Pricing of qualified grading

[ParisianJohn]

Agreed that the standard for at least the past decade that I've been buying vintage has been to dock 2 grades. I further agree that if the eye appeal isn't hurt much that I would rather have a nice 8 that is off-center or marked than a 6 with no qualifiers.

I have an N28 Allen & Ginter Comiskey from 1888 that is graded at PSA 5 (MK). If the image below you can see the mark, which looks like a couple of dots and maybe that tiny smudge up top that possibly came from a ball-point pen. I also recently learned ball point pens were invented in 1888.

The seller was asking for what a 4 was going for at the time of purchase and I sprung at it. I just don't see how these little dots take the value down two grades. Had they been on the back I'd have paid the value of a 5 for this card. At least that's what I'll try to convince everyone if I ever sell it!

[swarmee]

A couple of dots, but a long pencil mark above the ball cap. I would not have paid a 4 price for this 5(MK). That's a huge mark, which severely detracts from the eye appeal.

[G1911]

For a large pencil mark, more than 2 grades less in price. I cannot understand the logic in how damage from a pen or pencil is not part of the grade. It is after production damage by the end user, like a crease. The PSA system makes no sense at all. A significant mark should allow a card to grade a 3 at absolute best.

For a MC, I would pay over the price of a properly cut card for my T cards, with the rate depending on set and degree of MC. For a Topps card, about the same as a properly cut card unless it’s a 1971 Topps football, in which case the value is unlimited.

An OC, a grade or so less.

[ParisianJohn]

Originally Posted by swarmee

A couple of dots, but a long pencil mark above the ball cap. I would not have paid a 4 price for this 5(MK). That's a huge mark, which severely detracts from the eye appeal.

Oh my God.... How have I missed that for a decade and assumed it was part of the design? LOL!! Okay, now I overpaid.

[Buythatcard]

I would prefer that they do away with qualifiers. Just numerically grade it and take in account any qualifier by reducing the actual grade.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

I would prefer that they do away with qualifiers. Just numerically grade it and take in account any qualifier by reducing the actual grade.

This right here. Agree 110%.

[insidethewrapper]

I agree, how can you have a "9" that is 90/10 OC. Just grade based on the card with no qualifiers.

[babraham]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

I would prefer that they do away with qualifiers. Just numerically grade it and take in account any qualifier by reducing the actual grade.

+1

[darwinbulldog]

Centering never should have been a factor in grading to begin with.

[glynparson]

Lol. How many times can we have this exact discussion?