A New Idea for Grading Photographic Cards

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't see the need, people can judge photo quality for themselves?

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't see the need, people can judge photo quality for themselves?

I just got on and was going to say the same thing. And someone even mentioned that if a 3 looked like a 4 the market would take that into consideration. Sheesh!

[bcbgcbrcb]

If the criteria for this alternative grading scale is "real photos" only, other than Old Judges, are there any other cards that would fall into this category besides the ultra-rare 4 Base Hits, G & B, etc.? Off the top of my head, the one other set that I can think of is the Tatoo Orbit (self-developing) cards.

Although I agree with your thinking, Barry, that image is almost everything on these types of cards, my guess is that 95% of the time that this would come into play would be for Old Judges only.

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

If the criteria for this alternative grading scale is "real photos" only, other than Old Judges, are there any other cards that would fall into this category besides the ultra-rare 4 Base Hits, G & B, etc.? Off the top of my head, the one other set that I can think of is the Tatoo Orbit (self-developing) cards.

Although I agree with your thinking, Barry, that image is almost everything on these types of cards, my guess is that 95% of the time that this would come into play would be for Old Judges only.

Phil,

Punch, Billiken and both Aguilitas issues are photographs - highly variable in focus and quality. I am sure that most people do not care about these cards much, but it would be nice to include them if this idea ever took off (and I hope that it would).

[JamesGallo]

Great idea, but as mentioned I think some people (ie advanced and knowledable collectors) already do this. This was proven by the extremely soft price of the Wright in the Goodwin auction. It went for about half or less of what a good image in the same grade would have sold for.

I too would rather have a card with a lower grade and a stronger image. This is very similiar to a card having a nice front but a beat back, it will sell for more cause the front is nice.

As for the grading system Beckett might be the first to do this, They could use the auto grade part of the slab any just put in a photo grade instead.

I know SGC can have problems with what is put on the label and PSA seems to be all over the place, but Beckett could do it nicely and with ease.

James G

[barrysloate]

Well despite some people feeling this would not be necessary, I think that a better system for grading photographic cards is needed. We originally felt that a card in otherwise Excellent condition, but with a very light photo, might grade no higher than Good. But this was considered too radical, and something no grading service would consider. So I tried to come up with an alternative that might work better. If collectors say just leave everything as is that's fine, but I still feel that the system currently in place is a poor one.

[Leon]

Good discussion guys. We had this discussion a few times before but it seems no grading company wants to take the first step (or maybe they are just against it for any number of reasons).

Jimmy - with enough drink tickets I think anything and everything will be discussed at the Dinner .

[novakjr]

I believe that the photo quality is already considered in the psa standards.. I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think it relates to the grade the same as the photo does on standard cards.. Here's some excerpts from the psa website where picture is mentioned.

NM 7: Near Mint-"Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register"
EX-MT 6: Excellent-Mint-"Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register."
EX 5: Excellent-"Focus of picture may be slightly out-of-register."
VG 3: Very Good-"Focus may be somewhat off-register"
FR 1.5: Fair-"The picture will possibly be quite out-of-register"

Using these stages as a guide, I'd say that the PSA 5 Wright that got all of this rolling, would subjectively fall to a 3(at best) if graded properly. As far as high quality cards with a bad photo, I believe that would fall under the OF(out of focus) qualifier... I could see that card possibly getting a 5(OF).**Ignoring the possible trim**

The problem here isn't that there's not a system to take the photo quality into account. The problem is that there's been no consistency in applying the system that is already in place..

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Well despite some people feeling this would not be necessary, I think that a better system for grading photographic cards is needed. We originally felt that a card in otherwise Excellent condition, but with a very light photo, might grade no higher than Good. But this was considered too radical, and something no grading service would consider. So I tried to come up with an alternative that might work better. If collectors say just leave everything as is that's fine, but I still feel that the system currently in place is a poor one.

I like the current grading system because IMO it keeps plastic collectors away from the "low grade" cards with a nice photo. It also seems to keep alot of oj's raw. Which is the way I like to collect them. I like slabs sometimes but if its an old judge, I open it.

[barrysloate]

Matt may have come up with the best solution yet: keep 'em raw!

[Howe’s Hunter]

where is the N172 Harry Wright card/photo shown that is the starting point of this thread. I'd just like to see it, but when I type N172 Harry Wright in the search criteria, I get a want list from June, another post in April, then it jumps back to 2010. Just curious to see what started this all. Thanks.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by StuckInOmaha

where is the N172 Harry Wright card/photo shown that is the starting point of this thread. I'd just like to see it, but when I type N172 Harry Wright in the search criteria, I get a want list from June, another post in April, then it jumps back to 2010. Just curious to see what started this all. Thanks.

19th Century B/S/T section.

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by StuckInOmaha

where is the N172 Harry Wright card/photo shown that is the starting point of this thread. I'd just like to see it, but when I type N172 Harry Wright in the search criteria, I get a want list from June, another post in April, then it jumps back to 2010. Just curious to see what started this all. Thanks.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=138657

[paul]

I like the idea. But I think a major hurdle from the grading companies' wooden perspective would be the set registries. For all those millions of collectors putting together N172 or G&B sets, how would you count the photographic quality subgrade in the registry contests? I don't think the grading companies would be perceptive enough to realize this is a non issue.

[barrysloate]

Interesting point Paul, and one I hadn't considered. Perhaps for registry purposes the actual grade would be the only thing that counts. The photo quality directly impacts the value of the card, so that number would be important when it's being sold. But the registry is kind of arbitrary to begin with; it's just a way to assess and compare sets on paper. Don't think it's as important in that scenario. These are the kind of details that would still need to be worked out.

I realize theoretically the #3 set could be better than the #2 set based on photo quality, but that's life. There is only so much one can do with these numbers.

[tothrk]

I think that Wright card in question is the rare blank front/blank back combo.

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by paul

I like the idea. But I think a major hurdle from the grading companies' wooden perspective would be the set registries. For all those millions of collectors putting together N172 or G&B sets, how would you count the photographic quality subgrade in the registry contests? I don't think the grading companies would be perceptive enough to realize this is a non issue.

I don't see this as a problem. You could do a multiplier where the photo grade gets added to the card grade and gets you it's registry value.

Ie a low grade cards with a nice photos would get a higher value on the registry. They already weight the cards on the grade and the point value so this would just add another calculation to it.

Since they grade cards with both an autograph grade and a card grade there should really be no reason they can't do a card grade and a photo grade.

This same new value system could be used for autograph cards to and it would encourage cards to be resubmitted for several reasons.

Auto cards in high grade would gain even more value in a set

Lower grade auto cards would get a bump for a nice auto.

Photo cards in low grade would get a bump if they had a good photo, so it might not be as pointless to grade them to put on the registry

Can you imagine a PSA 9 card with a PSA 10 auto getting 10 or 11 registry points it really would open up a whole new world if they crossed it over.

I think this could be done with the right company and an open mind.

James G