Card grading bias?

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by jerrys

My posted statement: all backs are clean and equal. If they were not I would has taken the time to assemble and scan them also.

Eric - Glyn
Your opinion is that the Johnson card is one grade higher than any of the rest? Johnson has less wear than Ganley?

Henry
Simply judge from the image provided.
You may have a favorite grader; I don't. I judge each graded card on its' own merit. We are not debating your favorite ball team we are discussing business. Professional grading is a business. Integrity, honesty, consistency, reliability, fairness, etc., without favoritism business. Making a product with false value is not good business.
IMO the one grade higher is not warranted.
Bias = submitter.
You do realize that at the same grade the Johnson card is worth at about 20 times more than any of the other cards and with one extra grade point about 30 times. That difference is a few thousand dollars.
Someday we will have computer grading that will be free of any influences or "errors".

Dennis
The image is twice the size of the postcard!! Larger than given anywhere.

Bob
Exactly, and the better player - the higher card value.

Jerry, I meant that I would want to see more instances of this occurring before I would state the grading companies are biased. I do agree that all cards you show are roughly the same grade.

[1880nonsports]

to be clear I have a grader I favor in that my views/standards/parameters most allign with SGC over PSA including issues like assessing grades on cards with paperloss. In any event when I try to buy a graded card that isn't in hand - the TPG itself in conjunction with the grade suggests a range to me within which I can assume it to fall for constancy and pricing. It can also be a "warning" of elements not readily apparent from a picture that lacks description.
I DO NOT get my cards graded for someone else's opinion of the condition. It's mainly aesthetics and protection, I started with SGC and I'm a little OCD (actually OMG), and I can appreciate the extra eye on my cards at times with regard to issues such as trimming and erasure that I might miss - * I might buy such a card but would obviously like knowing before hand as the "value" is linked to the condition. My major problem is that it's often difficult to determine whether an invisible fault has affected the grade over more tangible flaws - I suppose that creates a market for the people who "flip" and reinforces the idiom buy the card and not the holder.
As for the cards shown above the grade disparity doesn't seem that pronounced although I would agree that WoJo's status may have affected THE UNKNOWN GRADER when assessing the card. I think in a recent thread - the discussion in part pointed to the unusual amount of people that chose a superstar as their "favorite card" within a set - the inference being some emotional component (and perhaps visually encountering star examples most often) is in play - the bias. Of course it might also be seen as within normal tolerances as exhibited by tpg examples in the past.
I think it might be important to put all the examples in context. If all of the cards were graded by the same grader at the same time - we would have a more substantial starting point for the arguement.
Jerry - no problem with you whatsoever - I should have answered more succinctly.