Grading head scratchers

[cardsagain74]

Regardless of how subjective things could possibly get between different graders at any of the big 3, you'd like to have at least some sense of consistency that you can loosely rely on (scandal aside).

At times I want to think that's sometimes the case. Then you see something like this....

I have a '55 T Jackie Robinson that looks like a 6 on the front. A light crease halfway down the back. PSA gave it a 2. I'm thinking, ok, it has a crease somewhere, it got a 2.

Then I see this today:



How on earth....a 3.5 by comparison? The crease along the upper right part of the card is even more pronounced zooming in. Then whatever is going on in the bottom right. Corners mediocre. 70/30 L/R. Can't even see the back so it might even get worse.

I don't get it.

[jb67]

I feel your pain. Not sure why this Bench graded a 2.5 as the back is clean and cannot see any creases. Some grades just don't add up. Post a pict of your 55 Robinson I would love to see it.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by jb67

I feel your pain. Not sure why this Bench graded a 2.5 as the back is clean and cannot see any creases. Some grades just don't add up. Post a pict of your 55 Robinson I would love to see it.

That Bench card seems to make no sense.

[Throttlesteer]

Whenever i see something like that Bench, i immediately inspect the white areas for a hint of paper loss. The 2.5 grade is what you would wxpect from such a situation from an otherwise nice looking card.

[bobbvc]

Just to the right of B on the hat. A spot?

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by bobbvc

Just to the right of B on the hat. A spot?

That spot isn't on the card (glare from the pic).

The grade for the Musial is even more confusing to me though. They must have their reasons for the Robinson or even the Bench, but that 3.5 seems really odd for Stan

[jchcollins]

The Musial could be a reholder of an old grade. I will agree with you this type of thing is very frustrating though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

The Musial could be a reholder of an old grade. I will agree with you this type of thing is very frustrating though.

Nope; graded recently based on Cert number.

[toledo_mudhen]

Based on the scans - I would put the Robinson at a 5 - all day - every day

Go Figure - and yet the PSA opinion is still worth 20 bucks a pop?

[T205 GB]

I would think that they deducted for the erasure mark to the right of Robinson's head, paper loss on left boarder in two spots, and creased in the upper right corner from the edge being dinged up. The back is toned and has some boarder issues.

I do think the grade on the Musial is a bit to high considering the condition.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

I would think that they deducted for the erasure mark to the right of Robinson's head, paper loss on left boarder in two spots, and creased in the upper right corner from the edge being dinged up. The back is toned and has some boarder issues.

I do think the grade on the Musial is a bit to high considering the condition.

The white spot to the right of his head is glare from the pic. After another look, I uncovered a bigger upper right corner peeling issue that I never noticed at first (or second) look. Upper right per the photo/looking horizontally, that is. I don't think it's really visible in the pics, nor is the light crease down part of the back.

Uncovering all of these visible only at the right light/tilt/angle imperfections (while squinting my bifocal eyes through the slab) is aging me even more. I miss simply looking at raw cards 25-30 years ago in high school and just being in the ballpark with something's condition. Anyway...

As mentioned above, you knew they had their reasons for not giving it the mid-level grade that it appeared at first glance. And being as rough on it as possible could get you down to a 2 by the time you're done breaking it down. But if you did the same to the Musial, 3.5 seems like a dream, so I still don't agree at all with it being 1.5 higher

[jchcollins]

All of this is just further proof of what many have contested for quite some time: Grading, beyond certain obvious agreed-upon standards at some point reaches a level of subjectivity that cannot be further defined. ALL of the big 3 are routinely inconsistent at least when it comes to details; I have some cards graded 6.5 that look worse than other 5’s. This has always happened, and will continue to happen with the way the current grading platforms work. While I can tolerate subtle inconsistency, my problem with a major grader such as PSA is how their consistency changes over the decades. Look at a vintage PSA 5 of say, an early 1960’s Topps card that was graded 25 years ago, and tell me if you think many of those would receive the same grade today?

While I still believe that overall, grading has helped the hobby and is a useful tool at a higher level, at some point the subtleties that exist in the system today are simply fallacies due to the inherent subjectivity in the process that is eventually reached.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk