View Single Post
  #27  
Old 11-24-2016, 09:37 PM
veloce veloce is offline
Rick
member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
That has been true forever. There is a ton of arbitrariness and inconsistency in grading and everybody knows it already, there is no need for any revelations. But the market keeps rolling along. People will still shell out huge premiums for a 9 over an 8, or a 10 over a 9, knowing damn well the card might not regrade at the same level -- or at all. The flip is now the commodity, not the card.
People put up with shenanigans for a while and then it stops being fun and the market crashes. In 1990 everyone knew that card companies were intentionally printing error cards, but they kept paying for them because it was fun... for a couple years anyway. Right now people believe the grading system is a bit sloppy and arbitrary, but that it is fundamentally honest. Unfortunately graded cards are very vulnerable to a big scandal. Either good fake slabs will make it into the market or else there will be a scheme of organized bribery/kick backs for grade bumps. Given that there are millions of dollars at stake, I think it isn't a matter of if, but rather when this will happen. I don't think there is a business model that can both grade cards for a rate that collectors are willing to pay, and also guarantee security and competence. $100,000 cards are slabbed in the same plastic as $5 cards... and they are assigned grades by people who probably aren't making a high hourly wage. There is a lot of potential for someone to exploit the current grading system for big money and given that this hobby has had more than its share of people willing to rip off collectors I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. When it does, the market will crash.
__________________
Collecting Canadian related baseball cards: N172, Obak, 1936 WWG.


Obaks: 33/40 (need 1910 Vancouver: Brown, James, and Jensen; 1911 Vancouver: Lewis; 1911 Victoria Million )
1936 WWG: 32/135
1952 Parkhurst: 59/100
Reply With Quote