What's wrong with photo cards grading standards

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I know we just talked about this but this is a prime example of what's wrong with grading standards for photographic type cards. No doubt this is technically correct at a 40....but visual appeal is somewhat less.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1887-SGC-40-Old-Judge-Candy-Nelson-Spotted-Tie_W0QQitemZ8744541282QQcategoryZ57993QQrdZ1QQcmd ZViewItem

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

when I saw that, Leon. [obviously we both troll on Ebay's new today listings...].

I guess I just can't understand how they do not consider the photo clarity - or, at the very least, have a "minimum clarity" guideline for each particular grade. If the contrast is not sharp and distinct, no way should the card be above a 5 or 6, for example. Obviously it is a subjective standard - but much of grading is. This card has the eye appeal of a 1 - and thankfully most informed collectors would not pay any slabbed premium on an example like this, simply because it is a 3.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Not only is the photo awful but something looks wrong with that card. It doesn't even look genuine. Weird cut, nearly invisible image, I wouldn't touch that one.

[Archive]

Posted By: .

.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

At the least the card is trimmed and badly stained. This is just a mistake; no implications as to what SGC40 means should be drawn from this card. I have talked to Shawn about it and, to SGCs credit, they are attempting to correct the error(one made by a prior group of graders I might add).

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I noticed the trimming after I posted originally and should have modified my first post to include the obvious error... A question for you- Have you seen any old judges that don't have the Goodwin at bottom and not be trimmed?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Leon--Just a bad miscut.