Grading discussion- Revolutionizing :) the hobby...

[Matt]

Interesting discussion. To me it comes down to the purpose of the grade assigned by a TPG. I don't believe the job of the TPG is to assess the desirability of a card, but rather, to objectively identify condition issues. An ink mark is an ink mark whether it's on the front, or back of a card, and whether the card is blank backed or not. Obviously, when we go to value a card, we would value it differently if it was on the back as opposed to the front, just as we value a card of Ty Cobb differently then one of Ed Abbaticchio, but that's not the grading companies job. This division of responsibility (where the TPG is responsible for objective condition issues and the buyer is responsible for other issues effecting desirability) became blurred when the TPGs started the set registry system, where tougher/more desirable cards get a multiplier, yet no difference is made whether the card has blank ink all over the front or a stray mark on the back. Nonetheless, I believe set registries are a side-dish to the main job of a TPG and as such, would expect a TPG to evaluate all cards the same.

[Leon]

Matt,
How many times do we see a 19th century (shadow) of a player, with a high grade, and shake our heads? I understand that folks should buy the card and not the holder but doesn't it diminish the effectiveness of grading when we see a piece of cardboard with what looks like a stain on it, and it's really the player? I don't know the answer but think it's a darned good discussion to have.

[Robextend]

I don't collect OJs, but I always marvel at them when they are posted on the B/S/T or other appropriate threads because they are stunning cards. With that said, I don't understand how a card that is faded to the point where you can barely tell who it is can receive 3's and 4's from a TPG.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Leon

Matt,
How many times do we see a 19th century (shadow) of a player, with a high grade, and shake our heads? I understand that folks should buy the card and not the holder but doesn't it diminish the effectiveness of grading when we see a piece of cardboard with what looks like a stain on it, and it's really the player? I don't know the answer but think it's a darned good discussion to have.

Absolutely a good discussion to have. If the TPGs want to downgrade cards for being washed out, just as they do for having a crease I don't object in principle, so long as they do so for all issues equally. Practically, I think there might be two problems with it. One is it would render all grades given up to now suspect as the grading standard would be changing - it would be like the PSA half point adoption on steroids, as there your PSA 4 might be a 4.5, but there's no way it would become a 1. The second is that fading is something that can occur even once the card is slabbed, which means a card slabbed as a 7 might technically be a 3 next week if left out in the sun, though still residing in a 7 slab.
Also, as far as shaking our heads when seeing a faded card graded as a 3, IMO that's because there is a subtle mistake people are making that the grade translates into the value of the card - that two cards of the same player, one being graded a 2 and one a 4, there 4 should be worth more. As I explained above, I don't believe grading to be the only factor in determining a cards desirability, so I don't have an issue with a non-faded 2 being worth more then a faded 4.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Matt

The second is that fading is something that can occur even once the card is slabbed, which means a card slabbed as a 7 might technically be a 3 next week if left out in the sun, though still residing in a 7 slab.

That is a good point I failed to take into account in my post.

[thekingofclout]

Now, I'm certainly not a card guy, but it occurred to me that with OJ's and like cards, which are basically TYPE 1 photos, maybe they should only be authenticated and skip the grading all together.

I would think that true market value would then show it's purest form...

[barrysloate]

We've had this discussion many times on the board, and the overwhelming opinion about blank backed cards, specifically Old Judges, is that none of the grading services understand how to grade them. There should be a penalty for back damage, even on a blank backed card, but it should account for only a small part of the total grade. The single most important factor on an Old Judge is the photo quality, and I don't believe this is given any consideration whatsoever in determining the final grade.

A grading company that would give bonus points for strong photo contrast, and a penalty for light photos, would be hugely popular among OJ collectors. However, if your question is could a new grading service emerge and succeed if they were willing to consider this, I would say it would be a very long shot. I think the best business model for a new emerging grading company would be to get the grade right every time- period. I know this is theoretically impossible but that should be the company's goal. I know a couple of new grading companies have emerged recently but they do nothing more than what the established companies do, only they probably do it worse. If a new company emerged that could do a much better job with both grading accurately and with detecting altered cards, I think it would have a pretty good chance of succeeding. It would be an uphill climb but it could be done.

[oldjudge]

Not a major point to me one way or the other. I grade cards that I plan to dispose of (the exception rather than the rule) or those I want to protect. I think all the grading companies do a really poor job on blank backed photographic cards but there is no easy solution. Should SGC adopt a new procedure for Old Judges? If they do, what happens with all the cards that they have already graded? Collectors need to be knowledgeable and disassociate grade from value on Old Judges.
BTW, the grading companies also do a really poor job on 19th century cards without blank backs. I don't know how many Goodwin Champs that I have seen, with SCG60-80 grades, that have had some degree of paper loss on the backs. The grading companies easily see this loss on blank backed cards and reduce the grades accordingly. However, on cards with a lot of print on the backs, like Goodwin Champs, they often miss small patches of paper loss.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Should SGC adopt a new procedure for Old Judges? If they do, what happens with all the cards that they have already graded? Collectors need to be knowledgeable and disassociate grade from value on Old Judges.

I think that could easily be solved by identifying the scale used and prominently identifying the difference on their website.

SGC 84 - Photographic Grade Scale

But there still is the pesky problem of fading after slabbing. I think they should all be photographed upon grading and available on a website as a theft and alteration deterrent. Buyers can check....due diligence is key.

[barrysloate]

I don't think fading after slabbing is much of an issue at all. The cards are already 120 years old. How much are they going to fade over the few years they may be in collectors hands? And nobody is storing them under direct sunlight. Most will remain in safe deposit boxes or in desk drawers.

[oldjudge]

Barry is exactly right. There is a decay curve for albumen photos under artificial light. Most of the degradation of the photo occurs fairly early in the photo's life. Thereafter, the degradation is minimal.

[steve B]

I'm on the fence on this one.

Grading as it is has a lot of issues, none of them particularly solvable. But it's a decent system, so totally discarding it wouldn't make sense.

To me Ideally the grade should represent the technical state of preservation of a card "as produced". In other words, stuff like centering and print problems shouldn't count against a card. Anything beyond alteration or wear is purely an aesthetic preference.

So all the grading companes already make aesthetics part of the grade. From that standpoint I don't see any problem grading cards like Old Judges with more of a focus on the image quality. Fading should be penalised more than it seems to be, Although I do have a few technical questions about that specifically for Old Judges. - Is it really fading, or is it just poorly developed or exposed?

Perhaps a split grade? One for technical preservation, downgrading for creases, paper loss writing etc. And another grade for aestheric stuff like centering and image quality.

I know the detailed scans group got panned, but I also think that a grading company offering a premium service that included a detailed explanation of the grade would be good. Not necessarily for common or modern cards, but for the expensive or higher grade stuff it might be worthwhile to know what fault made a card an 8 rather than a 9, or what flaws made an otherwise great looking card get a mediocre grade.

For that matter split the grade 3 ways. Preservation as produced, issues created during production, and overall eye appeal. With that, we could each look at what aspect we find most important.

Steve B

[barrysloate]

And let me say I also agree with Jimmy that I think the "grading" companies should only authenticate cards and nothing more. To me the numerical grades are virtually worthless. Detecting subtle alterations is a huge asset for the hobby; assigning a numerical grade is nothing more than an opinion, and every advanced collector could render the same, or virtually same opinion that a grader could. All it takes is a little experience handling cards. But since those numbers will never disappear, then the next best solution is to get them right.

[oldjudge]

Barry--We both know that doing away with grades will never happen. Without registry sets PSA could close up shop.

[barrysloate]

Jay- you touched on a very good point. Is the set registry out there to help collectors, or to keep the grading services in business?

[Leon]

BTW, the point of my topic was not to propose a new grading company, but to help make the top 3 current one(s) better. I personally don't think we need another grading company but that too could be a debate for some.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I disagree to an extent with Barry. If we could view and handle cards before we bought them, and examine them with a loupe, then yes numerical grades would be irrelevant, we could grade our own. But buying online, there are many things one cannot see in a scan that a grade clues us in to.

[barrysloate]

Fine. Then here are some suggestions to improve what we already have:

1) Make absolutely certain that altered cards do not find their way into holders. I can't even count the number of high grade cards I've handled that were graded by one of the big three that were short. Nearly all those short cards are trimmed. Identify them the first time around and keep them out of holders.

2) Grade cards as absolutely carefully and accurately as possible. Sometimes I wonder if some percentage of cards are deliberately undergraded in the hopes of getting resubmissions. Grading can never be done perfectly but it can be a lot better than it is now. Everyone in the hobby has heard horror stories about grading: one of my favorite is a major ebay dealer told me he resubmitted a 7 because he felt it was undergraded. It came back a 6. He submitted it again and this time it came back a 5. If the same card can be a 5 or 6 or 7 on different submissions then there is a problem with the system.

3) Get a better understanding of photographic cards, especially Old Judges. Like it or not, they are different than other baseball cards. A very light card can never be a 7 no matter how sharp the corners are. Likewise, a card with a gem quality photo should never be a 1 even if an expletive is written on the back. These cards demand a little different approach and the first company that recognizes this will be ahead of the curve.