 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
11-17-2024, 03:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
IMO it is undergraded. For comparison:
__________________
_ Successful transactions with: Natswin2019, ParachromBleu, Cmount76, theuclakid, tiger8mush, shammus, jcmtiger, oldjudge, coolshemp, joejo20, Blunder19, ibechillin33, t206kid, helfrich91, Dashcol, philliesfan, alaskapaul3, Natedog, Kris19, frankbmd, tonyo, Baseball Rarities, Thromdog, T2069bk, t206fix, jakebeckleyoldeagleeye, Casey2296, rdeversole, brianp-beme, seablaster, twalk, qed2190, Gorditadogg, LuckyLarry, tlhss, Cory, zizek 
|
|
#2
11-17-2024, 03:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It has to be the writing. If your concern is that it's a half grade too low, that's pretty close really.
__________________
Four phrases I have coined that sum up today's hobby: No consequences. Stuff trumps all. The flip is the commoodity. Animal Farm grading. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 11-17-2024 at 03:43 PM.
|
|
#3
11-18-2024, 06:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
11-17-2024, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
WaJo grade
playball-
I will begin by saying your card is a beauty, I'd be proud to own it. As some on these boards know, I have consistently expressed a preference for SGC over PSA for prewar, and I continue to hold that belief. I am astounded your card didn't receive the 2 grade. Per the standard, it is a 2. I own 2 prewar cards that are lesser value than yours, yet still desirable, and in the same grade neighborhood. One is an E98 Bill Dahlen SGC 1.5 due to reverse paper loss that is minor. The other is a 1915 CJ Nap Rucker graded SGC 30 due to paper loss that is truly negligible; in fact, you have to look hard to find it. Your WaJo appears better than both of mine. I wish there was some way to factor the size/surface area of these apparently "devastating" flaws (not what I'd call them, but how the major TPGs seem to view them). Hard to tell from your photo of course, but it looks like the written "8" covers no more than 1% of the card's back. I'd rather own a card with the "8" defect than one bisected by a horizontal crease that fully penetrates one side, yet which bears a 2.5 grade. The hypothetical crease would be easily more distracting than the "8", yet still will often pull a higher grade. Although it's an unscientific phrase, these discrepancies don't "feel right". The good news- if you wish to call it that- is that PSA would have further wrecked your WaJo with an obnoxious "MK" qualifier that would have fouled up the card's value even more. Trent King
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 1952 Topps Baseball - Perspectives | Avardan | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 24 | 10-31-2023 01:12 PM |
| National: Any Seller's perspectives? | Snapolit1 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 63 | 08-05-2023 07:31 PM |
| seeking low grade C55, C56, C57 | t213 | Basketball / Cricket / Tennis Cards Forum | 1 | 10-18-2010 04:33 PM |
| seeking low grade T213-1 | t213 | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 11-20-2009 09:15 PM |
| Seeking a low grade D304 | t213 | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 1 | 10-01-2009 08:05 PM |
Hybrid Mode
