Fine. Then here are some suggestions to improve what we already have:
1) Make absolutely certain that altered cards do not find their way into holders. I can't even count the number of high grade cards I've handled that were graded by one of the big three that were short. Nearly all those short cards are trimmed. Identify them the first time around and keep them out of holders.
2) Grade cards as absolutely carefully and accurately as possible. Sometimes I wonder if some percentage of cards are deliberately undergraded in the hopes of getting resubmissions. Grading can never be done perfectly but it can be a lot better than it is now. Everyone in the hobby has heard horror stories about grading: one of my favorite is a major ebay dealer told me he resubmitted a 7 because he felt it was undergraded. It came back a 6. He submitted it again and this time it came back a 5. If the same card can be a 5 or 6 or 7 on different submissions then there is a problem with the system.
3) Get a better understanding of photographic cards, especially Old Judges. Like it or not, they are different than other baseball cards. A very light card can never be a 7 no matter how sharp the corners are. Likewise, a card with a gem quality photo should never be a 1 even if an expletive is written on the back. These cards demand a little different approach and the first company that recognizes this will be ahead of the curve.
|
11-18-2010, 10:31 AM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode