I wish we had a better grading scale for low-end pre-war cards

[Luke]

I just got these 4 cards back from SGC. All of them received a grade of "FAIR". Obviously an argument can be made that any (or all) of them are incorrectly graded, but for the sake of discussion, let's say that they are all accurately graded.

If all of these cards can receive the same grade, to me that means that we need to widen the grading scale at the bottom end. It has always seemed odd to me that we ascribe a grade of "POOR" to such a wide variety of cards. Some 1s are quite pleasing to the eye, while others can be beat to hell. These scans show that at a grade level of 1.5, the same problem exists. I think you see the same type of variation with grades up to around a 3 or 4.

I don't really have a solution to present. We're very used to the current scale, and it would be tough to change it now. I also realize that as long as people buy the card rather than the holder, this isn't really a big deal. With that said, it just seems that there is a ton of room for improvement with the current grading scale. There is a fine line between a 5 and a 6, but at the bottom end, there can be massive discrepencies between the physical condition of two cards in the same numerical holder.

[freakhappy]

I hear what you're saying Luke and it makes sense. However, the problem at the lower end is that you run out of room for grades to drop. One card could be beat to hell and grade a PR and another card has nice appeal but has rounded corners, three creases and a stain and also grade a PR...that's why we should never buy the holder (as most everyone already knows). From the looks of your cards, the Cicotte is the only one I would argue the grade on...the other ones look accurately graded to me.

As far as the grading scale goes, I would bet that some of these graders don't even know the qualifications from grade to grade and this could play into some of the inconsistencies of grading. And with the rush that is put on them to grade quickly, I would be willing to bet that they simply wing some of the grades.

Grading is so subjective and as long as human beings are grading these cards, we can expect the roller coaster rides.

[glchen]

As Mike said, I don't think it's possible either. There are just too many bad things that can happen to cards at the low end such as paper loss, pin holes, rips, and so forth. I think for writing on cards, SGC automatically downgrades to Fair in most cases. If you want to try to equate how much a card is worth at these grades, a lot will be really dependent on eye appeal as for example, paper loss or writing on the back is usually not the same as on the front.

[itjclarke]

I totally agree that there is a crazy variance in card quality at the lower end of the grading scale, which is nowhere nearly as extreme at the top end. I don't think TPGs should necessarily add grades at the bottom, but do think something can be done. This actually seems like a place where qualifiers could come in handy. I know many/most don't like qualifiers, and I am not really a huge fan either. However given they exist and aren't going anywhere, it seems odd that PSA will single out traits like OC, ST, PD, etc as being the only reason a given card wouldn't receive a higher grade, but will not do so for other single flaws like rear paper loss, or glue stains. I've seen a lot of 6-8 scale looking cards posted here (the T206 Wajo hands at chest and Tinker portrait come to mind) that are in 1.5-2 holders based on tiny paper loss, but look far far far better.

If I were selling (though I'm usually not), I think I'd rather have a card graded as an 8 PL, as opposed to a straight 1.5. This would immediately signify to a prospective buyer that there are no other major flaws (hidden creases, pencil or eraser marks, etc) downgrading the card... and if they can get beyond that tiny patch of rear paper loss, they'll happily own a gem (I feel the same about many of my OC cards).

I fully understand and agree with "buying the card, not the holder", and that a card's eye appeal, not its numerical grade should drive its value, however not all buyers see past the grade. In that, I'd be for further differentiating these otherwise immaculate low grade cards from the normal run of the mill beater 1s and 2s, and bettering my chances at receiving a deserved premium.

[HercDriver]

Maybe the scale should go to 11...

[T206Collector]

I've said this a few times, but it bears repeating. Grading is a pyramid. At the top, you have the 10s. 10 means perfection and thus all 10s will be identical. As you go down the pyramid, grades are set for a variety of reasons -- 9s almost all look the same, but 3s, 2s and 1s have a huge number of potential flaws, including paper loss on reverse, creasing, corner wear, etc. What makes a card an SGC 30 could be a variety of factors that tell you nothing about the eye appeal of the card without looking at it.

Professional grading is not designed to reflect eye appeal. It is designed to point out flaws, often hard to see or hidden, in a piece of card board. When you see a clean-looking SGC 30, you actually know there are a lot of hard to see flaws. When you see a badgered up SGC 30, what you see is what you get. But not all SGC 30s will look alike -- in fact, at that level of the "pyramid" you will have a lot of different looking cards.

This becomes problematic when sellers try to sell a PSA 2 for what a previous PSA 2 sold for. Without comparing both cards, going by the number alone gets you nowhere because what you don't know about the previous card is whether the damage was similar or whether the eye-appeal was comparable. Sometimes you can get a pretty good deal on a nice looking 2 when a seller is willing to use a previous ugly 2 as a comparable. This is why they say, "Buy the card, not the holder."

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

From the looks of your cards, the Cicotte is the only one I would argue the grade on...the other ones look accurately graded to me.

I agree that the other 3 look pretty much identical grade-wise and they look like 20s. The Cicotte has more eye appeal than the others, but without seeing it up close I'd be hesitant to say it was undergraded.

Let's put it this way...if all 4 of these cards you showed were the same player/pose/back, I'd probably pay something extra for the one that looks like the Cicotte, even though they were all graded as 20s.

Cheers,
Blair