Grading discussion- Revolutionizing :) the hobby...

barrysloate · #1 11-18-2010, 10:31 AM

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.

barrysloate · #2 11-18-2010, 10:34 AM

Peter- could you buy a card online if it had an adjectival grade, such as Very Good or Excellent? I'll agree that scans are not always clear enough. I just think that numbers denote a level of accuracy that does not really exist.

Anthony S. · #3 11-18-2010, 10:43 AM

Leon,

If the system ain't broke, don't fix it.

thekingofclout · #4 11-18-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

Leon,

If the system ain't broke, don't fix it.

Nuf Ced

barrysloate · #5 11-18-2010, 11:08 AM

Allow me to pose a hypothetical situation:

Suppose a collector submits an Old Judge for grading. The characteristics of the card are it has a superb photo, nearly perfect, but has some paper loss to the back. The grading company checks it for alterations, and ultimately encapsulates it. But instead of giving it a numerical grade, it prints a label which reads: "Gem quality photo, paper loss to reverse." No number grade is assigned. I now have two questions for the board:

1) Does anyone have a problem with only this descriptive grade?
2) Can anyone come up with a numerical grade that better expresses the qualities of the card?

tiger8mush · #6 11-18-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Allow me to pose a hypothetical situation:

... But instead of giving it a numerical grade, it prints a label which reads: "Gem quality photo, paper loss to reverse." No number grade is assigned. ...

I love that idea, and believe it should be done for all cards, not just OJs. Beckett was a step better than just a single grade when it broke down the grade to four subgrades of corners, edges, surface, and centering, but it did away with that idea a few years ago and only continues subgrades for modern cards.

A description is a lot more helpful IMO than a simple overall number.

"EX/NM corners, strong original photo, hairline surface crease at top left, 50/50 centering" is better than "VG" grade, but of course that will cost the TPGs more time, which = more $$$$

benjulmag · #7 11-18-2010, 12:56 PM

Interesting discussion. Thank you Leon for initiating it.

In deciding what factors to consider when grading blank-backed photographic cards, one should first ask what is the purpose of third-party grading. The answer to that question will determine what factors should be considered in assigning a grade to a blank-backed photographic card.

In my view, the purpose of third-party grading is to provide an objective assessment of how the market will value the card. The higher the value the market will put on the card, the higher should be the grade. Based on this purpose to third party grading, it seems irrational then to ignore factors the market will take into account in assigning value and to give great weight to factors the market cares little about. Perhaps the single most important factor the market takes into account in valuing a photographic card is photo quality. Who wouldn't prefer a photo with good definition and contrast to one that is light and blurry? So photo contrast certainly should be scrutinized as strongly as sharpness of corners, and points awarded to cards with exceptionally outstanding images, and taken away from those cards with poor photo quality. As to back damage, while not irrelevant, it is not nearly as important as photo quality because being blank-backed, there is no information or content being impacted. So whatever defects a card's verso might have, I do not feel it should have a material impact on the grade. I just don't believe the market will penalize too greatly a blank-backed card with a glue stain on the verso.

The end result is that when all relevant factors are considered and given proper weight, a card will receive a grade that will reflect its value in the market. 8's will go for more than 7's. We will not have what exists now when a 4 could sell for more than a 7. That is ludicrous, and the fact that that situation exists cannot present a more compelling argument that grading companies need to reassess the factors they consider when grading blank-backed photographic cards.

Al C.risafulli · #8 11-18-2010, 01:06 PM

I think that there are people who criticize a TPG for not being as good as they are at grading, but then suggest the TPG write a novel summarizing the card's condition is perplexing to me.

There will always be errors in grading, we will see them regularly, just as there are always errors in any sort of assembly line-type process. The difference between the two, of course, is that when Panasonic makes a bad TV, you bring it back to the store and they give you a new one, then send the defective one back to Panasonic. In the card hobby, someone gets a bad card, they post a scan of it on a message board, there's a thread about it, 15 people take a copy of it and store it in their images file, and bring it back out every time there's a new thread on the topic. Then the card goes on eBay and gets circulated around the hobby again and again and again.

To me, I'm perfectly happy with the 1-10 (or 10-100) scale, understanding that I use those numbers as a guide. When I go to the liquor store, they say that some beer magazine rated one beer an 88 and another a 92, and it turns out that I prefer the 88 because I like hoppy beer better than malty beer. I'm not ready to put the beer magazine out of business over it.

That said, here's what I think about the back damage and photo issue:

With respect to back damage, I want it reflected in the grade, even in a blank-backed card. It's part of the card. If I buy a blank-backed card and it's graded a 5, and I get it and there's a speck of paper loss on the back, I am angry. The back of a card is part of a card, and I want the card judged in its entirety.

With respect to photography, I do not understand how a faded OJ that causes severe eyestrain if you want to see whether or not the player has a mustache can grade a 5. If I have a 1965 Topps Rod Kanehl, and the registration is out of focus, that's a print defect that's reflected in the grade. An 1887 Connie Mack should, in my opinion, be similarly judged.

-Al

Leon · #9 11-18-2010, 11:08 AM

Hey Anthony,
That is certainly my point.

Anthony S. · #10 11-18-2010, 11:14 AM

Leon,

It's funny that you started this thread, because I was thinking about the exact same thing last night. The premium that some collectors are willing to put on sharp corners and a clean back on a card where you can barely even see the player in the picture never ceases to amaze me. Looking at those cards is like practicing for glaucoma.

ullmandds · #11 11-18-2010, 11:31 AM

Barry...I like that idea!

Ohio_Collectibles · #12 11-18-2010, 03:16 PM

I think we need a new grading company that grades graded cards.... Oh wait..... nevermind.

tiger8mush · #13 11-18-2010, 03:41 PM

it seems the ploy is to get cards that are technically a low grade (i.e. paper loss on back of card) into slabs with a higher grade so they will sell for a higher price.

why should the TPG be responsible to decide the significance of the area of the paperloss with respect to the grade? So a N172 with paperloss on the back could still have a grade of NM? What if the paperloss was on the players foot? Could it stil be EX? And if it was on his face then it'd be just a Good grade? Whats a shoulder? VG? This would open up a can of worms, cuz what about M101-4s? If its a blank back vs Sporting News or Holmes Bread etc.

Paperloss is paperloss as far as a technical grade is concerned. The consumer can decide the price they are willing to pay cuz whats pleasing/detracting to one person may not be to another.

Leon · #14 11-18-2010, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Paperloss is paperloss as far as a technical grade is concerned.

I sort of disagree but understand what you are saying. Paper loss on a blank back is not as significant as one with printing on it...at least I think most people, myself included, feel that way? Why should they be downgraded the same if they are different. That is most of the point of this discussion. (and photo quality)

tiger8mush · #15 11-18-2010, 04:12 PM

I totally understand what u're saying Leon, but what about blank back T206s and other blank back cards? TPGs should be TECHNICALLY assessing cards. Obviously that is just my opinion, as I can see your arguement for giving a higher grade for a card that is more pleasing to the eye.

The error is not in how TPGs grade cards (other than it should be 100% technical and therefore exact, but thats another topic), but the fact that the hobby correlates a direction relationship between a slab grade and market price. Why do we want the TPGs to dictate what should be appealing to us? Can't we be allowed to collect the card and not the slab?

Next will be pinholes. Should a NM card with a pinhole be downgraded to Poor? Well, it has eye appeal! So we'll call it EX/MT. Unless its bigger than 1/16th in diameter or near the subjects face, then its just VG.

Eye appeal is subject. Like others have said, keep things objective! Its bad enough that, like Barry said, you can submit the same card 3 times and get 3 different grades. Imagine how much it'll vary when eye appeal affects the grade!

sorry for the rant

Rob

Peter_Spaeth · #16 11-18-2010, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the trade association, I could not agree more.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The first published hobby article, 1935....noted here	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	15	07-25-2007 09:43 PM
Hobby Retrospect	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	10	02-16-2007 11:10 AM
PSA discussion	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	103	05-11-2005 01:16 PM
Objective card grading	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	29	10-15-2004 10:05 AM
New trend on E-Bay? Selling cards rejected by grading services as such.	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	08-27-2004 12:02 PM