Back damage--and grading craziness

[GregMitch34]

We tend to focus on odd ways grading companies judge condition--on the front of cards. But at least there are posted standards to refer to and "errors" that seem clear. Yet the back--and wildly different ways they seem to get judged--get little attention. Stains, paper loss, dirt marks etc. all produce varying impact on grades--and equally scare some people off while not bothering many at all. Wonder how others feel and judge them personally--or can describe what you THINK the grading company standards are. Sometimes it seems that almost anything goes for a "4" or under...

[Leon]

One of the more discouraging issues concerning grading is that there seems to be the same weight put on minor paper loss on a blank back as there is paper loss on an important part of the front of a card. I am not sure there is a solution that is fair. Grading by different graders, even at the same company, is very subjective by (human) nature.

[packs]

For the purposes of grading I think paper loss in all forms should result in the lowest grade, either a 1 or a 1.5 at the most.

Even though it seems crazy a blank backed card with paper loss is killed the same way any other card is, I think collecting as a whole should be moving away from number grades anyway.

I say only two grade should be given to all cards: Authentic and Altered. Then let bidders decide what makes a card valuable. It will cease to be a number and begin to be eye appeal, which is all cards should be valued on anyway. Altered cards will still be labeled as such and everyone I think benefits, especially when you consider how much card doctoring is going on now.

[glynparson]

I could not disagree more. I feel cards value within a grade should be determined by eye appeal. But pretending a card with striking colors and beauty but a major flaw should be valued at more than an uncirculated example with slightly muted colors is laughable. The hobby has never been that way and never should. Value though for a lower technical grade graded card can and sometimes does outsell a higher grade lower eye appeal as it should. But all flaws are relevant to me. Relying strictly on eye appeal is akin to relying strictly on the number grade. Value should be determined by all factors of the card. Under that criteria a pin hole would be almost irrelevant to value if it were tough to see. I find that logic highly flawed.

[packs]

I don't think it's laughable. How many Old Judges with faded images grade out at a 7 or 8? A LOT. Would you rather have them or a pristine image with some album removal damage? Under my proposition both types would be graded the same: Authentic, and you can decide what they're worth independently of a number.

My main point is that grading should move away from a number game and toward collector driven interest, which I would argue has a lot to do with eye appeal. Right now cards sell because of their grade. Whether or not they deserve that grade is an argument Board members get into all the time. So what's laughable about eliminating that mine field and moving towards collector interest in the card itself?

[GregMitch34]

Appreciate replies but remember that this started with focus strictly on backs...

Yes, paper loss on backs--sometimes, but not always--gets treated like on front. But stains? A lot more leeway if just on backs. It seems minor staining on back on a nice card will still allow a "4" easily. If same small stain on front--no way. And so on.

[Republicaninmass]

What about the 'pin hole' 1? I think it is good because it is an undectable flaw, at least in scan or at first glance

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Graders need to keep hammering cards with back damage - that keeps them in my price range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GregMitch34]

Would still like to get some comments on what graders seem to be considering in judging back stains or damage or flaws. I would think one of most maddening subjects and therefore some informed speculation welcome.

[packs]

I would think they are considering any and all back damage to mean that a piece of the original card has been removed. In the world of grading as it is this type of damage should result in the lowest grade. You can't grade a card as though it were complete if it is not, no matter how small the loss may be.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

Graders need to keep hammering cards with back damage - that keeps them in my price range.

Precisely! Esp. the blank backs.

[packs]

On the subject of paper loss, I just saw this Gehrig PSA 1.5 on eBay:



Paper loss on the front of the card but it is graded 1.5. I'd sent my PSA 1 Gehrig into PSA twice for a regrade and it was refused both times. Nothing against PSA but it's confusing:

[Clydewally]

I can't tell how the graders grade, but they seem to put more emphasis on some paper loss or stain on a blank or generic back and on things like corners than on the gloss and eye appeal of the picture. As a collector, I am often willing to trade problems with the back for a glossy front, even if the corners are rounded. Some company used to grade different aspects of the card, corners, front, back, centering etc. and then do an overall grade. While I don't prefer that method, it might lead to more thoughtful grading by the service companies.

[GregMitch34]

I could be wrong, but it just seems to me that up to VG-Ex the graders let a lot go in terms of a little dirt or stain on the reverse, but from Ex on up much tougher. I have a couple nice card that are easily "5s" but PSA gave them a 4 due to very slight stains. But they probably would not have docked a slightly weaker card.