|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
On a recent thread we discussed the harsh way the grading services treat a little back damage on blank backed cards, and how it was time for them to reconsider the process. Here's an new idea I want to suggest: Suppose you submitted two Old Judges in identical condition, and each was worthy of a VG-EX 4 holder. However, one had a pristine rich photo, as perfect as they come, and the other had a light, blurry and unattractive one. I say the strong photo should be rewarded and bumped up one grade to an EX 5, and the blurry one penalized a grade and given a VG 3. In the real marketplace, the clearer one will sell for nearly twice the other, so why not reflect that distinction in the grade? I think it's time for photo quality to be given strong consideration when assigning a grade. What do others think? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
In fact, I would bump up the one with the great photo 2 or 3 grades!! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
I was kind of thinking that too, but it depends on just how rich the photo is. The first step is for the grading service to acknowledge the importance of photo quality; how they set their parameters would then follow. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Joe Jones
I think that they do take into consideration how pleasing the card is to the eyes. But I agree. Maybe it should have a number attatched to it like corners 7, edges 7, centering 6, surface 5, photo quality 7. And then average the total. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Chris Mc
I agree, blank back cards should not carry the same grading scale. If there is a piece of tape on the back or some small paper loss, I doesn't bother me too much. If it causes damage to the front, it's a different story. Maybe it can be noted like psa notes a mark (mk), say (bd)Back damage. My thoughts, o.k. let the poo poo fly. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Richard Masson
If you start deviating in grade assignments based on subjective factors, you are asking for trouble and even more inconsistency down the road. Grading services 1)verify the card hasn't been tampered with, 2)verify that it is genuine and 3)assign a grade based on objective technical criteria. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
Richard- fair analysis, but grading is an evolving art, so why not consider eye appeal in grading the card. Why only technical criteria? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Richard Masson
Only technical factors should be considered because the grade is supposed to be objective. If grading were subjective, we'd be right back where we started without any consistency. Kit Young, Mike Wheat, Larry Fritsch and Lew Lipset all have a different idea of what a VG card is. So do I. One man's Ex is another man's NM-. The art is picking cards to collect that are the best looking cards, not necessarily the highest numbered plastic. That's why I have to laugh when it comes down to obsessing about the difference between a 7, 8, 9 or 10 and the resulting price differences. They all look nice to me. In some cases, a 6 can be just as nice or even better that these other grades if the picture is perfectly calibrated and centered. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Joe Jones
If I recall the last time I read the GAI Guidelines for grading, they first consider eye appeal when grading a card. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
"Buy the card, not the holder" is a great aphorism but in the real world I think more people buy the holder. If you didn't take photo quality into grading consideration, a 30 with a strong photo would sell for more than a 40 with a weak one, and if that is the case, there is a flaw in the grading system. Grading is really only an opinion in the end, so why not add eye appeal into the mix? Diamonds and pearls are graded using technical criteria but you better believe eye appeal is part of the mix. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Richard Masson
Eye appeal definitely does not factor into the grading of diamonds and pearls. There is an objective measurement of clarity and brilliance which can be measured. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
Doesn't clarity and brilliance fall under the category of eye appeal? How objectively can you measure something like that? Yes, I would take the card with the Ex front and a tiny bit of back damage vs. the creased card. But if I had two VG-EX Old Judges and one had a much better photo, I would take it. So if I can make that judgment myself, why can't people who are paid to grade cards make the same judgments too, with some set of predetermined rules as their guide (hey, we're both sticking to our guns pretty well- good thing we are friends)? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
To add to my previous post- I still maintain that grading is still in the process of evolving. Think about the way cards were graded fifteen years ago vs. how they are graded today- there's no comparison. It's likewise reasonable to assume that five years from now, further modifications will be implemented. I say starting with photo quality is as good a place as any. More changes are on their way, too. To stay competitive, the grading services must stay on the cutting edge (no, not the trimming edge). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
If there are objective criteria for corner wear and creases, why can't there be the same for photo contrast and resolution? I simply don't agree with the view that evaluating corner wear and creases is an objective evaluation but evaluating photo contrast and resolution is unnecessarily subjective. It seems to me that in the end, the grade for the card should reflect some reasonable determination of how a knowledgable collector would rate the card. If I owned a grading company, I would announce my grading criteria and objectives and let the market decide how much they agree with my factors and my weighting of each. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
I will concede there are in fact many levels of photo quality. Corey and I usually discuss photos using a scale of 1 to 10- with ten being perfect clarity and one the other extreme. Admittedly, that would be a complicated evaluating process but all problems have solutions and it is up to the grading companies to find a way to handle it. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Richard Masson
Photo clarity and contrast is only an issue with these certain 19th century issues (and maybe Topps magic photos). |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Richard Masson
Vintage cards are not a commodity. Each card is unique. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Kevin Cummings
I responded in a similar fashion in the thread about mismatched fronts and backs. I believe these things we all collect are intended to be pictures first, some of which happen to be supplemented with printed information on the rear. If you accept the premise that these are really picture cards, then the quality of the picture ought to weigh into the grade regardless of whether there is any printing on the back. As long as we would be talking objective criteria only (dark versus light; in focus versus out of focus) it seems to make perfect sense to me to take the quality of the picture into account. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
Richard- you may be on to something. Maybe an Old Judge needs a grade that reflects wear and a second designation indicating photo quality, since the photo is the single most important characteristic of the card. Of course, you could take this a step further and ask does a T206 need a second designation for richnesss of color? Who knows, perhaps that is the future of grading. I brought this lively discussion up because I have seen too many OJ's graded 60 and 70, sometimes even 80, with photos so light it is difficult to make out details. That to me is not a satisfactory evaluation. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Richard Masson
An interesting and spirited discussion on the board, free of insults and innuendo. Cool. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
The photo on an Old Judge is its single most important characteristic; paper loss on the reverse may be among its least important. There is no comparison. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
I agree- a lively debate without any name calling. Network54 at its best. I'm packing it in for the night. I'll check further in the morning. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Richard Masson
Barry, I agree with your assessment. I, too, am surprised to see high grade Old Judges where you can't even read the name (but boy are those corners sharp!). |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: leon
I too think that there needs to be a way to judge a 19th century card, especially ones with blanks backs, with more weight given to the front than the back. This N690 photo is one of the best I've seen on a 19th century card. I hear there was a group of 3 that had pics like this. It's only graded an SGC 60, I guess due to corner wear. The photo is mint though, imo. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Julie Vognar
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
It has been said that one should buy the card, not the holder. It has also been said that card grading is an evolving art. I agree with both of these statements. It seems to me that because the grade of a card should reflect the overall collector assessment of the card's condition, buying the card should equate to buying the holder. The fact that in my view it clearly doesn't in the case of 19th century photographic blank-backed cards suggests that the grading criteria needs some serious reevaluation. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Matt Goebel
Barry, great idea for a thread and I am curious to hear everyone's opinion. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Matt Goebel
I was also going to mention that I own the Boston Kalamazoo Bats team card from the same group, and although it grades "only" an SGC 50 it is one of the most crisp and clear images imaginable. I am mesmerized by it every time I look at it. How that could not effect the value I don't know. I'm sure you love yours as much as I love mine. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Jerry Spillman
Increasing and decreasing the grade of a card for picture quality would likely generate more disagreements. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: davidcycleback
For photos I give two grades, one for the physical photo (wrinkles, edges, stains, etc) and one for the clarity of the image. 'Cyrstal clear' or 'mint' is highest description for the image. I don't know how I would combine the two grades into one, and don't try. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Kevin Cummings
I think David has hit upon the solution - we are getting all contorted trying to force two things into one. Why not give each card two grades - picture quality and card condition? That concept is no different than assiging grades to individual components - corners, surface, etc. There's just no need to try to come up with a single overall grade. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
Whether the photo quality is factored into the single overall grade or instead made a grade into itself, to me either way works. The point is that photo quality should be a significant aspect of the card's grade and it is not under the current grading system. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
Through discussion I think we have all come up with a reasonable solution: in cases where the card possesses a real photograph, perhaps a type of qualifier along with a physical grade would be extremely useful, and each collector could determine what importance he wants to place on the quality of the image. Leon's Kalamazoo Bat is a perfect example of a card that should grade SGC-100; but the fact is that would be leaving out some natural wear visible on the card. All I am saying is we have seen all the major grading services make changes over the years (did the AUTH category even exist a couple of years ago?) so here is another issue to discuss the next time they sit down to evaluate how to improve their product. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Jay Miller
Very interesting thread. I've thought about this issue too and I have a slightly different take. While it would be useful to have a set of grades for photographic cards I believe grading companies would be reluctant to do this because this would compromise their registry set calculations which rely on one grade per card. If I might I would like to suggest a different solution which I think incorporates what has been suggested so far. Going forward each cards grade would be a function of either two or three numbers depending if it were a photographic card or not. The numbers would be a front grade, a back grade and a photo clarity grade(if photographic). The card's aggregate grade would be a weighted average of the three. The weighting factors would differ from series to series and would be stored in the grading company computer. The grader would simply grade the factors for the particular card, type these resulting grades into the computer, and then have the card's aggregate grade calculated. Therefore, for example, say for an Old Judge card the grading company assigned weightings of 30% front, 10% back and 60% photo clarity. The grader looking at a particular Old Judge assigned grades of 6 front, 1 back(damage) and 8 photo clarity. The cards aggregate grade would be 6.7 which could be rounded to a 7 and this aggregate grade would be displayed on the holder and used for regisrty purposes. For T206s the front/back weighting factor could be 65% front, 35% back, for example. This system would reflect what is important about each issue while still arriving at one grade per card. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
Jay- That's an interesting point. Not only would it complicate the set registry based on various weighted factors, but I think your set is also weighted based on whether your Anson and Kelly are your highest graded cards or if it is instead your Smith and Jones. It would begin to get immensely complicated, almost like trying to figure out a quarterback rating (does anybody know how that works?) It's a pity to penalize the card because of the registry but you are correct that this would be a logistical nightmare. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Larry
The most abhorrent part of grading is the lack of weighing the front against a blank back card...Old Judges are a perfect example...I have an old judge rare HOFer that SGC gave a 20 although it has image quality, corners and visual appeal of a 60...There was a pencil name on the back that was erased at one time and because of this it was downgraded..If SGC is to rise above PSA, they should set the trends and change their overly conservative approach to this..I have in my possession a card that is rare that has a small paper tear on back where there is print, the tear is not in the printing area and that card with a strong front got an SGC 50, where is the consistancy...? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
Larry- I think we are unanimous in that SGC is too harsh on cards with a little bit of back damage- are they listening?- and that's an area they need to address. However, you mentioned you had a card that was really rare but had a tear- I don't think rarity should have any influence over a grade at all. A T206 Wagner and a T206 common must meet the same standards, except that hopefully they will spend some extra time examining the more valuable card. That in theory is why you pay more to get a high value card graded, so that they are compensated for the extra effort that goes into getting it right and for getting it back to you quickly. We all hope that is where our extra fees are going. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Bruce Babcock
Jay's idea make a lot of sense. We've all seen PSA 6 Old Judges where the player is barely visible. This would never be acceptable in an Ichiro rookie card. We've all seen Old Judges with glue stains and slight paper loss but this can hardly be compared to the equivalent damage to Stan Musial's last Topps card with all of his career stats. The notion of averaging the front and back grades as one would with a coin makes no sense with a blank back card. I'm personally not even too fussy about cards with the same backs, like N28s. The very fact that many of these early cards were glued into albums is why they have survived with beautiful fronts. Collectors today would never do this today. Grading standards need to take collecting habits of the various eras into account in some way or other. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: jay behrens
I've always thought SGC should actually make full use of it's 100 point scale. Break the tech stuff down to corners, centering, register (which can also include photo clarity), back, surface/edges. Give the 5 areas a grade from 1-20 and you get a score from 5-100. I love Jay M's idea of weight various areas depending on the set. I also think the grading companies should be giving back a report on the cards they grade so that when you get your cards back you can understand why your card got the grade it did. Sometime, you look at a card and wonder if they just spun a wheel and gave it a grade. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Paul
This has been a very interesting thread, and hopefully will be product. I just wanted to add one thought. Though the problem of poor picture quality is at its peak with photographic cards, it is not unique to photographic cards. Your run of the mill 1958 Topps card might have horrible registration, which, to me at least, is a similar problem that should have a similar effect on the grade. So, I would take Jay's idea of front, back, and photo quality grades and apply it to all cards. The weight given to photo quality might be greater for photographic cards, but an out-of-register Topps card should take a hit as well. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
All these suggestions are great and food for thought but if we expect too much out of them, such as a report as Jay suggested, then be prepared to pay a lot more to have your cards graded. One thing I give the grading companies credit for is charging what is really a nominal fee for what is a very important service. You don't want to find yourself paying $40 to have each Old Judge common graded because someone has to send an analysis and add five extra steps to the grading process. Maybe there is some middle ground where they are a little more accurate but don't have to double the time they spend with each submission. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: identify7
At one time, I felt that a revamping of the grading systems employed by the major services was desireable. My current thinking is to take advantage of the inadequacies (as I see them) in the system and purchase cards which have been downgraded for reasons which I do not care about. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Patrick McHugh
Alot of great ideas and thoughts! How about front of card grade, back of card grade. Front of card looks 6 back of card has minor paper loss 2. Average = 4, as opposed to the standard 2. The way grading is now is very easy for everyone to understand. It must be kept simple and yet evolve and be fair.Great thread. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Jay Miller
Barry--I never suggested a report. What I suggested is probably what the grading companies do right now, assess the card's front back and clarity. The only step I added is that they weigh these metrics differently for different issues. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: jay behrens
Providing a basic report of the card grade shouldn't be that big of a burden. There has to be some sort of notes taken when grading the cards. Why not just pass those notes along? The extra cost involved should only be a couple of dollars. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: jay behrens
Jay, there are two of us responding in the thread. He was refering to me. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth
The Importance of Eye-Appeal and Subjectivity in Grading |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
I believe it was Jay Behrens who suggested the report, not Miller. Should have included last name. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: barrysloate
Greg touched on an interesting point and that is "what is the market demanding." I don't think you want to turn the marketplace into too much of a democracy because then the grading companies will be bombarded with a hundred different and often contradictory opinions, and that would not work. But the harsh way they grade back damage on blank backed cards and their virtual indifference to photo quality, or in the case of Topps cards aspects of print quality, are almost universally begging for change and I think that would make for an excellent starting point. Grading will ultimately become more precise and the process more complicated, but you don't want it to become so complicated that nobody understands it. Coins are graded on eleven different levels of Uncirculated, from MS-60 to MS-70. How many people in the world can distinguish eleven different shades of the same general condition? It's just too complicated. Grading cards hopefully won't get that bogged down. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
new idea for grading
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
While perhaps in regard to post-war cards PSA's grading standards adequately address the concerns raised in this thread, it seems to me that these standards are woefully inadequate for "N" cards. There are simply too many instances where "buying the card not the holder" results in absurdities-collectors having strong preferences for PSA 2s or 3s over PSA 5s or 6s (or for that matter even 7s and 8s). That simply shouldn't be the case with a grading system which adequately takes into account collector preferences, which in the end is what I thought a grade is supposed to reflect. As many posters on this thread have remarked, many of us hope that the grading services will take these concerns into account and revamp its way of grading blank-backed photographic "N" cards. When and if that happens, whichever service does it first will in my view be the grading service of preference for 19th century card collectors. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Any idea what this is? | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 4 | 01-21-2009 05:52 AM |
Any idea what this is? | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 7 | 08-20-2008 06:10 PM |
Any Idea What Happened to.............. | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 1 | 10-16-2007 11:42 AM |
Any idea on how to | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 0 | 03-06-2004 05:52 AM |
Cool idea....but | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 01-21-2003 12:55 PM |