 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28
08-13-2005, 10:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Why would SGC not grade this card?
Posted By: Jeff Lichtman
I think the grading companies, in order to make some extra money, should allow cards like this just to be slabbed as authentic, period, without a grade. (Do they now?) Here's a card that looks like a 40-50 on the front but has paper loss on the back and it gets the lowest grade which clearly is not indicative of the card's condition on the part that matters not just the most but by far the most - the front. Why for grading purposes is the significance of the back's condition for a card of this age equal to the significance of the front? 
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| SOLD - High-Grade 1909 Ramly (T204) - Tim Murnane HOF Rookie Card (SGC 60) | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 06-30-2008 06:21 PM |
| High Grade Sale '64 SGC 84 Yaz; '68 SGC 86 Seaver; '57 SGC 80 Yanks; '67 SGC 84 BrockFlood | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 11-23-2007 10:05 AM |
| I thought SGC didn't grade restored card? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 25 | 09-28-2005 01:32 AM |
| Will SGC grade an E103 Williams Caramel card if | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 12-31-2004 03:16 PM |
| Answer to how little of a card SGC will grade | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 08-08-2002 12:20 PM |
Threaded Mode