Mirror, mirror on the wall, which OJ is the greatest of them

all?

For once, I agree with the SGC grade on this card. I have no idea how they arrived at it, but I too think that this card falls short of 100.

Do you agree? Why?

I will be putting my answer together. It is a bit convoluted.

Ok, the first problem which I have with this card is the wavered cut on the inside edge of the left border. This makes it look hand cut (which it may be).

That sure is one older Sgc graded card there Gil. Sure would be interesting to see how they review that card today
if sent back in. I wouldnt be surprised to see that grade change if it were sent back in to be looked at.

I am far, far less interested in what SGC thinks the appropriate numerical designation associated with this card should be, than I am with what collectors perceive as deficiencies with this issue.

What are your thoughts?

Looking at the card, I think the wavered cut appearance is because the inside frame is not a straight line. But the bottom edge has a slight diamond cut.

I also think that SGC does not guarantee cards before a certain date and this might be one (I think the banner on the front of the flip dates it to this date), I'm thinking it would probably grade a 96 today, mostly due to the slight diamond cut and bottom right corner.

Thats a good eye, I hadn't noticed cut imperfections, but they are there:

I can't comment on edge cuts, etc., but I have seen this card in person and irregardless of the grade, the card is phenomenal.

I think that everyone agrees that this card is an superb example of the best asthetically among almost all common n172s. However, my intent was to focus on the attributes which are lacking that result in the card not getting a 100 rating.

My personal preference appreciates the pronounced borders apparent on the top and left side of the card. And I regret that they are not also included on the right border and caption side. I believe that the promanence of these borders is a chance occurance, associated with the manufacture of the card. Specifically, I think that the manufacturing approach includes:
- obtain player photo
- overlay photo with borders and caption
- re-photograph overlayed image
- attach to backing, cut sheet, package

Although I could be incorrect, this will result in all cards containing this pose to be identical in the card's characteristics. As a check, a second Alcott with this pose is available for inspection here:

http://www.sloateauction.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=355

When I state that the borders are a "chance" occurance, what I am thinking is that when the border/caption overlay is placed over the player photo, if it does not sit flush with the image, the borders are somewhat raised from the photo's surface. When rephotographed, this results in the borders simulating a 3-D effect, where the player image appears to be "deeper" than the framing.

This Alcott presents this effect on two borders.

A check of David Levin's site, comprising likely more than 1000 Old Judges was conducted to assess how common 2, 3 & 4 raised borders were. They are uncommon. I selected 4 images from the >1000 to represent four raised borders. Then I logged on here, checked the recent pick ups, and found that zouraspm had obtained a better example than any I was able to select.

The 3-D effect is more commonly encountered among the n172 subsets:






However, the transitional cards are too infrequently encountered (by me) to draw a conclusion:

Maybe it is me. It really doesn't matter whether the relation to the Old Judge set is real, typographical, a misinterpretation, or whatever. Some cards are outstanding, and David Seaborn is currently contemplating parting with a treasure: