Grading discussion- Revolutionizing :) the hobby...

Leon · #1 11-18-2010, 06:09 PM

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 · #2 11-18-2010, 10:12 PM

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 · #3 11-18-2010, 10:29 PM

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 · #4 11-19-2010, 12:13 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 11-19-2010, 12:20 PM

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 · #6 11-19-2010, 12:43 PM

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

E93 · #7 11-19-2010, 01:00 PM

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. · #8 11-19-2010, 01:16 PM

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.

tiger8mush · #9 11-19-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

+1

E93 · #10 11-19-2010, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Of course there is subjectivity to grading. But that does not mean it is *entirely* subjective. And that does not mean a third party disinterested opinion by supposed experts in evaluating hobby standards is not something that can be appreciated by buyers and sellers.
JimB
P.S. I don't think I ever said (or thought) that grading does not, or should not, include assessment of technical attributes.

barrysloate · #11 11-19-2010, 01:17 PM

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

Leon · #12 11-19-2010, 01:54 PM

Yikes, I see a conundrum a brewin'.

Unfortunately, so far, I see great arguments on both sides of this equation. No doubt what Jim B says is true and no doubt what Al and Rob D say, is true too. Maybe we could have a technical AND a visual grade on 19th Century Photographic cards? That way we could possibly cure both issues. Heck, I am more on the fence now than I was when I started this

.

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