Received my grades today too

eyebone

Five day submission.

Generally a bit disappointed. I have concluded that I really don't know how to grade a card. I went through about 100 possible candidates for grading and this is what I came up with....pretty weak isn't it. Strangely, the '72 OPCs (two of my highest grades) were cards I had initially weeded out, and only through them in with the submission for the heck of it.

I have another 23 cards at SGC (mostly '52 Bowmans), so I am hoping for better from them. If the results are as disappointing as these then I think I will simply stick with raw henceforth.

Not sure how to paste this so I am simply typing it out.

1934 World Wide Gum 62 Ed Brandt 5
1960 Topps 148 Carl Yastrzemski 5
1965 OPC 207 Pete Rose 5
1967 Topps 430 Pete Rose 8 O/C
1968 Topps 247 Johnny Bench 6
1968 Topps 247 Johnny Bench 7 (thought these two Bench rookies were certain 8s....)
1969 OPC 216 Don Sutton 7
1969 Topps 120 Pete Rose 6
1969 Topps 260 Reggie Jackson 5
1969 Topps 375 Harmon Killebrew 8
1969 Topps 500 Mickey Mantle 5 (wtf....this card has a one inch crease on it....only sent it in because it was Mantle but I figured a 3)
1969 Topps 533 Nolan Ryan 5
1972 OPC 309 Roberto Clemente 8
1972 OPC 441 Thurman Munson 7
1973 Topps 220 Nolan Ryan 7
1973 Topps 615 Mike Schmidt 5 (thought this was a 7)
1974 OPC 20 Nolan Ryan 7
1979 OPC 18 Wayne Gretzky 5

Eyebone

lawnmowerman

Eye, I feel your pain. But, dont give up! I do all my grading at a south facing window in my house. No lights or loupes. I get pretty good grades with this method.

How do you grade your cards?

Matt

eyebone

Hey Matt. I use a very large magnifying glass and a desk lamp. I actually spent alot of time on these. Went through the stack three times in order to try and get the best ones. Now, some I knew were not that great ('69 Mantle, Jackson, Ryan, for instance), but some others surprised and disappointed me.

Thanks for your encouragement BTW.

Eyebone

lawnmowerman

Imo nothing beats the sunlight. You see every flaw and imperfection. Try the window next time and I will bet you get better grades.

Matt

Stone193

Eye

Sorry to hear of your disappointment.

First, I'm not sure what the power is on your mag but I recommend a 10X - you will see the corners really clear and be able to see wear that you may miss otherwise.

I like Matt's idea of natural light - but a good halogen and careful inspection of the surfaces does a good job also.

This 33G looks good under quick inspection of the corner with a larger mag but when you look with a 10X, one can see the corners have significant wear even tho they look square. I think this is a 6 though. But, what the heck.



Last, what do you mean about the "pasting" thing?

mike

eyebone

Hey Mike. That is a nice looking PSA 5 you have there.

I tired to be brutally honest as I assessed each card; I dunno, perhaps I was guilty of seeing my own cards through slightly rose-coloured glasses. It is more likely than my comparative naivete re: the whole grading thing was the main cause though. This was my first submission that went beyond the 6 freebies for membership renewal.

I tell you what though, I will be very interested to see how things turn out with my SGC submission.....

The "paste" thing? It seems that other board members have identical criteria, etc. when they post their respective results, so I assumed they were somehow able to take the PSA grading results and "transfer" them to this message board. Maybe not. I am not very computer saavy, so I could well be wrong.

Eyebone

52mantlebuyer

you will get better results if you do your grading while sitting in the executive chair in your bathroom. you will be able to concentrate much more on the cards while no one is bothering you.

lostdart58

<< <i>you will get better results if you do your grading while sitting in the executive chair in your bathroom. you will be able to concentrate much more on the cards while no one is bothering you. >>



Tried that once............but my 52 Mantle decided toi go for a swim.........