This Is A Seven?


I’ll start out by saying that I hate the Cardinals, I hate Tim McCarver, and I hate graded cards.  With all that said I still bought this.  It came from Ebay and cost all of $4.00.  It “books” for $30 and being a “7” I thought it was an Ok deal.  My question is, does this really look like a 7?  The corners are as round as Rosie O’Donnell.  It has one of the roughest surfaces I’ve seen on a ’62 card.  It’s pretty badly off centered, not horrible, but still far from perfect, and all four edges are dinged to high hell.  I understand that this is a BCCG grade and that’s the very basic service, but that doesn’t justify giving this card a 7.  If I had to rate a girl on a scale of 1 to 10, a 7 would still be on the high end of the spectrum.  Hell, a 5 would still be Ok looking.  If this card was a girl I’d give it a generous 4.  I completely plan on breaking this card out of it’s lucite prison.  If this is a truly justifiable 7, most of my set is a 7 or better.  Hell, I might even have a couple of 9’s.  After reading “The Card” and after receiving this card, I now know for sure I will never send anything out ever to be graded! Here are three examples of what I imagined would be 7’s and what BCCG tells me what a 7 is.


I guess the point of this post is beware, the 7 you think you’re getting may not measure up once you get it.

1 Comment

Filed under 1962 Topps

One response to “This Is A Seven?

  1. I don’t even mind McCarver, and I wouldn’t give that a 7. maybe you don’t need much for a 7. perhaps it’s grade inflation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s