Quote:
Originally Posted by CardPadre
Would anyone agree that if SGC graded that card 10 times (with a fresh look each time, not knowing they had graded it before) you would probably come out with trimmed, min size, VG-3, VG-EX-4, and EX-5 included in those results?
|
Old Judge would expect disclosure on all those results too. Imagine auction write ups if that ever happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardPadre
Everyone knows and complains that there is no consistency or reliability in grading and that's why previous grades are not relevant (in my opinion) in selling a graded card.
|
I agree to a certain point. Certainly in the case of this card the previous grade by SGC is not remotely relevant. If I consigned the card in the SGC holder I would be more than upset...with myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardPadre
And "min size" is the most irrelevant assessment since no TPG specifies what constitutes "significantly undersized" and they all are known to have numerically graded a card they had previously min sized. It's so ludicrous, that it just can't be considered relevant.
|
This is 100% correct. And it is a moving target at both PSA and SGC. I would not call 1/32 of an inch significantly undersized for a baseball card until we get to possibly cards the size of T206s.
01-26-2025, 11:05 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode