NIce card..But I'm not sure its perfect
IJustLoveCards
Posts: 1,345
Do you think this is a 10?
The Link below will take you to the PSA Boards 1952 Set Build, I also have made 5 slideshows each slideshow is 100 cards long, card numbers 1-99,100-199,200-299,300-399, and 400-407
Link To Scanned 1952 Topps Cards Set is now 90% Complete Plus Slideshows of the 52 Set
Link To Scanned 1952 Topps Cards Set is now 90% Complete Plus Slideshows of the 52 Set
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I prefer 10's to be perfectly centered ... 50/50 if you will.
Maybe PSA should adapt a 9.5 rating for cards like this one!
JMHO,
PoppaJ
<< <i>Does it have a slight tilt up L to R or is that just the way it is in the holder? >>
Card might be slightly tilted in the holder, but it does appear to have a slight tilt itself!!
Always looking for Chipper Jones cards.
Im a very focused collector of cards from 1909 - 2012...LOL
<< <i>Its perfect........PSA says so
If you read their grading standards, PSA's definition of 10 GEM MT often differs slightly from what most collectors would define as GEM MT.
<< <i>
<< <i>Its perfect........PSA says so
If you read their grading standards, PSA's definition of 10 GEM MT often differs slightly from what most collectors would define as GEM MT. >>
Very true, the PSA standard of a PSA 10 is and has been listed on their website. Wasn't it BCG that recently removed their published standards? That is more of a problem to me then not agreeing with the PSA standard.
For the price the card would/will go for, I would not be interested. I like others would prefer my PSA 10's better centered, but even with that low res scan, it does appear to be a very nice card.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Its perfect........PSA says so
If you read their grading standards, PSA's definition of 10 GEM MT often differs slightly from what most collectors would define as GEM MT. >>
Very true, the PSA standard of a PSA 10 is and has been listed on their website. Wasn't it BCG that recently removed their published standards? That is more of a problem to me then not agreeing with the PSA standard.
For the price the card would/will go for, I would not be interested. I like others would prefer my PSA 10's better centered, but even with that low res scan, it does appear to be a very nice card. >>
I'll assume you're talking about BGS? I've never heard of BCG.. Anyhow BGS still has their criteria listed
BGS criteria
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Its perfect........PSA says so
If you read their grading standards, PSA's definition of 10 GEM MT often differs slightly from what most collectors would define as GEM MT. >>
Very true, the PSA standard of a PSA 10 is and has been listed on their website. Wasn't it BCG that recently removed their published standards? That is more of a problem to me then not agreeing with the PSA standard.
For the price the card would/will go for, I would not be interested. I like others would prefer my PSA 10's better centered, but even with that low res scan, it does appear to be a very nice card. >>
I'll assume you're talking about BGS? I've never heard of BCG.. Anyhow BGS still has their criteria listed
BGS criteria >>
I was referring to the vintage BGS and meant to type BVG, but whatever it is called. Someone on the boards noted they removed their standards. This is a vintage card we are talking about.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Its perfect........PSA says so
If you read their grading standards, PSA's definition of 10 GEM MT often differs slightly from what most collectors would define as GEM MT. >>
Very true, the PSA standard of a PSA 10 is and has been listed on their website. Wasn't it BCG that recently removed their published standards? That is more of a problem to me then not agreeing with the PSA standard.
For the price the card would/will go for, I would not be interested. I like others would prefer my PSA 10's better centered, but even with that low res scan, it does appear to be a very nice card. >>
I'll assume you're talking about BGS? I've never heard of BCG.. Anyhow BGS still has their criteria listed
BGS criteria >>
I was referring to the vintage BGS and meant to type BVG, but whatever it is called. Someone on the boards noted they removed their standards. This is a vintage card we are talking about. >>
Yes, I know what the card is...
The criteria is the same for BVG as well BUT they take into account certain aspects for certain issue cards... Same thing PSA will do with 1971 topps baseball for instance concerning chipping on edges..
<< <i>Truth be told, it could be a PSA 8 .... PSA 9 ..... or PSA 10 depending on when it was graded and who the grader was. >>
The seller bought that card from me but when I sold it, it was only a 7.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Its perfect........PSA says so
If you read their grading standards, PSA's definition of 10 GEM MT often differs slightly from what most collectors would define as GEM MT. >>
Very true, the PSA standard of a PSA 10 is and has been listed on their website. Wasn't it BCG that recently removed their published standards? That is more of a problem to me then not agreeing with the PSA standard.
For the price the card would/will go for, I would not be interested. I like others would prefer my PSA 10's better centered, but even with that low res scan, it does appear to be a very nice card. >>
I'll assume you're talking about BGS? I've never heard of BCG.. Anyhow BGS still has their criteria listed
BGS criteria >>
I was referring to the vintage BGS and meant to type BVG, but whatever it is called. Someone on the boards noted they removed their standards. This is a vintage card we are talking about. >>
Yes, I know what the card is...
The criteria is the same for BVG as well BUT they take into account certain aspects for certain issue cards... Same thing PSA will do with 1971 topps baseball for instance concerning chipping on edges.. >>
IF the criteria is the same, then why did Beckett have a different criteria posted online a couple months ago. In other words, if Beckett says they have a different criteria, I am not sure how you can for Beckett.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Its perfect........PSA says so
If you read their grading standards, PSA's definition of 10 GEM MT often differs slightly from what most collectors would define as GEM MT. >>
Very true, the PSA standard of a PSA 10 is and has been listed on their website. Wasn't it BCG that recently removed their published standards? That is more of a problem to me then not agreeing with the PSA standard.
For the price the card would/will go for, I would not be interested. I like others would prefer my PSA 10's better centered, but even with that low res scan, it does appear to be a very nice card. >>
I'll assume you're talking about BGS? I've never heard of BCG.. Anyhow BGS still has their criteria listed
BGS criteria >>
I was referring to the vintage BGS and meant to type BVG, but whatever it is called. Someone on the boards noted they removed their standards. This is a vintage card we are talking about. >>
Yes, I know what the card is...
The criteria is the same for BVG as well BUT they take into account certain aspects for certain issue cards... Same thing PSA will do with 1971 topps baseball for instance concerning chipping on edges.. >>
IF the criteria is the same, then why did Beckett have a different criteria posted online a couple months ago. >>
They didn't... Is this something you heard or actually seen with your own eyes?
Does anyone remember who posted it or perhaps save it?
Regardless, one is an idiot to use BVG, or BGS for anything pre-1990, and perhaps pre-2000. Unless it is one's desire to get less money or have a product worth less money. While you may seem to have a hard on for BGS Dizzle, that view is not shared by the general public. Look in any auction catalog and tell me what you see. Look around the prices on VCP and tell me what you see. This is not to say you can't take 20 BGS cards and 20 PSA cards, and point out the worst PSA example to make some case. However, one would have to question one's motive in doing such, and what one is trying to show.
Likewise, in the 2000 up category, especially game used or auto cards, I think one can clearly show there is a higher BGS following.
One could also bring up other graders such as SGC, they clearly have a large fan following in the WWII era and pre-WWII category.
But again, this discussion is about a vintage card.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Their BVG was criteria was posted on this forum after they removed it (according to the poster), now unless someone went through a lot of effort to fake such info, then I am likely going to believe they did have a different criteria.
Does anyone remember who posted it or perhaps save it?
Regardless, one is an idiot to use BVG, or BGS for anything pre-1990, and perhaps pre-2000. Unless it is one's desire to get less money or have a product worth less money. While you may seem to have a hard on for BGS Dizzle, that view is not shared by the general public. Look in any auction catalog and tell me what you see. Look around the prices on VCP and tell me what you see. This is not to say you can't 20 BGS cards and 20 PSA cards, and point out the worst PSA example to make some case. However, one would have to question one's motive in doing such, and what one is trying to show.
Likewise, in the 2000 up category, especially game used or auto cards, I think one can clearly show there is a higher BGS following.
One could also bring up other graders such as SGC, they clearly have a large fan following in the WWII era and pre-WWII category.
But again, this discussion is about a vintage card. >>
1) Yes I remember the criteria a fellow user posted it was the same...
Evertime I have a converation with you it seems you get very defensive and start bring up things that have nothing to do with what is being spoken about, I never said BGS or BVG was a better choice....
It's like a defense for you to go off on other things that were not even spoken about to try and make yourself look better or like you're "the right person"
As far as I know I was only talking about the listed criteria, you said it was gone off their site I said no it's not and posted a link and look where you have taken it...
MeteoriteGuy, Some people always have to find something to complain about or argue about, You seem like this type of person..Simply going of what I have read from your posts you seem to be clueless about of alot of grading issues but yet act like you know everything.
I'm not sure why I reply to any of your posts cause you seem to act like fandango and hide behind the "you're anti PSA" crud to try and make me out to be a troll around here or something. When in fact the last 10 graded card purchase I've made have been PSA stuff..
Where does your bad attitide towards me come from? Last time you went off Like this I had many people PM me asking what your problem was and If we had a previous beef or something.
I have a LOT of postings on this forum and they are not attacks or the like.
Nor have I ever replied to one of your comments, that was not a reply to one of mine, such as this thread. Please show me one thread that is the other way around like you are trying to portray.
However, it is a fact, that whenever anyone shows a poorly graded PSA card, which there are several, and I have even showed some from my collection, there are some people that always seem to reply to those threads, you are one of them. If you do such actions, how do you think myself and others will see you.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Your funny Dizzle.
I have a LOT of postings on this forum and they are not attacks or the like.
Nor have I ever replied to one of your comments, that was not a reply to one of mine, such as this thread. Please show me one thread that is the other way around like you are trying to portray.
However, it is a fact, that whenever anyone shows a poorly graded PSA card, which there are several, and I have even showed some from my collection, there are some people that always seem to reply to those threads, you are one of them. If you do such actions, how do you think myself and others will see you. >>
1) yes you have lots of posts that are not attacks or the like, I do as well what's your point?
2) Yes you are right you never replied to any of my posts without me replying to yours first, The difference is on all 3 yes 3 posts where I have replied to you (not in a negative manner in the very least) it turns into this crud everytime.. I can dig up all 3 if you like?
3) So everytime a poorly graded PSA card thread appears I post in it? NO actually not even close and If I do post in I've never said PSA sucks or anything of the likes.. Can you dig up any threads where I'm always bagging on PSA like you claim??
4) To be honest with you I'm not too concerned with how "you or others will see me" I tell it like I see it good or bad if that makes a bad person on these boards so be it.. There is 2 people on these boards who now have a problem with what I post (atleast who have brought it to my attention) that is you and fandango and it all started cause I corrected you both on something in the past and now you 2 are butt hurt or something and hold a grudge??
However, I have no problem with you dizzle and will try to word any of my responses to you more carefully. In this thread, for example, you did pretty much call me a liar, basically saying Beckett never had such a page, and then admitting later they did. Where the pages different, I don't know. Nor did I claim the like, only they took down the page, which I think is a strange move to take. It seemed to others they did this to give them more clearance or whatever you want to call it. I have no BVG cards and can give no experience regarding them. I do remember the page a little on their site, but can hardly give testimony to it. But it did appear you were calling me a liar or spreading rumors or the like (at least that is how I read it), and I did perhaps got a little defensive...so for that, to you and the board, I apologize.
So to sum up what I tried to write, I apologize for reading your responses wrong, and will be more careful in the future.
Also, any ax you think I have I would like to bury, and hopefully, you feel the same.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.