Grading discussion- Revolutionizing :) the hobby...

[barrysloate]

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]

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]

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.

[Rickyy]

Count me in among those that are flummoxed when the photo quality is there but the grade is downgraded when the back has damage even though their is no image...I have an OJ that has a faded photo on the front with clean back that grades higher than an Exhibit card with clean image but a paper loss on the back...a friend who is a non collector looked at them and asked me why one the grades were lower on the better looking one...I couldn't adequately explain...

[buymycards]

I think the main purpose of TPG's should be to verify authenticity and alterations. For 19th century cards only 2 grades should be necessary -
"Authentic" and "Authentic Altered" with a brief description of the alterations. As far as the other qualities of the card, we can judge for ourselves by looking at the card or the scan.

Rick

[steve B]

The whole issue of image density and fading is a very complex one. There's a good article here
http://albumen.conservation-us.org/l...ly/chap11.html

The rest of the site is well worth reading. It's a lot more scientific than most people are used to, but I feel that some of the cards are getting to the point where their historic and monetary value is enough that a professional approach to conservation and understanding of the print is warranted. Not everyone has the means to even approach the full archival conservation that a large museum can manage, even libraries cant usually find the resources. But understanding the print will help us make better choices about handling and storage

The image density is measurable in a repeatable scientific way. So yes, if it was worthwhile a grading company could determine the image quality accurately every time. But it's also expensive, so it wouldn't make sense for most cards.

A couple points to comment on.
I might have been unclear on is the detailed grade explanation. I don't feel this is something that should be done as a standard practice by the TPG as it takes time. And it's really pointless for many cards. But I do think it should be offered as a premium service for a price that the TPG can consider profitable. Maybe on walkthrough/imediate level cards at first as a test? If a card is $7500+ and you're paying 200 for grading another say 25-50 to have the details included somehow would be worth it to some of us right?

One poster commented on grading companies not grading based on size. I can state for sure that they do reject for size even with no evidence of trimming. I've had two T206 cards rejected, one for being too short, another as miscut. The short card is short, but isn't trimmed. The other also isn't trimmed but has rough cuts showing more than typical chipping top and bottom. It's unusual enough that I believe they didn't feel comfortable calling it unaltered. I have no problem with either rejection, both seem fair. And the cards are still very nice. I sent them in on specials, so someday I may check to see if the short one might be done with a cutom insert. probably not, but I might ask.

Steve B

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by buymycards

I think the main purpose of TPG's should be to verify authenticity and alterations. For 19th century cards only 2 grades should be necessary -
"Authentic" and "Authentic Altered" with a brief description of the alterations. As far as the other qualities of the card, we can judge for ourselves by looking at the card or the scan.

Rick

This may the best post yet. More than anything else third party grading is to tell one what if anything has been done to the card. At that point, each person can decide based on his/her own subjective perspective how desireable the card is and what value to put on it. In today's day and age with easy ability to view a card's image, what more is really necessary?

[Al C.risafulli]

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

[barrysloate]

Al- fair analysis, but I'd like to rebut one of your points. You may not care whether a beer rates an 88 or a 92, because you will choose the one you prefer regardless. And they are both likely to cost about the same, give or take a dollar, so that doesn't matter either. No harm, no foul.

But in the world of baseball cards an 88 might sell for $1000, and a 92 might sell for $3000. So getting it exactly right is far more important. Nobody expects a grading company to be perfect every time, but we do have the right to demand a very high level of accuracy based on the great differences in a card's value. If an 88 sold, for example, for $1000, and a 92 for $1050, nobody would care what the grade was.

[Al C.risafulli]

Sure, Barry, that's a great point.

But with cards, I also have the latitude to review a card and decide whether or not it is worth paying the upcharge for the higher grade. I guess I'm not the greatest example, since there's only one issue that I collect where the numerical grade actually has any importance to me, but in that issue ('38 Goudey), I have passed on higher-grade cards that I didn't feel were worth the premium, and I have also purchased lower-grade cards that I felt were nicer than the ones in my collection.

For example, I had a Gehringer in 8 that was very nice. I now have a Gehringer in 7 that, to me, is nicer (though I agree with the grades of both of the cards).

I guess in a perfect world, all of us would give credence to the TPGs, but not at the expense of failing to use our own brains when making a purchase.

-Al

[Matthew H]

I think TPGs should continue to grade back damage accordingly regardless of issue, there are too many sellers that use nothing but the number on the slab as their description of the card.

I like the idea of having a separate grade for photo quality; however, do we really need the TPGs to tell us how nice the photo is? Photo quality seems obvious to me.

Anthony- Your Hellman is a beautiful card. If it were given a higher grade due to photo quality, it probably would have cost more. Would you really want that?

[barrysloate]

Al- I would be less of a stickler with regard to accuracy if there really wasn't that big of a price differential between grades. But we've all seen how the value of a card increases exponentially between a 7 and an 8, an 8 and an 8.5, an 8.5 and a 9, etc. I find it truly shocking that collectors are willing to pay these enormous premiums when the grading companies themselves can't even guarantee the accuracy of their grades. As I noted earlier, you can submit a card three times and receive three different grades. How do collectors pay such huge premiums under these conditions? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Given how subjective and often inaccurate grading is I might imagine a marketplace where a 7 sells for $100, an 8 for $110, and a 9 maybe for $120. Because who is to say that today's 8, upon resubmission, might not be tomorrow's 7?

Frankly, I find the whole thing goofy. But nobody listens to me.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Anthony- Your Hellman is a beautiful card. If it were given a higher grade due to photo quality, it probably would have cost more. Would you really want that?

It is more valuable than a card with a very light photo so why shouldn't it cost (and sell) for more? As mentioned, isn't part of the whole grading industry to help determine value? Now, since he has that card, and the potential to have a higher number could exist in a new scenario, thereby making the card worth more....my guess is Anthony (or anyone) wouldn't be against having a more valuable card. Just sayin'......Good debate so far. If anyone thinks the top 3 grading companies don't read this board then I think they are mistaking. Keep the comments, good, bad and indifferent coming. best regards

[Al C.risafulli]

why shouldn't it cost (and sell) for more? As mentioned, isn't part of the whole grading industry to help determine value?

Is it?

I don't see the grading companies adding price tags onto their flips (although one of them does publish a price guide).

That's the thing. Regardless of what the grade is, a good portion of the cards in this hobby are sold via auction, where an auctioneer determines the floor, and bidders determine the ceiling (shill bidding notwithstanding).

And yes, there are people who have chosen to pay a premium for the higher number on the flip.

But there are others - many on this board - that don't, and are more interested in paying the premium for scarcity, eye appeal, or some other variable in the equation.

-Al

[smtjoy]

Interesting Thread!

My one comment is I just feel that the TGC's should grade the clarity and registration of a card. As was mentioned above they do for non vintage and modern cards, submit some 1975 topps baseball and see how they downgrade for print marks. I just dont understand why this is not considered in OJ's and others. I have no problem with the OJ above getting an SGC 10 from back damage and I want to see that repersented, I just think its a mistake for them to not take off for lack or registration. IMO the PSA 7 above should have graded much lower just based on the fact you can hardly see the player, maybe a 3 or 4.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

And yes, there are people who have chosen to pay a premium for the higher number on the flip.

-Al

Exactly my point. Thanks AL...

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Anthony- Your Hellman is a beautiful card. If it were given a higher grade due to photo quality, it probably would have cost more. Would you really want that?

While I think the current system is pretty absurd, I do like the fact that alot of collectors will refrain from bidding on an otherwise aesthetically pleasing card because of a 1 (PSA) or a 10 (SGC) on a label. Unless, of course, I'm selling the card.