1954 Dan Dees Grades In Part 2 (plus 1955 Johnny Podres)

frankhardy

For those that have followed my little find of Dan Dees, I was pleased with the first round of grades. However, I am not too pleased with this round. I sent the best 2 that I had plus a beautiful 1955 Topps Johnny Podres. Here are the grades.

1 1 17418347 NEAR MINT 7 1955 TOPPS 25 JOHNNY PODRES Card US
2 1 17418348 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1954 DAN-DEE POTATO CHIPS BOB LEMON Card US
3 1 17418349 NEAR MINT 7 1954 DAN-DEE POTATO CHIPS GEORGE STRICKLAND Card US


Here are pictures of the 3 cards. Keep in mind that this Strickland was BETTER than the PSA 8 that was in the first submission. The corners on this Podres are as follows - 2 MINT and 2 NM-MT. This is under magnification. This card should be an 8.

Dboneesq

Shane ... I also thought the Dan Dees would be a little higher! Maybe you may want to crack and resub some of the cards. Either way, you made a FANTASTIC purchase. GOOD LUCK!

frankhardy

<< <i>Shane ... I also thought the Dan Dees would be a little higher! Maybe you may want to crack and resub some of the cards. Either way, you made a FANTASTIC purchase. GOOD LUCK! >>



Thanks. Y'all don't take this wrong, I know I did well. It's just that after I realized the potential, and then after the cards didn't reach the potential, it's just a little disappointing.

pdub1819

That sucks! Crack!!!!

WinPitcher

Wow, those cards appear nicer than the grades indicate.

Steve

thedutymon

Afternoon,
You got a different Grader than the others with these, and you got Hosed ! Crack and Re-Sub, and then again if that is what it takes. !!!

Neil

meuandthelot

Ouch, given the results of the 1st batch, I was surprised at the grades.
This epitomizes the "Grading is subjective" phrase.

Overall you scored some blazers, the best Dan-Dee cards I've seen..
Congrats overall.


Looking back, a baffling pop..
I would have bet grades of 8-9-8 minimum.

Mickey71

I would not be happy. Be patient and submit again in the future.

itzagoner

i agree. most confused by the Podres, maybe the rough edge, gotta try for a bump at least once.

hdunk

The rough edge has nothing to do with it.

From the scan of the Podres it looks as if the pixel count at the top/left corner area is 9 pixels at the top, 17 pixels at the bottom, whoch translates to 65.38/34.62 centering, which is just outside of 8 centering.

You may get the benefit of the doubt on another try, but the centering looks to be th eculprit from the scan.

frankhardy

<< <i>The rough edge has nothing to do with it.

From the scan of the Podres it looks as if the pixel count at the top/left corner area is 9 pixels at the top, 17 pixels at the bottom, whoch translates to 65.38/34.62 centering, which is just outside of 8 centering.

You may get the benefit of the doubt on another try, but the centering looks to be th eculprit from the scan. >>



Interesting. However, the grading standards state - Centering must be approximately 65/35 to 70/30 or better on the front.

What about the centering on the Strickland? That card is an 8 all day long. I can't for the life of me figure out where a 7 comes from. Centering looks good enough for an 8 doesn't it?

itzagoner

exceptions made for eye appeal. been there, done that. resubmit.

hdunk

I understand that, but from my experience worse than 65/35 can get 7's as easy as 8's. The eye appeal the centering gives the card is the difference on borderline centering at that point.

How the grader sees the card from an eye appeal standpoint is the key. Just looking at the scan, my first instinct is it is a 7 from centering a standpoint, but the right grader on the right day may give you the benefit of the doubt.

hhmag70

Maybe it got the 7 because the yellow background in the picture fades to white on the right side of the card. j/k


Looks like a solid 8.