Posted By:
JoannOK, I understand that an 8 is harder than a 7 which is harder than a 6, and so forth.
But that's because the tail end of the distribution would understandably be decreasing across many grades. The entire distribution wouldn't be normal because of the number of low end cards - the distribtion would be skewed toward 1. But toward the high end of the overall grading scale the distribution would probably tail off in a way that closely resembles normal.
But within a single grade, it seems like it would not have that steep of a fall-off from bottom half to top half. It can't (shouldn't) be steeper than the overall rate of fall-off. I understand that this is an imperfect process, but it seems like it would create a stair-step dropoff that doesn't seem right.
I guess it would depend on how they set the critera for the mid-grades, which makes this all the more interesting to me. It seems like it would be hard to create these mid-interval criteria that finely. I'd think it would be more likely to split the range roughly equally.
It's possible - even probable - that the existing whole grades create a stair step in between grades so that the distribtution within a grade is roughly equal. In that case the bump percent would have to result in something around 50%.
I don't know - it's hard for me to see that there is such distinction within these higher grades that they could create such a subtle "fade" within a grade as you approach the next grade.
It would make more sense in the lower grades where the condition can fall off dramatically within a grade (the great 2's versus the borderline beater 2's).
But for the higher grades, I guess I'm surprised that such a detailed level of discrmination is possible. Especially since the actual card evaulation apparently constitutes such a minor part of the whole process! haahah.
J
Joann