.jpg

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I don't collect or follow these but I think this would get a 1 from any of the grading company's.

Attachment 534568

The definition of a 1.
.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Leon

The definition of a 1.
.

Thanks. And maybe as of now. But see Rhotchkiss' post. Maybe I'm stuck on how they used to grade and how the card should grade.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I don't collect or follow these but I think this would get a 1 from any of the grading company's.

Attachment 534568

And now the truth comes out.

No matter how great the front, if the back is a mess, they’re going to give you a low grade.

Way to hide it, though.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by raulus

And now the truth comes out.

No matter how great the front, if the back is a mess, they’re going to give you a low grade.

Way to hide it, though.

'Way to hide it' - Right. It wasn't about that - you obviously missed the entire point. The front of the PSA 1 on ebay vs mine was the point.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Jws57

'Way to hide it' - Right. It wasn't about that - you obviously missed the entire point. The front of the PSA 1 on ebay vs mine was the point.

I guess you missed the point that they grade the whole card, not just the front.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by raulus

And now the truth comes out.

No matter how great the front, if the back is a mess, they’re going to give you a low grade.

Way to hide it, though.

And 'low grade' - fine. Just not a 1.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Jws57

And 'low grade' - fine. Just not a 1.

Hard to tell from the scans, but it looks like it was glued down at one point, and now you have paper loss plus a bunch of glue residue on the back.

But maybe you can give us more detail about whether that’s accurate?

[Peter_Spaeth]

They don't grade the front and back separately and average the grades, as far as I know. A back defect can certainly take the grade all the way down, depending on what it is.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I don't collect or follow these but I think this would get a 1 from any of the grading company's.

Attachment 534568

Thanks

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by rhotchkiss

i think the issue is that a "1" today encompasses a very large bucket and covers everything from total beaters to items with technical flaws that do not really affect aesthetics. In many regards, old standards were better because a 2-7 meant more and had wider application. If you look at some psa 5's from the early years, many could not get a 3 today. The problem is not so much psa today as how psa's standards and requirements have changed so much over the years.

All that said, leon is right - aesthetics matter most, especially with an item like yours, which i expect is pretty rare.

exactly.