[jchcollins]

What I think would actually help is not more qualifiers, but detailed grading notes - which would point out in detail why this card with a crease got a 4, while that one without one but maybe with worse corners also got a 4. While taken on it’s own yes, a crease “qualifier” would be seemingly helpful, at some point this logic goes away from the original point of the historical grades in trying to make an easy way for people to cheat, and never have to learn how to actually grade for themselves.

Think about the confusion that would be added for a “PSA 7 (C)”. So, a NM card, whoops except that it’s creased? - maybe even badly - somewhere. This is bad potentially because of the range of the type of problem. How many cards raw or even graded has someone tried to describe to you as “Well, this would be mint except for…” and then of course at some point this logic becomes absurd. Yes, this Mantle would be a 9 if it were not for the missing corner and the hole through his head. Dude, who cares? So what would a PSA 7 (C) equate to in a non-qualifier world? A 3? A 2? At some point the equality-compensation math you would have to learn with additional qualifiers would just become insane. There are entirely too many people in the hobby today as it is who do not understand how to properly weigh / discount the effects of qualifiers.

Learn how to freaking grade yourself instead would be my vote…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk