Posted By:
PaulI know Scott Elkins' E90-1 Joe Jackson card has been discussed at length on another thread. But I thought it was worth starting a new thread to raise a different issue.
I think this card is the poster child for what's wrong with the current grading system. (I wish I knew how to link a picture of the card here, but I don't.) The card was graded an SGC30 (good) and the consensus of the board is that under current grading standards the grade is about right.
What struck me immediately when I looked at the card is how well preserved it looked. Imagine if you showed this card to any of your non-collector friends and asked them what they thought of its condition. I would guess that almost every one would say that it was in great shape. And imagine if you told your friends that there are EIGHT higher grades than this card earned and only ONE or TWO lower ones (depending upon your grading company of choice). I think they would be shocked. And I don't think that's because they are ignorant. I think it's because they are expressing common sense.
Think of all the additional damage this card could have and still be a "30" or a "2". It could have three or four light creases that don't cause any color loss and still be a legitimate 30. It could have a major crease that does cause some color loss and still be a legitimate 30. It could have a small amount of writing on the back, a little paper loss on the back, or maybe even a little paper loss on the front and still be a legitimate 30.
But according to the grading companies, all these cards are basically the same. At the high end of the grading scale, if you breathe on a 9, it might become an 8. The damage caused by your breath is considered material under today's standards. But if you take Scott's card and fold the lower left corner with all your strength (sorry, Scott), it receives the same grade it has now. That damage is not considered material.
To me, this is simply nuts. And I think I know the main cause of this insanity. Grading companies compete with each other to be "strict" graders. And, to be strict on mid-grade cards, it has to become tougher and tougher to get a 3 or a 4. This leaves "1" and "2" as the dumping ground for cards that traditionally received a grade of VG or VG-EX.
I guess, in the end, I don't really care if there are 8 grades higher than Scott's card. But I think there ought to be at least 8 grades lower than his card as well. The lower grades have simply become meaningless. They do not serve their purpose of providing you with reliable information about the card. I think that can only be achieved with several new lower grades. I don't care if they're fractions, negative numbers, or whatever, just as long as there's some way to distinguish between truly nice cards like Scott's and the truly beat up cards that legitimately live in "2" holders under the current system.
Sorry for ranting and raving. But seeing such a nice card getting such a low grade because of the grading system (not because of an incompetent individual grader) just kind of set me off.