Grading discussion- Revolutionizing :) the hobby...

[Exhibitman]

I would perhaps like to be careful to separate the questions of valuation and grading. They should not intersect at all, as I see it. The card is what it is, regardless of what someone wants to pay for it.

When it comes to the photographic cards (and Exhibit cards) as SGC handles them (can't speak to PSA since I don't use it) I see two issues:

--First, back damage: the "yes, but" approach to OJs, Exhibits and other blank-backed cards with back damage it seems to me is already part of the discretion of the grader and is already accurately factored into the grades. I have some gloriously sharp albumen cards with back damage in SGC 20 holders and I am fine with that. As far as I am concerned, a noticeable amount of back damage = poor with a bump for exceptional front clarity being part of the grader's flexibility to perhaps a 2 but no more. Sorry, but a vg card to me means basically intact front and back with general wear. The eye appeal of a sharp OJ with album removal scars is definitely more than a typical card in the grade with overall wear and tear, but I think it is already properly reflected in the technical grades up to a 2.

--Second, photo clarity: I think there is where the real issue lies. I don't think the graders give enough weight to clarity of image on the 19th century photographic cards, on the top end; i.e., I think they give a card's corners, edges and crease-free status too much weight. I don't see a very light image as meriting more than a vg grade, even if the card is sharp and clean. That said, I have seen quite a few cards from SGC that have been graded higher than I think technically merited because of an especially sharp front. This one, for example, which has a small back wrinkle but is a 60:



[pardon my sucky scan; the card is actually a lot whiter] I think it got a grade better than technical for the great image clarity. And I agree with that approach. Where I have a bone to pick is the opposite--the weak image with sharp corners.

I guess some of it also comes down to tastes great or less filling; everyone's got a view.

Pricewise, I think the knowledgeable buyers already separate the light image cards from the sharp ones, regardless of the number on the slab. That's the way it should be--buy the card and not the holder.

[Leon]

Just to be clear, I don't personally believe in the "buy the holder" mentality, I am only making an argument that some do, so the holders need to be as accurate as possible. regards

[M's_Fan]

One BIG problem with grading a card based on photo contrast is that many 19th century cards have light contrast simply because they were taken with a lighter background, while others have better contrast only because the background and player are darker.

So to grade on this basis of contrast would have the effect of not grading the card's condition, but grading the photographer's skills. This is not the grading company's job, to rate the photographer's skill.

Also, to slab every 19th century card as "A" is a disservice because it doesn't differentiate the altered cards from the non-altered cards.

I've thought about this quite a bit but I keep coming back to this Churchill-esque conclusion: letting the market settle these disputes is the worst system, except for the all the others.

[Tim Kindler]

In mho the back really matters very little. I think the grading companies should break their grades down into a grade for the front and then a grade or qualifier for the back. I don't get hung up on back damage, staining, writing etc.. If the front is attractive and nice, then I enjoy the card, no matter what is on/ or is missing from the back. An example of this is if I could get an E98 Mathewson with a beautiful front, but has paper loss on the back and is graded a 10/1 because of it; and it is priced under $900 because of the damage....I would take those all day. Just my two-cents.
Happy Collecting and Good Discussion.
Tim Kindler

[E93]

Originally Posted by Leon

Just to be clear, I don't personally believe in the "buy the holder" mentality,

Really, I thought you collected flips.

[E93]

I am happy to see this conversation happening again. I think the grading of 19th century blank back photographic cards has been broken from the start. I agree with Corey and some others that grading should correspond to some degree to the appeal of the material attributes of the card's condition. We are lying to ourselves if we deny that that is why grading (TPG or otherwise) was ever instigated. It is a way to discuss the appeal of the card in standardized ways. That is why, generally speaking, higher grades correspond to more appeal to collectors. Understandably, this in turn corresponds to value in the marketplace. Thus, when TPGs disregard photo quality on 19th century cards, they are disregarding what is probably the most important physical quality of those cards to collectors.

Higher grades should, in general, correspond to higher appeal and value to collectors with some exceptions. If SGC 30s with stunning images regularly sell for more than SGC 70s with faded out images and that is the only significant condition issue that distinguishes them, then there is something broken in the system.

JimB

[barrysloate]

The question is which is more important: eye appeal, or a card's technical flaws? That's the debate.

[E93]

If grading of the card does not correspond to the overall appeal of the condition, then why bother? Just to gather some technical information that does not matter? It matters because it corresponds to appeal. It is hierarchical because it corresponds to appeal - the greater the appeal, the higher the grade (in theory).

How one defines appeal is where it gets a bit subjective, but the hobby seems to have some consensus on 19th century photographic issues that image quality is what is most important. How to grade that and the extent of downgrading various sorts of back damage may equate with is the topic for discussion as I understand it.
JimB

[Rob D.]

If grading is supposed to measure the "appeal" of a card and not its technical attributes, and if "appeal" is subjective to each individual collector, then why would anyone need to have a card graded in the first place?

I'm pretty sure most collectors can decide for themselves how much appeal a card holds. But a lot of those collectors aren't as comfortable spotting flaws, defects or alterations that a TPG often (but not always) will detect.

[barrysloate]

Jim- agree completely. Technical flaws should of course be considered, but eye appeal must be given great weight.