I've found that if we quote Ed as soon as he posts, he can't read everyone else's grades and then go back and edit his post. Of course, he can always still blame his gen 1 iPad and 1998 flip phone.
I could easily see EAC net 6. But commercial slabbers have much more modest criteria. I suspect either a genuine label or a details grade with Environmental Damage tag. Hair detail is better than the perimeter lettering and dentilation so a wide difference of opinion will say more about the observer's preferences than the coin itself. There are numerous nicks and cuts which are not overly distracting on the lower grades, but which would be deductions on mid or higher detail coins. I believe F-12 net G7 is where I would fall. Of course, I'm using net for VALUE which is what net originally was intended to indicate. Well, for that matter, the grade was also supposed to indicate value, so you could eliminate the net. But grade long ago became synonymous with wear.
I think it's coins like these that vg 10 was made for, it's not quite a 12, drapery is weak and less than half of hair is visible, but it's not an 8 either. I also agree with Marshall that I would net it out to 7, maybe 6. I say 10 net 6, but would not be upset by someone calling it 12 net 7, or some combo of 12/10 net 7/6.
My apologies! I just saw this thread, and realized I never posted what the grade actually came back as.... 6009292 1807/6 1C LARGE 7 S-273 20 DETAILS
from a different thread: This thread: I don't think that business model is going to work for him. Only seems to be a name at this time, and only on CT, but with no actual presence anywhere.
I didn't look that far. Realized I had already got a good idea that there was no full deck in play. I really don't need to go trying to figure how few cards might actually be present.