Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

The condition of them all is amazing and the colors truly POP

Once again, I am completely mystified by the grades on these. Beautiful front and back, particularly given their rarity, whatever justification one will come up with for the ridiculously low grades only renders the grading system employed a joke in my estimation. There has to be a better way, one that actually makes sense.

[petecld]

They are real and they are spectacular!
-- Teri Hatcher

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by petecld

They are real and they are spectacular!
-- Teri Hatcher

Weren't they though!

[Aaron Seefeldt]

Originally Posted by petecld

They are real and they are spectacular!
-- Teri Hatcher

Post #18 of this thread... hi Pete!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Once again, I am completely mystified by the grades on these. Beautiful front and back, particularly given their rarity, whatever justification one will come up with for the ridiculously low grades only renders the grading system employed a joke in my estimation. There has to be a better way, one that actually makes sense.

Then again, on cards like these, the grade is sort of beside the point.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then again, on cards like these, the grade is sort of beside the point.

Of course. Then again, what does that say about the system?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Of course. Then again, what does that say about the system?

Assuming heritage submitted these, I have to believe they got the best possible grades that could be assigned to the cards. Their pics typically under state defects.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Of course. Then again, what does that say about the system?

It's sgc so nothing....they "know" their (limited) audience

[darwinbulldog]

Surely it is for exactly those cards that look to be in great condition in a photo but aren't in reality that third-party grading is most useful, no?

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Surely it is for exactly those cards that look to be in great condition in a photo but aren't in reality that third-party grading is most useful, no?

I have no problem with TPGs, Glenn, I just think the system is too loose at the bottom and too tight at the top. But that's just me, so I'm bowing out here.

[Joshwesley]

You’ve got to be kidding me 😮 😍😍😍😍

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I have no problem with TPGs, Glenn, I just think the system is too loose at the bottom and too tight at the top. But that's just me, so I'm bowing out here.

It seems most everyone has strong feelings about the graders, and I don’t think anyone faults you for feeling like there’s some real room for improvement.

At the same time, pleasing even most of us is probably an impossible task.

But maybe here’s one way to go:

1) Sub grades for each of the four corners.
2) The surface is now divided into four quadrants, with subgrades for each, plus let’s double down with those grades for each zone on each side, front and back.
3) Edges are now broken down into 8 zones, 2 per side, with subgrades for each zone.
4) Centering for both front and back is disclosed, down to 0.01% precision. And for top/bottom and left/right. Tilting is also measured, again to 0.01% precision.
5) Print defects, snow, fisheyes, etc. are all identified, counted and disclosed, with a listing for each instance identified.
6) Any and all alterations, trims, recoloration, etc. is identified and disclosed with perfect fidelity on an enumerated list, including detail regarding the location of said adjustments.

Bonus: the grading scale will now institute gradations down to 0.01 points for each element. And each of the subgrades will be weighted, with the final grade being a product of each of the weighted valued for the subgrades.

Graders will also be required to write a narrative of one page single space typed to justify each of the subgrades, including factors considered and weighed when making their evaluation. Plus a mandatory essay to extol the virtues of the card, including the degree to which it makes their hearts soar upon beholding it. If not on the flip, then at least available by scanning a QR code on the flip.

Turnaround times will be 2 days or less, including shipping times.

Fees will be $10 or less for each card. Large discounts for bulk orders and vintage cards. The older the card, the bigger the discount.

Shipping is free.

Forgot to mention: Slabs will be indestructible. So no more cracking and resubmitting. Or cracking at all. Once inside a slab with all of these details, it stays there forever.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then again, on cards like these, the grade is sort of beside the point.

Winner, winner chicken dinner. You nailed it.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Once again, I am completely mystified by the grades on these. Beautiful front and back, particularly given their rarity, whatever justification one will come up with for the ridiculously low grades only renders the grading system employed a joke in my estimation. There has to be a better way, one that actually makes sense.

There's staining and paper loss all over the place on the backs. The fronts look amazing but the grades look perfectly appropriate to me given the backs.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Tabe

There's staining and paper loss all over the place on the backs. The fronts look amazing but the grades look perfectly appropriate to me given the backs.

OK, so we have maybe 5% loss/residue and some staining on the worst backs, and eye-popping fronts--you know, the important side by a factor of what, 10 or 100 in relation to the backs? If that justifies 1.5s all around for these extreme rarities that are basically never seen in ANY condition, I rest my case. I will go to my grave believing that is a flawed grading system, one that everyone accepts now, but that really doesn't make much sense in the real world. They would all be at least 3s or 4s if I were king of the forest. That would leave a ton of room for any surfacing in much better shape, while not lumping them in with ones driven over by tanks in the mud on the downside. Not trying to pick any fights here, and I totally get where we are. Of course, I should just let it go, but someone many years ago pulled this absurd system out of their butts and decreed it to be so, and it will never seem logical to me.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

OK, so we have maybe 5% loss/residue and some staining on the worst backs, and eye-popping fronts--you know, the important side by a factor of what, 10 or 100 in relation to the backs? If that justifies 1.5s all around for these extreme rarities that are basically never seen in ANY condition, I rest my case. I will go to my grave believing that is a flawed grading system, one that everyone accepts now, but that really doesn't make much sense in the real world. They would all be at least 3s or 4s if I were king of the forest. That would leave a ton of room for any surfacing in much better shape, while not lumping them in with ones driven over by tanks in the mud on the downside. Not trying to pick any fights here, and I totally get where we are. Of course, I should just let it go, but someone many years ago pulled this absurd system out of their butts and decreed it to be so, and it will never seem logical to me.

On some level, I agree with you. The fronts on these cards pretty much all look spectacular and they SEEM like they should get 3s and 4s.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

OK, so we have maybe 5% loss/residue and some staining on the worst backs, and eye-popping fronts--you know, the important side by a factor of what, 10 or 100 in relation to the backs? If that justifies 1.5s all around for these extreme rarities that are basically never seen in ANY condition, I rest my case. I will go to my grave believing that is a flawed grading system, one that everyone accepts now, but that really doesn't make much sense in the real world. They would all be at least 3s or 4s if I were king of the forest. That would leave a ton of room for any surfacing in much better shape, while not lumping them in with ones driven over by tanks in the mud on the downside. Not trying to pick any fights here, and I totally get where we are. Of course, I should just let it go, but someone many years ago pulled this absurd system out of their butts and decreed it to be so, and it will never seem logical to me.

Respectfully, I've got to disagree with you Hank. The whole idea of grading (in my mind) is that a grade is assigned to a whole card that survived in a certain type of condition.

A '57 Bel Air with an immaculate body and a destroyed interior is not in showroom condition, just because she looks pretty on the outside. Following your logic, a skinned card should grade high because the front looks great while the rear side is completely missing.

The inside of a fence is just as important to the security of a property as the outside. Its all a complete package in my mind. If the backs on these cards have paper loss, then they are graded properly as-is. What if the front had paper loss and the backs were immaculate?

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

Respectfully, I've got to disagree with you Hank. The whole idea of grading (in my mind) is that a grade is assigned to a whole card that survived in a certain type of condition. Following your logic, a skinned card should grade high because the front looks great while the rear side is completely missing. What if the front had paper loss and the backs were immaculate?

To my thinking, your examples reinforce my point, Jim. If the Heritage cards are 1.5s, where's the room below them for skinned backs or extreme paper loss to the fronts? No matter how horrible condition a card is in, you have only a half grade to move down from those in the auction, which everybody agrees are super-duper wowza. I just don't see the logic in that. But you guys have beaten me down, I'm going to accept what is and leave it at that.

[Exhibitman]

Screw the flips; I want the WaJo!

[GasHouseGang]

I had never seen the backs of these cards before. Here's one of the cards in the auction and you can see the back damage that resulted in the low technical grade.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

To my thinking, your examples reinforce my point, Jim. If the Heritage cards are 1.5s, where's the room below them for skinned backs or extreme paper loss to the fronts? No matter how horrible condition a card is in, you have only a half grade to move down from those in the auction, which everybody agrees are super-duper wowza. I just don't see the logic in that. But you guys have beaten me down, I'm going to accept what is and leave it at that.

I would imagine that with increased paper loss, we’d be looking at 1’s or A’s.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Once again, I am completely mystified by the grades on these. Beautiful front and back, particularly given their rarity, whatever justification one will come up with for the ridiculously low grades only renders the grading system employed a joke in my estimation. There has to be a better way, one that actually makes sense.

They pretty much all have some paper loss and/or back damage. I suspect that's why they are graded so low.

Naturally, this gets us back to the subject of many other posts around here around how to adjust for back damage, and people who love buying cards with back damage because they can get them on the cheap.

But I'm guessing these won't go for cheap. If we're taking shots in the dark, I'm guessing $500k+. But then again, it could go for a looooooot more.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by raulus

They pretty much all have some paper loss and/or back damage. I suspect that's why they are graded so low.

Naturally, this gets us back to the subject of many other posts around here around how to adjust for back damage, and people who love buying cards with back damage because they can get them on the cheap.

But I'm guessing these won't go for cheap. If we're taking shots in the dark, I'm guessing $500k+. But then again, it could go for a looooooot more.

I'm betting the over.