[ricebondsmntna2young]

Having some trouble starting this post, so finish this sentence off for me:

"If BGS grades my card and no one on The Forums is around to see it…

…do my falling teardrops still make a sound?"

…is it probably either a Mon., Tues., Wed., Thurs., Fri., Sat., or Sun.?"

…then why does Beckett hate baby seals?

My graded cards have indeed arrived here in California all the way from somewhere in the bowels of east Texas, a.k.a. "where the (BGS) magic happens." If you're like me - new to this grading thing - then you sometimes wonder how your own appraisal matches up with that of a self-appointed pro. We've all read the Magazine guidelines so we have an idea of what kind of shape a card has to be in to get a certain grade, but it's all just a fantasy until you actually send in some cards. Cards you've studied closely. Repeatedly. At all angles. Under, like, at least 8 different kinds of light - let's see, you've got your direct sunlight, soft morning light, sun-halogen hybrid light, black light, etc. Or maybe that's just me.

Anyways, I think Beckett did a decent job overall since the scores came pretty close to what I expected. Here's a look at some before-and-afters so you can guess the grades if you want to before I show you the results. I'll start off with the Karlsson from my as-yet uncompleted 09-10 FW AUs set. I've always liked the look of this specific card because of the cool sig, plus the red makes for awesome contrast, and I'll admit that I always thought it was the best conditioned card of the ones I considered putting in plastic sheet pockets for viewability.



I wanted to scan the back of the card before shipping it out but ran out of time. Here's the grade (spoiler):



Modern cards under 9.5 are underwhelming sort of by definition (see the chart at the bottom), but the 9 wasn't altogether unexpected. Had it gotten a 9.5+, I might have moved it with the intention of picking up a raw copy later for cheaper since this copy was neither self-pulled nor a gift and I don't need perfect FWAs for the set…just clean copies.

Note the slight roughness along the top edge especially - (I believe) that's what earned it an 8.5 sub grade:



The corners could easily have gotten a 9.5 just from an eyeball test. I grumble, but if the Edges score was destined for an 8.5 then the overall score was going to be no higher than a 9 anyway. So I didn't get the 9.5 I gambled for, I can live with that. But of course now I have to debate whether to try and take it out of the case. My quibbles with a half point here or there in the sub grades matter much more for the next card as you'll see.

The Duchene grade was the only submission that face-planted. When I pulled it out of pack, the owner remarked that it might be gradable and ever since, I'd always had the card tucked away believing I had a rare Duchene that would earn at least a 9.5 if not higher. I realize now that it might've just been good salesmanship, but I still think one of the sub grades in particular was…unwarranted.



As you'll see from the next scan, the crown jewel of my set had far less chipping along the back edge than Karlsson. On top of that, I figured that since nearly all the FWAs from that year appeared to have some chipping, the scores would've been curved to compensate. Wrong I guess.



It's too bad since I was half a point away in Edges sub grade from a potential overall 9.5, which would've been super satisfying. And comparing its edges against another copy that I got in a trade (my only solace), I thought the scoring was kind of pulled-out-of their-seat.



I think the Edges sub grade may have been a full point off the mark but what's done is done and now I have to decide whether to keep the Duchene 9 I pulled myself or the 9.5 I got in a tradel. I really think that if I resubmitted the same card, I'd get a different result - that is an experiment for another day and for another collector.

Next is a card that I sent in just because you kind of have to as long as you don't see any obvious serious defects:



It just one of those Hail Marys where if you can eke out a 9.5, then your search for the perfect Crosby YG is finally over. Here is the front and back post-grade:



It doesn't seem unreasonable and I guess now I don't have to find a way to protect it. The YG was a gift from a friend so I would've been fine with almost any grade. It's not every day you get to own a Crosby RC. I will say that I don't understand a 9 for Centering here when my Duchene FWA was worse and got a 9.5. Also, if the edge on this Crosby is a 9, then how could my Duchene have gotten an 8.5? So it goes.

I felt better after this next card got the score I thought it should:



I got it in a trade years ago and it was the first card I remember trading for that as I pulled it out of a scratched-up, sticky top loader, I thought wow, "what kind of grade this would get?" Well, I got my answer:



Pretty sweet. It's funny how the opinion of a so-called expert can change my perception of a card that I already deemed Mint. It's buried even more deeply in my PC now, and of course at the same time I'm considering disowning that cornerstone Duchene FWA I pulled.

Finally, one more for you that I pulled myself. I never scan my PC cards in a toploader but in this case I was too paranoid to risk removing it from its original penny sleeve even once:



When I pulled it out of a Wal-Mart blaster, I remember thinking to myself that the card is virtually flawless and that maybe I'm just seeing things. I thought: if THIS card isn't considered by the grading companies to be nearly perfect, then I should just give up worrying about grades altogether. So I finally got to send a card that I've been waiting for years to send in. The wait was worth it:




Drops mic.
--

Oh, if you're interested, have a look at the distribution of the higher grades…something I posted awhile back:



Thanks for looking!

[mrdub]

very nice. congrats on the 10.

[rayeates]

Very cool read, and congrats on the brilliant grading! I think that the 9's are okay as a selling point, but it will pretty much only compensate you for the cost of grading. The 9.5 Ovie and 10 Tavares... WOW! Nice grades there!

Randi

[shierydana]

Sick Tavares and Ovechkin!!! Whenever I see cards from the 05-06 set, I always look at the "S" in ROOKIES. If you can find a full S, and the bottoms of the other letters are not cut-off, the centering should be pretty great.

[pens1fan]

Wow Alan !!! that 10 Tavares is GREAT!!!! Congrats on some nice grades.

[bonnev659]

wow that is pretty sweet

I was thinking of grading a bunch of my pc stuff.... for down the road but it is all good

[hockeynick1721]

Congrats on the Tavares. Thanks for posting the grading chart, interesting to see. It appears that upper deck production standards have increased over years.

[alstott9adams]

Nice grades

[roenickle]

As a teacher, I'd give you an "A" for presentation. I enjoyed the write-up, pre-grade, and post-grade. Great read!