Best looking 2 ever? What am I missing?
JoeBanzai
Posts: 11,914 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here's a card I think "deserves" a better grade. The mark above Harmon's head is not a scuff or defect in the card, but a printer error that is the same on both this card and the one in myset.
Please advise; Crack and resub, send in for a review, be happy it is a 2?
Thanks in advance!
Please advise; Crack and resub, send in for a review, be happy it is a 2?
Thanks in advance!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
0
Comments
<< <i>Nice card! >>
Thanks. I just got back a "6" from PSA that doesn't look much better. I thought the 6 was going to be a 5 so I am happy with that.
I just don't see the card shown as anything below a 4.
I am hoping most people agree, but if I am missing something, please let me know.
I looked closely before submitting and didn't see any "wrinkles", but even if I missed a minor one, a 2 really?
Regardless, the most important opinion is yours, and if you think it's a great card and a great value for the grade you should pick it up. It's all personal taste and eye appeal. For you, this card appears to be a good fit!
TheClockworkAngelCollection
Bosox1976
<< <i>paper loss above cap >>
No guys! That's not paper loss. As I wrote in the OP it is a printing flaw. I have another card graded a 6 that has the identical looking area above his cap, DEFINITELY NOT paper loss!
I think we do have the answer though PSA saw that as paper loss and immediately downgraded it to a 2.
I am thinking of sending it in for a review, hopefully I can convince PSA to LOOK MORE CLOSELY at that part of the card.
Now this might be the ugliest 6 I have seen. I was predicting a 5.
TheClockworkAngelCollection
<< <i>[URL=http://s123.photobucket.com/user/mbothner/media/img038.jpg.html]
gotta see the other side...
Killer grade looks right...
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
The 2, well, what's going on to the right of the W? (lower bottom right corner)
<< <i>I just don't see the card shown as anything below a 4.
I am hoping most people agree, but if I am missing something, please let me know.
I looked closely before submitting and didn't see any "wrinkles", but even if I missed a minor one, a 2 really? >>
If there are no creases (and I don't see any) I would think that's a 4. That being said, I'm the rawest of newbies in the grading world and my opinion is by no means the most informed. Are there creases the scan didn't pick up?
<< <i>Is that paper loss on the reverse, in the black area? >>
That's what I saw. I don't have another Venezuelan to compare it to, but I did look at the reverse of a Topps card. The picture of the two guys on the reverse ... I assume that's Killer sitting and signing ... look at the white above his left shoulder .... looks like part of the "black" paper is missing.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>I think the 6 is over graded. >>
+1 (actually, -2.....it should be a 4)
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
<< <i>Is that paper loss on the reverse, in the black area? >>
No under magnification there are red print dots on the area that looks like a possible paper loss. Other card is the same.
<< <i>I think the 6 is over graded.
The 2, well, what's going on to the right of the W? (lower bottom right corner) >>
There is a VERY faint wrinkle that runs from the "s" in Twins up through the "w" in Killebrew. Can see it only when looking through a loupe.
Makes more sense now, doubt that I will bother trying to get a better grade.
<< <i>
<< <i>Is that paper loss on the reverse, in the black area? >>
That's what I saw. I don't have another Venezuelan to compare it to, but I did look at the reverse of a Topps card. The picture of the two guys on the reverse ... I assume that's Killer sitting and signing ... look at the white above his left shoulder .... looks like part of the "black" paper is missing. >>
That area is fine. "Spider" wrinkle in lower right corner area plus obvious corner wear would seem to justify the grade. Still a nice looking 2.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think the 6 is over graded. >>
+1 (actually, -2.....it should be a 4) >>
Yes I said the same thing! Was trying to figure out the PSA 2 card. The 6 is certainly a pleasant surprise.
My feelings are the 2 should grade a 3 and the 6 is a 5. So PSA was off by one on each card in the opposite direction.
Without a back scan, the Pritchard's story seems to be untold?
That Chapman card looks fabulous, now I don't feel bad about my '62 Killebrew!
What is wrong with the Chapman? Paper loss along top back edge?
Looks like we are seeing some inconsistencies in how cards with bad damage are graded. That Killebrew is FAR from the nicest 2 shown here.
Thanks for all the good replies.
I wasn't going to crack that one out and resubmit it. LOL I knew that would happen when I posted the scan.
Here's a link to my set, I could use a 1968 Venezuelan #6 card if anyone has one!
JoeBanzai's Killer set
Thanks again for all the replies.
Joe
<< <i>Well I have a few mor than that. Been collecting Killebrew for 42 years.
Here's a link to my set, I could use a 1968 Venezuelan #6 card if anyone has one!
JoeBanzai's Killer set
Thanks again for all the replies.
Joe >>
2 1962 + 1 1967 = 3 Venezuelans
<< <i>I will be selling the PSA 2 so I will then be down to only 2
How much?
Here is a PSA 6:
The Chapman has some paper loss on the bars on the back, about 2/3 down. Now that I've pointed it out I'm sure you'll see it.
I love back damage 2's. Just a little speck of paper loss can save you thousands of dollars.
Also have this one. Looks like a solid 7 but some faint ink disparity on the back gave it a 2.
Arthur
<< <i>The bottom two corners look like the cardboard has separated. There are nick marks all along the right boarder near the bottom of the card. Scuffing on surface of card. >>
Yes, I have certainly been shown that my card is not even close to being the best 2 ever.
That Chapman card is beautiful, with that small amount of paper loss I am surprised that the grader didn't bump it up at least to a 3.5.
<< <i>
<< <i>The bottom two corners look like the cardboard has separated. There are nick marks all along the right boarder near the bottom of the card. Scuffing on surface of card. >>
Yes, I have certainly been shown that my card is not even close to being the best 2 ever.
That Chapman card is beautiful, with that small amount of paper loss I am surprised that the grader didn't bump it up at least to a 3.5. >>
I'm pretty sure that the rule is that if there's ANY paper loss, the ceiling is a 2. I've been able to pick up a lot of '33 Goudey 2's that present much better than the grade. Here's a few:
<< <i>I'll be damned if anyone can tell me what is going on with this as a 2. I see nothing under a loupe, so this will go back to PSA at some point...
That is a brilliant 2. There's some disparity between the darkness of ink on the back between the top portion and the bottom. It's possible that PSA sees that as back damage. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's a possibility. Here's a back scan of the 1940 Kemmel Dempsey PSA 2 that I posted previously in this thread. It's a more extreme example of what I'm talking about. There's no paper loss, but some ink was removed during the process of taking it out of an album and that's why it got a 2. It's easier to tell on my card because it's an uneven area, where as yours seems to be separated by definitive line. At least that's the only reason I could come up with.
[URL=http://s123.photobucket.com/user/mbothner/media/img039.jpg.html]
But why are so many guys seemingly over-focused on what the grader's opinion was? Unless reselling, why pay for a regrade? You found a card with eye appeal that transcends its grade, you enjoy the card, and your fellow collectors can all see you have an eye and got a great value! Good work! We can all see the cards look better than the grade; if keeping'em, you know what ya got, so keep'em
Instagram: mattyc_collection
<< <i>These low grade specimens with tremendous eye appeal are the real treasure finds in the hobby, in my humble opinion.
But why are so many guys seemingly over-focused on what the grader's opinion was? Unless reselling, why pay for a regrade? You found a card with eye appeal that transcends its grade, you enjoy the card, and your fellow collectors can all see you have an eye and got a great value! Good work! We can all see the cards look better than the grade; if keeping'em, you know what ya got, so keep'em
There are several reasons to have a card graded. Certainly one of them is to attempt to have the highest grade assigned to your card that it "deserves". Many people ARE actively selling these cards and when you feel the card is undergraded, you are looking at sometimes THOUSANDS of dollars. Others who are trying to assemble high grade sets, either for the registry or just because they like nicer cards, also get frustrated when a card that appears to be an 8 comes back a 2.
Bottom line is not too many people like to have something they own graded or rated lower than they think it should be. It's human nature.
That makes a lot of sense, if one is reselling or doing the Registry game (although that later game seems more like collecting labels than cards, from my vantage point, because one needs the higher grade sticker to rise in the "standings" even if it is not on the best looking card). But those two very valid situations you mention aside, let's talk about that other instance-- the psychological impulse to see a card graded what its owner believes it deserves. When it is part of a private collection, that's where I'd be happy with what I know I have, and instead of spending money on regrades, buy a new card. I read a line on another forum that I liked: "collectors grade the graders" with our own eyes.
I think the best side of human nature is the side that knows in one's heart what one truly has, and does not need some random person to agree, for it to feel good.
I can liken a card in one's private collection to one's wife...
If she's a 10 to me, I don't care if the guy at the bar two states over says she's a 9. I know what I have when it's before my eyes.
I absolutely love what TPGs do for the hobby-- I just think many collectors do go overboard, and become so obsessed over cards that look misgraded by a grade in one direction or another, that it can take away the pure enjoyment of the card. And that would be unfortunate.
Instagram: mattyc_collection