1933 Uncle Jacks INSANE PSA Grade/Comparison (Video)

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I have a '66 Venezuelan that looks like an 8 or 9 on the front too. Guess what, it's a 1.
Back damage is a severe penalty for PSA. I don't agree with it, but it's how they grade.

Then I concede with that after 20yrs of grading with PSA / 35 years collecting bla bla - - I've seen countless weak backs get far less penalized. Oh well.
Though it goes with the latest PSA trend over the last 1-2 years in highly inconsistent (AND BAD) grading.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jws57

Then I concede with that after 20yrs of grading with PSA / 35 years collecting bla bla - - I've seen countless weak backs get far less penalized. Oh well.
Though it goes with the latest PSA trend over the last 1-2 years in highly inconsistent (AND BAD) grading.

You are only giving half the information only showing the front. We all hate it, but the TPG's grade backs mostly the way they grade the fronts. A blank back paper loss is pretty much (half point?) the same as a front paper loss in grading'
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The other card is irrelevant. Post the back of yours and people can then assess how undergraded it might be.

[Jws57]

Originally Posted by Leon

You are only giving half the information only showing the front. We all hate it, but the TPG's grade backs mostly the way they grade the fronts. A blank back paper loss is pretty much (half point?) the same as front paper loss to writing..

Even if it were an even 50/50 (or is it not?) between grading the front and back - this would not be a 1. How in the world is everyone so convinced this IS a 1 when compared to the ebay card!?? So crazy!! It's staring us right in the face with holes/marks/creases/staining and mine has back damage but a great front. You're saying that also would equate to a 1? So the front and back don't share in the grade? A Mint-front card with a bad back should be a 1? Ok. (I'm not saying my front is MINT - but just an example on this logic of why mine should be a 1..)

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jws57

Even if it were an even 50/50 (or is it not?) between grading the front and back - this would not be a 1. How in the world is everyone so convinced this IS a 1 when compared to the ebay card!?? So crazy!! It's staring us right in the face with holes/marks/creases/staining and mine has back damage but a great front. You're saying that also would equate to a 1? So the front and back don't share in the grade? A Mint-front card with a bad back should be a 1? Ok. (I'm not saying my front is MINT - but just an example on this logic of why mine should be a 1..)

Yes, if the front is MINT and the back has medium to major paper loss, technically it would grade a 1 to a 1.5, in my experience. I am not a grading fanatic though so others will know more..
.

[Jws57]

I've already stated I have a bad back (card-wise haha) - though I still hold to this card being undergraded. Shred me all you want - but the front should make up SOME - not all - but for some of the back.
(Here are all the photos actually)
Sorry - can't seem to embed. If you want them - they're at the drive:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...ja?usp=sharing