[orly57]

" 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."

That is a very fair point. My modest proposal was not meant to imply that card with a hidden crease that looks gorgeous should rocket to a 7 due to eye appeal. I only suggest that grading companies shouldn't robotically treat all flaws the same. A more prominent crease is a more eggregious flaw than a hidden crease. Paper loss on an innocuous part of the card (i.e. On the back corners) is less eggregious than paper loss on the front where the image is affected. This isn't subjective. On a technical level as well as on visual appeal, this is the case. If a crease is more prominent than another crease, it is obviously a greater flaw and should be treated as such. Is it really that crazy to propose that some flaws are worse than others? The idea that "a crease is a crease is a crease" seems to me to lack any sort of nuance or common sense, and it leads to painfully disparate results in the lower grades. And this is just comparing a crease to a crease. What about when 1 hidden flaw = 4 rounded corners? We see that all the time. The tpg has hit a hidden flaw so hard that it puts it in the same grade scale as other far more eggregious and obvious flaws. I just think that the SEVERITY of the flaw needs to be weighed, and not just robotically give the same weight to all flaws equally. It will never happen, but that is all I am saying. Compare the cards below. Never mind eye appeal. Can you seriously tell me theses cards are technically equal?