I'm on the fence on this one.
Grading as it is has a lot of issues, none of them particularly solvable. But it's a decent system, so totally discarding it wouldn't make sense.
To me Ideally the grade should represent the technical state of preservation of a card "as produced". In other words, stuff like centering and print problems shouldn't count against a card. Anything beyond alteration or wear is purely an aesthetic preference.
So all the grading companes already make aesthetics part of the grade. From that standpoint I don't see any problem grading cards like Old Judges with more of a focus on the image quality. Fading should be penalised more than it seems to be, Although I do have a few technical questions about that specifically for Old Judges. - Is it really fading, or is it just poorly developed or exposed?
Perhaps a split grade? One for technical preservation, downgrading for creases, paper loss writing etc. And another grade for aestheric stuff like centering and image quality.
I know the detailed scans group got panned, but I also think that a grading company offering a premium service that included a detailed explanation of the grade would be good. Not necessarily for common or modern cards, but for the expensive or higher grade stuff it might be worthwhile to know what fault made a card an 8 rather than a 9, or what flaws made an otherwise great looking card get a mediocre grade.
For that matter split the grade 3 ways. Preservation as produced, issues created during production, and overall eye appeal. With that, we could each look at what aspect we find most important.
Steve B
|