One of these days.....Old Judges graded differently

[Leon]

One of these days maybe a TPG will devise a way to accurately grade OJs and other photo type cards with an emphasis on their photo quality? I don't know this seller but this is such a great looking photo it's a shame it's not graded even higher...I know we have discussed it many times before but I still just shake my head when I see one of these types (what a beauty)...and it's not a bad grade but still...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1887-Old-Jud...item20e968b841


.

[btcarfagno]

Aside from the funky cut that thing is pretty much flawless. Almost 130 years old. Amazing.

Tom C

[jbsports33]

Photo is exceptional and clean!

[usernamealreadytaken]

So what grade does that card "deserve?"

[E93]

Leon,
I completely agree with regarding the need for revisiting grading standards on Old Judges. That particular card looks accurately graded to me given centering, tilt cut, and probably nm corners (hard to tell from the scan). Beautiful card!
JimB

[Jeffrompa]

I agree that there should be a seperate marker for photo quality . Even if it isnt part of the full grade .

[oldjudge]

It's priced appropriately even if it is somewhat undergraded

[kcohen]

We've had this discussion before. When it comes to N172s, the TPGs are merely paper graders, not card graders.

[sreader3]

I'm not sure it would matter for the card in Leon's original post but I would like to see TPGs offer a "front only" grading option for OJs since many collectors of that set don't seem to care too much about back damage. This would be similar to the current "autograph only" grading option for autographed cards. The TPGs could by definition make photo quality an important component of the OJ "front only" grade.

This could be a particularly nice way for SGC, which already seems to be the preferred TPG service for OJs, to differentiate their service from PSA.

[drcy]

Grading has it's limits, subjectivity and is inexact. One limit is it is a grader of physical condition, but not an arbiter of aesthetic appeal. I agree the graders often seem to sometime ignore whether the Old Judge images are developed detailed or undeveloped, which clearly is an essential aspect (and some would say part of the physical condition) of the cards. Old Judges are little photographs, and image quality, focus, development and overall aesthetics is an inherent aspect of photographs. Whether or not those things fall under the category of physical condition to be graded is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think how well developed is the image (too light, too dark, etc) is part of physical condition, but don't think focus or aesthetic quality is. Some artistic and sports images, including images of movement, are intentionally out of focus. If a photographic image has faded due to light exposure, I would certainly count that as a physical defect.

[Jacker_ Cracks]

Originally Posted by drcy

Grading has it's limits and is inexact. One limit is it isn't an arbiter of aesthetic appeal. Also, a cookie cutter grading system will never fit every type of card.

+1 Completely agree with you.

[mrvster]

and ojs(im also a closet oj fan)

photo quality should be a category and weighted heavier on ojs.....

[drcy]

I can add that, when I'm describing photos, I describe the physical condition plus describe the image quality. Two parts to the description. I can describe a photo as "Near Mint grade but the image is out of focus" or "Physically grades Very Good due to edge damage and paper loss, but the image is mint crystal clear." For better or worse, that's how I do it. I don't see how giving an single average of the two grades (physical condition + aesthetic quality of image divided by two) would do anyone any good.

For cabinet cards, press photos and the like, I'll post pictures, describe the physical defects (corner wear, paper loss wrinkles, etc) and the quality of the image (focus, clarity, etc) and not give a number grade. The collector can weight the different aspects and calculate a personal number grade whichever he wants.

[Exhibitman]

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sreader3

I'm not sure it would matter for the card in Leon's original post but I would like to see TPGs offer a "front only" grading option for OJs since many collectors of that set don't seem to care too much about back damage. This would be similar to the current "autograph only" grading option for autographed cards. The TPGs could by definition make photo quality an important component of the OJ "front only" grade.

This could be a particularly nice way for SGC, which already seems to be the preferred TPG service for OJs, to differentiate their service from PSA.

Scot- I love this idea.

Jim B- I think it is graded correctly under the current system. That is sort of the problem.

Jay M. - I agree...priced close to where it should be given the superior photo quality.

Here is another that has a Nrmt+ type photo. Maybe some day one of the TPG companies will take the lead in this area and do something different?......

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1887-Old-Jud...item2c87efa032



.

[sreader3]

Thanks Leon. Maybe one of you guys who has SGC's ear can suggest it.

I have a half-dozen or so OJs that I would submit for front-only grading.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Thanks Leon. Maybe one of you guys who has SGC's ear can suggest it.

I have a half-dozen or so OJs that I would submit for front-only grading.

I will be seeing and chatting with them at the National. Maybe I can persuade them (but don't hold your breath ) ....it really is a good suggestion.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Leon

I will be seeing and chatting with them at the National. Maybe I can persuade them (but don't hold your breath ) ....it really is a good suggestion.

I had this same discussion with them about five years ago, and they assured me they would be addressing the issue. Assuming they did address it, I guess they decided to leave things just the way they are. It's bad enough that a gem photo gets a low grade because of a little paper loss, I suppose one can just ignore the grade. But when a card with a nearly invisible photo gets a 6 or a 7 because it has sharp corners, that is simply inexcusable.

[barrysloate]

Here are Sloate's New Standards for Grading Old Judges. Hopefully, the TPG's will at least read this and consider.

Let's use the examples of a gem photo with a little paper loss, and a poor quality photo with sharp corners:

If we agree that a card with a superb front should grade at least a 7, but it does have some reverse paper loss, how about a deduction of 3 or 4 grading points to result in a net grade around 3 or 4. I believe most collectors would accept a net grade of VG or VG-EX as these are respectable grades that encompass all the characteristics of the card.

In the case of the light photo, perhaps the actual condition of the card is a 6 or 7, but it would get a deduction of 4 or 5 points for a net grade of 2. I think most collectors would accept a light photo card receiving a grade of Good.

I know this would mean that Old Judges would have their own individual grading standards, but it is time to accept the fact that OJ's are different than any other set. Because the photo quality and eye appeal can vary so drastically, it's imperative to take that into consideration. You cannot ignore the eye appeal of a card when grading it.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

You cannot ignore the eye appeal of a card when grading it.

Barry I agree however it’s been done with grading since day one on all issues not just OJ's.

In terms of the eBay card I think it looks graded correctly have quite a few just like it. As for grading just fronts that seems like a slippery slope where does that line get drawn. If any gorgeous card with a spot of paper loss gets a 2 by most all TPG’s. I don’t see why a N172 should be treated differently just because it’s a photographic issue vs. a lithographic or printed issue.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Barry I agree however it’s been done with grading since day one on all issues not just OJ's.

In terms of the eBay card I think it looks graded correctly have quite a few just like it. As for grading just fronts that seems like a slippery slope where does that line get drawn. If any gorgeous card with a spot of paper loss gets a 2 by most all TPG’s. I don’t see why a N172 should be treated differently just because it’s a photographic issue vs. a lithographic or printed issue.

Hey John- hope you are well. Have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. You can have slightly different standards for different cards, based on their characteristics. As a coin collector, I can tell you that copper coins are graded a bit differently than gold or silver, because copper tends to corrode easily when it comes into contact with moisture and pollutants in the air. That won't happen with the other two metals, because they are for the most part indestructible.

And it's clear that OJ's are different than most other cards, because the photographic quality can be degraded over time. There is a way to do it and make it work. But there may not be any incentive for the TPG's to change anything.

[wonkaticket]

Barry I can see your point. I just think this can be said for a lot of issues. Examples some issues have notorious printing issues out of focus, washed out color etc. I just think if it goes to down with OJ's you have a lot of folks pointing to nuances of other issues and then it gets hard to keep track of the whole thing.

In the end I don't think the TPG grades hurt the nice OJs or other 19th photo issues. It always seems to be the really nice ones that bring good money regardless of the grade. As for someone buying a washed out PSA 8 N172 I see this as no more silly than a guy buying common graded 10 vs a few grades lower for huge money when to the naked eye one can't tell. Just the slab game....

[barrysloate]

I feel that if something is broken you try to fix it. Yes, there are other sets that have characteristics that make straight line grading a little more difficult. So let them put their collective heads together and try to come up with an improvement. Half grades aren't the answer. That's just a marketing ploy to increase resubmissions. Let them come up with an improvement that customers will embrace. Every company does it, so why can't TPG?

[Jeffrompa]

I hope we are evolving and hope the grading companies are as well .

[tiger8mush]

Why do people pay a TPG money to tell them how nice their card looks? I understand you want to protect the card, so it gets a nice thick slab. I understand wanting a professional opinion to know your card is authentic and unaltered. I understand a technical grade because if you are buying/selling you know if the card has a hidden wrinkle or some other defect that would otherwise make the card look NM. But paying for an opinion on eye appeal? Ask 10 different people and you'll get at least 5 different answers. We complain TPGs can't get objective technical grades correct, and now we want subjective opinions?

[Jeffrompa]

I agree with all of that about the TPGs except a card that is a photograph is a different animal and a paper card can not be judged the same as a photograph . imho

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Why do people pay a TPG money to tell them how nice their card looks? I understand you want to protect the card, so it gets a nice thick slab. I understand wanting a professional opinion to know your card is authentic and unaltered. I understand a technical grade because if you are buying/selling you know if the card has a hidden wrinkle or some other defect that would otherwise make the card look NM. But paying for an opinion on eye appeal? Ask 10 different people and you'll get at least 5 different answers. We complain TPGs can't get objective technical grades correct, and now we want subjective opinions?

Huge +1 well said.