Low grades, great eye appeal

jimq112

I got this one back from PSA today, best looking 2 I've seen. There's a surface indentation on the front.

Got any that look way better than the number on the holder?

BobS

Maybe not way better than the grade, but I like them:

perkdog

Maybe this card doesnt fall into the criteria for "low grade" but I sold my 7 for $800 and bought this for less than a 1/4 of that...

Elemenopeo

<< <i>Got any that look way better than the number on the holder? >>



Boy, you're just setting me up there. My apologies to everyone who's sick of my damn scans.

cwazzy

Here's my contribution (sorry I keep posting the same cards )

daddymc

I thought this had decent eye appeal for a PSA 1 and fit into the budget nicely:

BobS

everyone - killer cards. I'll take a psa 4 50's HOF'er over a PSA 9 common any day of the week for the same $$. I guess, after being around the graded game (and here) since 02, I still don't understand the registry.

Take for instance this guy I won today, for $50. That would get you what, 4-8 early 50's commons in the same grade, or 7-10 60's commons, etc.

I'll take the 62 Aaron.

Mintacular

You guys are just reminding me about the biggest drawback of collecting graded cards. If a card looks good, it looks good. You don't need a PSA sticker to tell you that.

Other than highly-counterfeited cards, fakes, etc., I prefer to buy raw ones, it's a lot cheaper plus you get to hold the card and are not biased by a company who determines your card is only a "2"--which leads you to notice the flaws rather than its attributes.

Again, there is a time and place for PSA, but overall if you rely on a company--even a reputable one like PSA--to inform you that a card is low grade then you might not only lose out on some real nice cards, but will have a much lighter wallet

In short, PSA is a valuable asset to weeding out fakes, etc. but in terms of its other uses, it has encouraged hobbyists to think of cards more along the terms of a high-risk, high stakes speculation, dare I say "investment."

jcdcubs

BobS

baseballfan

beautiful looking cards especially the spanky

DrJ

Here are a couple I really dig from my collection which are not high grade....

akuracy503

leadoff4

That '63 Bob Gibson is stunning and that '53 Topps Reese is very nice as well! Great stuff.

Dboneesq

WOW! That '63 Gibson looks 2 - 2.5 grades higher. Paper wrinkle?

Dboneesq

When I sent this in I thought it was going to grade VERY high. I had no idea how they graded this issue. The only thing I can guess is that since the perforation between the stamps runs into part of the picture they knock the hell out of the grade!

Elemenopeo

<< <i>WOW! That '63 Gibson looks 2 - 2.5 grades higher. Paper wrinkle? >>


That's my best guess. There is something on the back that looks like it may be a wrinkle, but it's hard to tell if that's it or there's something else I can't see through the slab. My other theory is that it may have to do with the multiple fisheyes in the inset photo... maybe the submitter asked for no qualifiers and it got hammered down to 5.5. I'll likely crack it out and resubmit it some day.

Also wanted to add that Cwazzy's Campy and Reese are phenomal, though I think I've told him that before.

fur72

In my most recent sub I though this was one of the top 3 to recieve a 10.

Dboneesq

<< <i>Also wanted to add that Cwazzy's Campy and Reese are phenomal, though I think I've told him that before. >>



I LOVE that Campy. If he paid a "4" price he got a GREAT deal!

nightcrawler

Wow, love them T206s, Ty Cobb and the George Davis.

nightcrawler

One of my favorite all time cards.

fattymacs

From my childhood collection:

nam812

baseballfan

this card looks great

diamondman

did resub and it came back a PSA 2

diamondman

bigwilli

All these cards really got me thinking. Why do i need to have everything high grade . There are some beautiful cards there. I
could get 5 or 6 cards in 4 , 5 , or 6 or just 1 card in 8 or 9. Seems kinda foolish on my part . I dont have a huge budget to spend
so it seems to me i could spend my money on a little lower grade and enjoy the cards just as much.

cwazzy

<< <i>

<< <i>Also wanted to add that Cwazzy's Campy and Reese are phenomal, though I think I've told him that before. >>



I LOVE that Campy. If he paid a "4" price he got a GREAT deal! >>



Thanks, guys! I set a new high for the grade on the Campy but still less than what a 5 runs. And I have yet to see a 5 that looks as nice.

Dboneesq

Chris,

If you paid less than what a "5" goes for you did well! NICE CARD!

Griffins

Tough beating 1's like this

Elemenopeo

Yeah, you can always count on Anthony to show off some low-grade cards.





Sweet card. Obviously.

Brick

MajorDanby

nam812

Here's one that fits the bill.

akuracy503

Seeing cards in this thread just confirms for me that low-mid grade cards with eye appeal will hold value just as well as any high grade example, not to mention appeal to a broader market of prospective buyers.

Very nice!

Dboneesq

Nam ... that Mays looks a couple of grades better than that!

Elemenopeo

I love that Mays. Very nice. What do you suppose is the reason for the VG grade?

scooter729

Possibly the worst travesty of a low grade with great eye appeal. MINOR back damage is to blame for the grade, but c'mon, a ONE!?!

nam812

<< <i>I love that Mays. Very nice. What do you suppose is the reason for the VG grade? >>



It has somewhat of a bend (not a crease) down the middle that runs the the whole top to bottom length of the card. I had a 1954 Bowman #66 Ted Williams with the same issue once, and it received a 4. I was hoping for a 4 on this Mays as well.

Bunker

The best looking 1 I have ever seen it even has 4 square corners.

magellan

magellan

leadoff4

Nam, that Mays is sharp. Heck, I think it looks four grades better than it got!