Grading cannot be considered objective (and we're not even talking about accuracy here) when collectors submit their cards for regrading with the condition that a change can only be upwards-- and the grading companies agree to this.
As an 'objective exercise' grading is corrupted in many ways (including by the collectors and dealers), but, in reality, grading is this strange grading/insurance/marketing conglomeration. There's nothing wrong with this I suppose, so long as you take it for what it is. Just as there is nothing wrong with something having a margin of error (as in grading and everything else), so long as you realize and take into account that there is a margin of error. That cards are resubmitted and get different grades establishes that there is a margin of error, and/or subjectivity (I'd pick 'and'), in grading.
There's nothing wrong or errant with there being a margin of error. The foolishness is when collectors valuate things as if there is no margin of error ('Buying the label instead of the card.')
The best checks and balances (or, one could say, overall grading) is when collectors consider both the professional grade and look at the card itself-- which, of course, is what many collectors do. And collectors have different tastes in what grading details/qualities are more important than others-- some are OCD about centering, some forgive off centering when the image is sharp, some forgive writing on the back of an Old Judge but don't want a technically Near Mint N172 if the image is underdeveloped, etc. This says that a single grading equation itself is subjective and arbitrary, and why interpretation of it involves subjectivity. Or, with a N172 that is technically Near Mint according to the grading equation but with an image that is less than clear, grading is only part of the story. And that's why a collector looks at the card itself too.
Last edited by drcy; 06-08-2017 at 12:40 PM.
|
06-07-2017, 09:57 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode