Grading head scratchers

[Bridwell]

PSA is really tough on any sort of glue residue. I've seen Ex-Mt card get graded as a PSA 2. They are also tough on minor wrinkles that are hard to see in scans.

You might try cracking them out of the holders and re-submitting. I've had some luck with that on cards that seemed badly under graded. It could just be a mistake.

[JollyElm]

Print defect(s)???

1961banksmvp485front.jpg1961banksmvp485back.jpg

A couple of tiny white specks in the blue? A tiny bit of black 'overrun' ink to the left of "Valuable"?? There is no way this card should be a PD.

I've contacted PSA repeatedly about having the PD designation examined and (hopefully) removed (steps to take, etc.) and they NEVER respond with any info. The person I contacted readily helped me resolve other issues (a fraudulent use of photoshop by someone in the registry to make a mislabeled card appear to actually be the card the label indicated, and correctly changing the label of a card I submitted through Bobby's bulk submission to what it should have been in the first place), so their silence is pretty irritating.

[cardsnstuff]

Originally Posted by Bridwell

PSA is really tough on any sort of glue residue. I've seen Ex-Mt card get graded as a PSA 2. They are also tough on minor wrinkles that are hard to see in scans.

You might try cracking them out of the holders and re-submitting. I've had some luck with that on cards that seemed badly under graded. It could just be a mistake.

That's what I hate about TPG, it cost money to grade and I am not made of money and don't have the money to play the game and submit things multiple times

[PowderedH2O]

I have never understood the whole numeric system at all. A card can be gem mint in appearance but have an invisible microcrease on the back only visible by 10x loupe and it's a 5. In the old days that card would sell at top condition all day long. Yet, I have seen (the variety of 52 Topps Mantles is a good example) all 1's lumped into the same giant cesspool. There are 1's that actually present decently and others that went through a washing machine. There are many 4's that present beautifully. Why is their grade only 3 away from the washing machine card?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by PowderedH2O

I have never understood the whole numeric system at all. A card can be gem mint in appearance but have an invisible microcrease on the back only visible by 10x loupe and it's a 5. In the old days that card would sell at top condition all day long. Yet, I have seen (the variety of 52 Topps Mantles is a good example) all 1's lumped into the same giant cesspool. There are 1's that actually present decently and others that went through a washing machine. There are many 4's that present beautifully. Why is their grade only 3 away from the washing machine card?

Agree completely. There is far too much variance granted at the lower levels, and only microscopic differences separating grades of 7-8-9-10. How and why did this become the standard? The whole system needs to be re-examined... not only for detecting altered cards, but for a more equitable grading scale.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Agree completely. There is far too much variance granted at the lower levels, and only microscopic differences separating grades of 7-8-9-10. How and why did this become the standard? The whole system needs to be re-examined... not only for detecting altered cards, but for a more equitable grading scale.

I respectfully disagree when it comes to the grading scale. It is designed to take the actual condition of the card into account. The problem I see is many people want to change that to "eye appeal". Eye appeal should make a big difference on price but should have absolutely nothing to do with the grade that uses the actual condition of the card.

Wasn't the whole idea of half grades to take the eye appeal into account?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I respectfully disagree when it comes to the grading scale. It is designed to take the actual condition of the card into account. The problem I see is many people want to change that to "eye appeal". Eye appeal should make a big difference on price but should have absolutely nothing to do with the grade that uses the actual condition of the card.

Wasn't the whole idea of half grades to take the eye appeal into account?

Maybe?

But much more prevalent in their creation of half-grades was to generate millions of additional unnecessary submissions, and subsequent profits for their shareholders.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Maybe?

But much more prevalent in their creation of half-grades was to generate millions of additional unnecessary submissions, and subsequent profits for their shareholders.

I agree 100% with that, like the new slab, the new lighthouse shiny thingy, and the new security chip that is on the way.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Maybe?

But much more prevalent in their creation of half-grades was to generate millions of additional unnecessary submissions, and subsequent profits for their shareholders.

Yes, technically a "x.5" is whatever grade that did not meet the criteria for the next full grade, but with greater eye appeal. Eh, sometimes. I've seen it written in many places that centering is the most important criteria to get a .5 bump, and then in reality seen plenty of less than perfectly or sometimes even decently centered cards graded 4.5, 6.5, what have you. It’s subjectivity at best, a gimmick at the worst.

I would agree that revenue generation, and the idea of many more unnecessary submissions in the eyes of TPG executives was more responsible for them doing that than the need to improve the grading scale. That said...have I mentioned I love graded cards with the .5 bump!?! I know. But it's human nature. This card is that much more slightly better because it's a whatever, POINT FIVE. lol.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Agree completely. There is far too much variance granted at the lower levels, and only microscopic differences separating grades of 7-8-9-10. How and why did this become the standard? The whole system needs to be re-examined... not only for detecting altered cards, but for a more equitable grading scale.

Part of it was the need for the TPG's to peg traditional grades (yes, they existed before the TPG's...) to a 10 point scale. Back in the 1980's and earlier, there were named grades from Mint to Poor, starting likely with the advent of hobby magazines in the late 70's and early 80's. Interestingly enough, I will always remember how careful the guides were then to point out that grading was only an opinion, and that collectors frequently disagreed on the "grades". (Funny how that plays today, huh? That's right, it's the same damn argument...) Anyway, the point was that eventually these named grades developed into ranges like VG-EX, EX-MT, etc. to provide a means to give collectors and dealers greater descriptive ability when there was a disagreement. If a card was maybe an EX but a weak EX, had too much corner wear or something, well then call it VG-EX. A card that was obviously not "Mint" for some reason, but better than EX was called EX-MT. All of this worked fine until the TPG's came along and decided that EX-MT was a precise grade / thing, and called it a 6. It was never really meant to be used that way by those in the hobby at the time, but suddenly now we have a pegged grade. This just got worse and worse of course as time went on, with the advent of half-grades, etc. Yes, please resubmit those cards for more money to get the half grade bump! If you think cards are bad, try the coin hobby - where the top grade, "MS" (Mint State") has like 5 different ranges if I'm not mistaken, from 65-70. The coin hobby by the way, is who you can blame all this on with our modern professional card graders. What company did CU and David Hall start before PSA? PCGS and coins in 1986. I digress...

The point of this is that the lower end of the scale being less important then as it is now, got less attention in the ever more ridiculous attempts to further refine grading scales. So by comparison to the upper grades, the Poor to about Good range with many TPG's still has even more subjectivity and room for variation. It's not necessarily fair, no, but grading scales have generally been written to evaluate "technical condition", not eye-appeal alone. If we are going on eye-appeal alone (again, still subjective - one man's beater Mantle card may still be the Mona Lisa in his eyes...) that might be a different story as to how to evaluate cards in the lower end of the technical spectrum.