Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Opinions on this 1952 Bowman Mantle #101 please...

bobbyw8469bobbyw8469 Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
This is a prime example of why I won't send cards to BVG....how on earth did they miss that huge water stain on the card??? Is that acceptable for a BVG 3.5???

image

Comments

  • bobbyw8469bobbyw8469 Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭
    I got a pic...can someone help me show it? I seem to be having issues with it...
  • Sean1125Sean1125 Posts: 3,479
    Get the direct link then throw


    [IM G] [/IM G]

    around it
  • bobbyw8469bobbyw8469 Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭
    image
  • Mickey71Mickey71 Posts: 4,261 ✭✭✭✭
    BVG doesn't know what the hell they are doing. They can't grade vintage at all. On low grade cards anything is possible. Also, a lot of low grade SGC cards will have terrible flaws that are unacceptable to PSA standards. On lower grade vintage...PSA is surely the way to go.
  • digicatdigicat Posts: 8,551 ✭✭
    Looks like the stain is the only thing bringing the grade down. Too bad they hide the subgrades for vintage cards.
    My Giants collection want list

    WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
  • ToroToro Posts: 1,515
    I dont think they have qualifiers and I'm sure they brought the grade down due to the stain. I think it's a fair grade, it's the only thing that brings it down(that I can see).
  • vladguerrerovladguerrero Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭
    you can't say that card doesn't have good eye appeal for a 3.5, i don't think the grade is outrageous, I mean it's a 3.5!
  • fkwfkw Posts: 1,766 ✭✭
    6 + 25% water stain = 3.5

    One of the nicer 3.5 cards IMO
    Id take that med stain over a worn card anyday.
  • fiveninerfiveniner Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭
    3.5 is about right.
    Tony(AN ANGEL WATCHES OVER ME)
  • bobbyw8469bobbyw8469 Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭
    Yea...looking at the card harder, I can see PSA giving it a 5 (ST). The stain really gets me though.....it is on both sides of the card (making an almost 'V' shape)......I guess I am in the minority, but I am glad PSA puts qualifiers on cards.....
  • corvette1340corvette1340 Posts: 3,384 ✭✭✭
    I'd much rather have that card then one that all creased up and has rounded corners.
  • bobbyw8469bobbyw8469 Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭
    Same grade....not really creased......no rounded corners.......and missing a huge stain.....

    image
    I guess to each his own.....I would rather have the one graded by PSA, without the stain, and $200 cheaper (looking at VCP average sales price).......
  • msassinmsassin Posts: 1,564 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Also, a lot of low grade SGC cards will have terrible flaws that are unacceptable to PSA standards. On lower grade vintage...PSA is surely the way to go. >>



    I completely disagree. SGC is much more consistant than PSA pre-war.
  • vladguerrerovladguerrero Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Same grade....not really creased......no rounded corners.......and missing a huge stain.....

    image
    I guess to each his own.....I would rather have the one graded by PSA, without the stain, and $200 cheaper (looking at VCP average sales price)....... >>



    so show a pic of the back of that PSA 3.5 Mick then...
  • bobbyw8469bobbyw8469 Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭
    I don't have a back of EITHER Mantle....the BVG fiasco or the PSA one......I am sure they are typical backs......
Sign In or Register to comment.