I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with folks choosing another grading company over PSA. BUT, show some pride. You make disparaging remarks about PSA over in NeverNever land and then come over here, why? Because their board is DEAD? I wonder why that is?
<< <i>Why don't you go back to the ghost town and post?
I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with folks choosing another grading company over PSA. BUT, show some pride. You make disparaging remarks about PSA over in NeverNever land and then come over here, why? Because their board is DEAD? I wonder why that is? >>
A picture doesn't "tell" anything. Let me bottom-line it for you...SGC is a good grading company. PSA is too. This being said, you will be very lonely over on the SGC boards...hence, your need to come "over here." So, please try to show just a tad semblance of respect for the people on this board. You won't see many PSA supporters on the SGC board embarrasingly harping on the superiority of PSA. Show a little pride. Jeez. Newsflash: you ain't gonna change anyone's mind.
<< <i>A picture doesn't "tell" anything. Let me bottom-line it for you...SGC is a good grading company. PSA is too. This being said, you will be very lonely over on the SGC boards...hence, your need to come "over here." So, please try to show just a tad semblance of respect for the people on this board. You won't see many PSA supporters on the SGC board embarrasingly harping on the superiority of PSA. Show a little pride. Jeez. Newsflash: you ain't gonna change anyone's mind. >>
While were tossing around the cliches--here's a couple more:
1. Never get in a war of words (or pictures) with an outfit that buys ink by the barrel.
Oh come on, the spelling with the Z wasn't sarcastic enough for you? Look, I have BGS registries along with my PSA and SGC ones...as seen in my Sig line, but I'm not fool enough to come on to a PSA message board and honestly promote another grading company. I'm sorry you're you're fool enough to take that post seriously. Read the whole thread and then reconsider my post as sarcastic, you may even find it funny.
While pictures DON'T always tell the story, I have yet to figure out the method the PSA uses to grade the 1965 Topps Embossed issue.
I consider myself pretty educated in the grading process and think that I have a pretty solid eye, but I've seen cards from this issue in PSA 7 and PSA 8 holders that I would have a very, very difficult time accepting in anything higher than a PSA 4 or PSA5 due to the significant amount of scratching and scuffing on the gold foil. That being said, the OP has some of the cleanest looking surfaces that I've EVER seen on this issue and I can understand his frustration when comparing side by side.
However, side by side comparisons do not equate to the cards being the same. The issue has many other aspects to consider other than just the centering and the surface. The reverse is almost as critical as the obverse and this is something that cannot be seen in side by side images, especially when only coparing the front. I liken this issue somewhat to Topps Magic Football. The card may look great until you examine the reverse.
Texoma: I feel your pain, but please keep in mind that while you try to compare apples to apples, we may not be seeing the entire picture. That being said, the surfaces of your cards are absolutely gorgeous. If the back sides are flaw-free, in actuallity -- not just your opinon, then you have a legitimate gripe. But that will be virtually impossible to determine, even with decent scans.
Now, if you ever want to sell your set, please drop me a line. Even if there are back issues, I just love the presentation of the obverses!!!
<< <i>While pictures DON'T always tell the story, I have yet to figure out the method the PSA uses to grade the 1965 Topps Embossed issue.
I consider myself pretty educated in the grading process and think that I have a pretty solid eye, but I've seen cards from this issue in PSA 7 and PSA 8 holders that I would have a very, very difficult time accepting in anything higher than a PSA 4 or PSA5 due to the significant amount of scratching and scuffing on the gold foil. That being said, the OP has some of the cleanest looking surfaces that I've EVER seen on this issue and I can understand his frustration when comparing side by side.
However, side by side comparisons do not equate to the cards being the same. The issue has many other aspects to consider other than just the centering and the surface. The reverse is almost as critical as the obverse and this is something that cannot be seen in side by side images, especially when only coparing the front. I liken this issue somewhat to Topps Magic Football. The card may look great until you examine the reverse.
Texoma: I feel your pain, but please keep in mind that while you try to compare apples to apples, we may not be seeing the entire picture. That being said, the surfaces of your cards are absolutely gorgeous. If the back sides are flaw-free, in actuallity -- not just your opinon, then you have a legitimate gripe. But that will be virtually impossible to determine, even with decent scans.
Now, if you ever want to sell your set, please drop me a line. Even if there are back issues, I just love the presentation of the obverses!!! >>
Thanks Scott--the obverses (backs?) are MINT...maybe one or two a little offf center but no stains or powdered sugar or scuffs. This set came straight from Topps, never saw a gum pack.
And yes I'm going to sell this set but not until it's been given it's due (ie grading). There are 9s (and a few 10s) in this set...I would put this set up against any set in the world. Frankly I've never seen '65 Embossed set without scuffs--except this one. Yeah there are maybe half a dozen cards with surface blemishes (Koufax, Shaw and a couple others) but for most part 90 percent of these baby's are NM-MINT, minimum and when somebody (hopefully PSA) grades them that way, we'll have an auction at Mastro or Memory Lane, or somebody who appreciates this set. No wonder everyone hates Embosses, we've never seen a great set.
I'll scan in some backs (Mantle, Aaron, Mays, Gibson, Robinson) later today....TO
Looks like you took a hit for toning unless those are just shadows. But they look pretty significant if it is toning/staining. Not at all uncommon, but I still love the fronts (obverse)!
<< <i>Looks like you took a hit for toning unless those are just shadows. But they look pretty significant if it is toning/staining. Not at all uncommon, but I still love the fronts (obverse)! >>
No toning/staining--NADA, zero, zilch, zip.....Those are 100 percent shadows from the sleeves.....just to prove the point NOW I'm going to turn them upside down and re-scan...you'll see!
It MAY be that on some of the red cards the backs are an ever so slightly darker hue obverse the red ink (is that toning???), and I mean like one one thousandth of one degree on the color prism indetectable without a glass. But stain? No way.These babies are CLEAN.
"I'm sorry you're you're fool enough to take that post seriously"
trust me i took nothing you said serious, guess you only recognize your own sarcasm, here's some advice for you cheer up and ignore post that irritate you, not everyone's perfect like you.
Collector of 71 Kelloggs Football and Unitas cards.
You have to take into account the obvious difference in image quality as well. Yours have nice and clean, clear and easy to read flips, while the others are all pixelated and blotchy.
Comments
I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with folks choosing another grading company over PSA. BUT, show some pride. You make disparaging remarks about PSA over in NeverNever land and then come over here, why? Because their board is DEAD? I wonder why that is?
<< <i>Why don't you go back to the ghost town and post?
I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with folks choosing another grading company over PSA. BUT, show some pride. You make disparaging remarks about PSA over in NeverNever land and then come over here, why? Because their board is DEAD? I wonder why that is? >>
Hey--you pay to play! I paid! I'm PSA "fam"!
<< <i>You'll learn. The market speaks volumes. >>
but a picture tells a thousand words....
<< <i>A picture doesn't "tell" anything. Let me bottom-line it for you...SGC is a good grading company. PSA is too. This being said, you will be very lonely over on the SGC boards...hence, your need to come "over here." So, please try to show just a tad semblance of respect for the people on this board. You won't see many PSA supporters on the SGC board embarrasingly harping on the superiority of PSA. Show a little pride. Jeez. Newsflash: you ain't gonna change anyone's mind. >>
While were tossing around the cliches--here's a couple more:
1. Never get in a war of words (or pictures) with an outfit that buys ink by the barrel.
2. Do the right thing.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i>What exactly does bgs rule? >>
Oh come on, the spelling with the Z wasn't sarcastic enough for you? Look, I have BGS registries along with my PSA and SGC ones...as seen in my Sig line, but I'm not fool enough to come on to a PSA message board and honestly promote another grading company. I'm sorry you're you're fool enough to take that post seriously. Read the whole thread and then reconsider my post as sarcastic, you may even find it funny.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
Seriously--that #56 Killer card--looks like Caesar don't you think??!!!
Old Gold
I consider myself pretty educated in the grading process and think that I have a pretty solid eye, but I've seen cards from this issue in PSA 7 and PSA 8 holders that I would have a very, very difficult time accepting in anything higher than a PSA 4 or PSA5 due to the significant amount of scratching and scuffing on the gold foil. That being said, the OP has some of the cleanest looking surfaces that I've EVER seen on this issue and I can understand his frustration when comparing side by side.
However, side by side comparisons do not equate to the cards being the same. The issue has many other aspects to consider other than just the centering and the surface. The reverse is almost as critical as the obverse and this is something that cannot be seen in side by side images, especially when only coparing the front. I liken this issue somewhat to Topps Magic Football. The card may look great until you examine the reverse.
Texoma: I feel your pain, but please keep in mind that while you try to compare apples to apples, we may not be seeing the entire picture. That being said, the surfaces of your cards are absolutely gorgeous. If the back sides are flaw-free, in actuallity -- not just your opinon, then you have a legitimate gripe. But that will be virtually impossible to determine, even with decent scans.
Now, if you ever want to sell your set, please drop me a line. Even if there are back issues, I just love the presentation of the obverses!!!
<< <i>While pictures DON'T always tell the story, I have yet to figure out the method the PSA uses to grade the 1965 Topps Embossed issue.
I consider myself pretty educated in the grading process and think that I have a pretty solid eye, but I've seen cards from this issue in PSA 7 and PSA 8 holders that I would have a very, very difficult time accepting in anything higher than a PSA 4 or PSA5 due to the significant amount of scratching and scuffing on the gold foil. That being said, the OP has some of the cleanest looking surfaces that I've EVER seen on this issue and I can understand his frustration when comparing side by side.
However, side by side comparisons do not equate to the cards being the same. The issue has many other aspects to consider other than just the centering and the surface. The reverse is almost as critical as the obverse and this is something that cannot be seen in side by side images, especially when only coparing the front. I liken this issue somewhat to Topps Magic Football. The card may look great until you examine the reverse.
Texoma: I feel your pain, but please keep in mind that while you try to compare apples to apples, we may not be seeing the entire picture. That being said, the surfaces of your cards are absolutely gorgeous. If the back sides are flaw-free, in actuallity -- not just your opinon, then you have a legitimate gripe. But that will be virtually impossible to determine, even with decent scans.
Now, if you ever want to sell your set, please drop me a line. Even if there are back issues, I just love the presentation of the obverses!!! >>
Thanks Scott--the obverses (backs?) are MINT...maybe one or two a little offf center but no stains or powdered sugar or scuffs. This set came straight from Topps, never saw a gum pack.
And yes I'm going to sell this set but not until it's been given it's due (ie grading). There are 9s (and a few 10s) in this set...I would put this set up against any set in the world. Frankly I've never seen '65 Embossed set without scuffs--except this one. Yeah there are maybe half a dozen cards with surface blemishes (Koufax, Shaw and a couple others) but for most part 90 percent of these baby's are NM-MINT, minimum and when somebody (hopefully PSA) grades them that way, we'll have an auction at Mastro or Memory Lane, or somebody who appreciates this set. No wonder everyone hates Embosses, we've never seen a great set.
I'll scan in some backs (Mantle, Aaron, Mays, Gibson, Robinson) later today....TO
Turn on your PM or email me at otwcards at aol dot com, please.
Mantle
Robinson
Mays
Aaron
Gibson
<< <i>Looks like you took a hit for toning unless those are just shadows. But they look pretty significant if it is toning/staining. Not at all uncommon, but I still love the fronts (obverse)! >>
No toning/staining--NADA, zero, zilch, zip.....Those are 100 percent shadows from the sleeves.....just to prove the point NOW I'm going to turn them upside down and re-scan...you'll see!
"I'm sorry you're you're fool enough to take that post seriously"
trust me i took nothing you said serious, guess you only recognize your own sarcasm, here's some advice for you cheer up and ignore post that irritate you, not everyone's perfect like you.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Apples to oranges.