Does anyone else have a problem with this?

packCollector

1972 Topps #292 Hal McRae -- Reds -- PSA 9 OC (Barely!) -- MINT -- 1-of-3 in PSA 9 (1 NQ, 3 OC)

It absolutely drives me nuts that someone who has built a business model and reputation by focusing on population reports would stoop this low to combine the pops of qulified and unqulified cards on what is notoriously the toughest card in the set. There is no ignorance here as this person knows the TRUE difference between a qualified and unqualified card. I just don't get why someone with a good reputaion would do something like this on a card that probably won't even bring 10 bucks. Considering all the money that has been made by this dealer due to collectors desires to win low pop cards , is it really necessary to stretch the truth to get back a grading fee.

mikeschmidt

From a purely 3rd grade mathematical perspective - if there is 1 NQ and 3 Q, doesn't that make it [sort of] 1 of 4, instead of 1 of 3...?

fsjeter

<< <i>From a purely 3rd grade mathematical perspective - if there is 1 NQ and 3 Q, doesn't that make it [sort of] 1 of 4, instead of 1 of 3...? >>





At least they listed it as a 9OC and not as a straight 9. Clicking on an auction that you thought was an unqualified card only to see the qualifier when you look at the scan bugs me more than this.

Scott

lostdart58

<< <i>

<< <i>From a purely 3rd grade mathematical perspective - if there is 1 NQ and 3 Q, doesn't that make it [sort of] 1 of 4, instead of 1 of 3...? >>





At least they listed it as a 9OC and not as a straight 9. Clicking on an auction that you thought was an unqualified card only to see the qualifier when you look at the scan bugs me more than this.

Scott >>



I agree...the seller is not trying to put anything over here....................................All the fine print on his auctions drives me crazy though!!