Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>It seems to me that the evaluation of a baseball card's condition depends only on physical factors associated with the card. If so, these physical factors can be measured. Once measured, an evaluation system can be established and employed to define the card's grade based only on measured variables.<br /><br />This potential approach differs from the technique currently in place, for example, a leading grading company rates cards with the following degree of<br />corner wear as shown:<br /><br />PSA8 = Slightest Fraying<br />PSA7 = Slight Fraying<br />PSA6 = Slightly Graduated Fraying<br />PSA5 = Very Minor Rounding<br />PSA4 = Slight Rounding<br />PSA3 = Evident, But Not Extreme Rounding<br />PSA2 = Accelerated Rounding<br />PSA1 - Extreme Wear<br /><br />Similarly, the same company rates surface wear as follows:<br /><br />PSA8 = None<br />PSA7 = Slight<br />PSA6 = Visible<br />PSA5 = More Visible<br />PSA4 = Modest<br />PSA3 = Some Apparent<br />PSA2 = Obvious<br />PSA1 = Advanced Stages<br /><br />Now I ask you: what is the difference between visible, more<br />visible, modest, and some apparent? The answer is four grades.<br />IMHO we need a better definition than that - way better.<br /><br />Additionally, grading companies do not take into account factors including the original card quality as brought out in Judge Dred's recent thread "You be the Judge" and runscott's comment in that thread. Nor do they address other minting (manufacturing) aspects adequately.<br /><br />Although an effort may result in the generation of a grading system which more closely approximates objective grading, once generated, who will accept it? And if anyone accepts it, what about its impact on the current population of graded cards? There could be noteworthy dollars involved in any change to the current grading methods.<br /><br />Maybe we should just live with the inadequacies of our current system. What do you think?<br /><br />

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>I tend to see that certain cards get different treatment depending on the year and who made it. For example, I have seen 53 bowman color cards get higher grades than other cards in the same condition - the reason I got was that it is very hard to find these cards in high grade and that they are easily "roughed up." Do grading companies grade cards differently depending on what it is? It seems to be this way. I think that this goes the same way for some of my E cards as well.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>FatBoy</b><p>I totally agree with Bryan.<br /><br />I've dealt almost exclusively with SGC over the years (still my grading company of choice and believe them to be the most consistent of them all BTW) and have numerous times seen different grading parameters applied to different sets issued by the same company within the same year.<br /><br />N28s and N29s (Allen & Ginter Champions) seem to be graded a bit more leniently then<br /><br />N2s (Allen & Ginter Indians). Gawd.....they're merciless on these cards, ask Jay<br />

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>You want merciless?<br /><br />Try sending SGC an E126.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Ever seen a nm OJ? Usually yellowed to some degree, right? The cards were practically white as issued (every once in a while you run across one that has been hiding in the dark w/o much air or acid to affect it, and they are white). What is up with the tolerance for toning?

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Not everyone feels that toning results in a negative impact on a card. To me, it depends on the asthetics of the coloration. Ive seen some cards look better and others worse, after toning.<br /><br />Toning is a natural process not related to wear nor damage, IMO.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>It may be me not knowing much about OJ cards but I have never seen a white colored OJ card. I guess I always thought that the cards were printed in a yellowish format. I guess I am showing my ignorance on this one. Does anyone have a picture of one that is almost white that I can see?

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>but I think if you saw a '34 Goudey with snowy white borders, next to one with heavy toning, you'd take the one that wasn't showing it's age.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>The Old Judges are little albumen photos. When originally made, the albumen photos were naturally closer to black and white (had some light grey or browish or even publish tones). The sepia/yellow tone is due to aging.<br /><br />As I recall, that SGC Mint Old Judge pulled from a pack that BMW had showed the original tones.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>It is worthy to note that the sepia/yellow is not a generic sign of old age for photos, but is eccentric to the albumen and a couple of other processs. Caused, in part, by a particular chemical used on the photo paper. The many 19th century photographs that did not use the chemical (platinum prints, carbon prints, cyanotypes) did not gain the same sepia tone with age.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>David--If you are talking about the SGC98 Alcott, the card was originally pulled from a pack by Al Rosen. It was only after several transactions that the card ended up with BMW. The back of the card was badly stained (nice job of grading by the old SGC group <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>) but the front also was sepia in color. As I remember it there was no black and white to this card. It had a very sharp sepia image with sharp corners.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>As toning is natural and expected on Old Judges and similar, I tend to beleive the image (if it's to be graded) should be judged on overal clarity, contrast and attractiveness. Color and darkness will vary from card to card, but if the image is sharp and dark and detailed, that's what counts. Certainly, if there is a distracting pattern to the toning (dark one part, light another) or there is heaving foxing that likely effect the grade.<br /><br />Personally, I give two grade descriptions to a photo. One to the overall photo (bent corner, stain on back, etc) and one to the image itself (crystal clear image). I have no idea how I would calculate the two grades into a single grade 1-10, and don't see why I would want to.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Joe P.</b><p>No where do I see:<br /><br />PSA0 = Portions of a card.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>I agree. One grade should reflect the state of preservation of the card, and the second should detail the adequacy of the manufacturing ie. intensity of color, contrast, focus, cutting irregularities, print lines, other manufacturing errors (including wrong player shown). These grades can be divided into decimal increments of 9.0 - 10.0 applied to unused cards, for example.<br /><br />0.0 = card not identifiable as a baseball card. Portions of a card should grade much higher (maybe 0.7) <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Correct me if I am wrong but does there exist a copy that is in black and white and not sepia toned? Maybe one does exist but has anyone seen it? I'm just curious to see one.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>He would drop all the papers from the top of the staircase. The one that went the furthest got an A. The one that went the least far got an F. <br /><br />Moral of the story? Use iron staples.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>I would offer to you a link, but Im not sure how to do that. So: Dave's Vintage Baseball Cards is a dealer's site which shows lots of Old Judges which demonstrate all toning gradients from b/w thru much darker shades. <br /><br />Gil

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>originally black and white? I thought sepia..with a few exceptions.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Were the pink Old Judges originally colored pink, or did that coloration develop with time?<br /><br />Gil

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Gil,<br /><br />David and I believe that N172s were originally produced that way.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>The sepia came with time. The pink was original (blue and yellow and other such colors would be natural as well).<br /><br />As noted earlier, unless there's something bad caused by the color or toning (splotches, uneven, fungus, way too dark), the image should be graded by its clarity and overall appealingness. The pink may be original, but if the image is too light the image is too light. The sepia may not be the way it originally was, but if the image is sharp the image is sharp.<br /><br />

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>How bad would color/registration have to be to get the grade reduced? My understanding is that a card could have perfect corners and gloss, no creases, and get a high grade regardless of a fuzzy or light image. Same probably goes for lithographs, but what if, on a t206 portrait, Cobb's eyes were down on his neck somewhere - could it still get a "10"?

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>It's no doubt tough grading 1-10 an Old Judge when including image clarity (Most Lone Jacks have naturally very light images, are they all automatically downgraded to no better than Ex?). It's not an issue that the PSA think tank should lose sleep over. However, I think most would agree that a Mint 9 or 10 Old Judge shouldn't have a bad image no matter how sharp are the corners.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>My current thinking is that a mint grade should be associated with a card which has not been handled. This is independent of all other factors. Mint condition is mint condition. There are damaged mint cards. There are mint cards with poor color, clarity, and all other potential manufacturer errors. There are also cards in mint condition which have been partially or substantially destroyed.<br /><br />And there should be multiple mint grades in order to evaluate manufacturing errors and other factors which may impact a card's condition eventhough it is in mint (unhandled) condition.<br /><br />It is therefore my opinion that a mint card should not ever be downgraded below the lowest mint grade.<br /><br />Your comments on this view are welcome.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>What's worse, grading something on a 1-10 scale or the collectors who takes the 1-10 grade too seriously? I'd pick the later every time.

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>The whole purpose of grading is not to establish that a 4 is always a better card than a 3. Collectors who think that really miss the point. The purpose is as follows:<br /><br />If you see a card with sharp corners on ebay, but it only got a 3 then you know it is more than likely creased. Likewise, if you see a card with rounded corners but it got a 4, then you know it is more than likely not creased. Even though I collect PSA 5 T206 Hall of Famers, I would not bid on PSA 5 T206 with perfect corners for this very reason, because I'd rather have slightly rounded corners than a crease. <br /><br />It's more about learning what cards earn what grades then it is about redefining the grading scale. If you redefine the scale, the learning process would start all over again. <br /><br />Problems arise when two cards with identical features are graded differently, but that's a whole other link....

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>shoo</b><p>Cant a card be a psa4 or sgc50 and have no creases Im not big into collecting graded cards so I have only a few. I have a sgc 40 and it has no creases its very nice card for its grade Im not sure how to upload a scan Ill figure it out and leave a scan

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>shoo</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1097825344.JPG"> Figured it out

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>I agree that the grading scale should not be redefined. I contend that the grading scale would be improved by a clarification of the description of factors which impact each grade, and where warranted for clarity, an expansion of the subdivisions within a grade may be indicated.<br /><br />As was shown in Judge Dred's thread, at least half of the respondents in this forum who participated, did not agree with the grade assigned by the grading company. This indicates to me that improvement in our understanding is warranted.<br /><br />In some instances I do not agree with the methods or interpretation of the grading companies. Specifically, I think that the impact of centering is overrated, the impact of color and clarity is underrated, and numerous other factors are similarly skewed or ignored.<br /><br />Because of this status I prefer to purchase cards which have less than optimum centering but exhibit crisp focus and color - they are comparitively inexpensive. <br /><br />So please ignore this thread. Why should I try to "improve" a process which is working in my best interests?<br /><br />Gil

Objective card grading
 

Posted By: <b>Howie</b><p>A perfect grading system is impossible. The inadequacies perceived in the current systems exist because collectors are still allowed to have their own opinion on the qualities that are personally important to them. The perfect grading system would require that everybody viewing a card would have the exact same opinion of the card. When a grading company renders their opinion you don't have to agree with them every time. If you disagree it doesn't mean they are wrong or that your grading skills are superior to them. It doesn't mean everyone will share your opinion. If I wanted my VG cards to have 50-50 centering with no creases that's my perogative. Every card, collector, and opinion is a little different. It gets old reading about people trying to force their own personal opinion on others. Kind of like politics.