Thoughts About A Grading Proposal

[frankbmd]

I will start by saying that I have no idea where this thread may take us, but will proceed nevertheless.

It seems that recently there has been more mention of centering as a focus of one's collection and centered cards are hence worth a preminnum over a card of similar grade that is not as well centered.

This got me to wondering about the grading process itself.

It seems clear to me that there are two distinct sets of criteria that affect the grade of a card.

First let's consider those factors related to the actual production of the card

1. Centering - In the prewar era this required alignment of the printed sheets properly and also required that the print itself was placed on the sheet accurately. Both of these were subject to human error and therefore centering of many vintage cards is less than optimal. This is therefore a production factor in the grading process.

2. Registration - This required exacting alignment of each individual sheet several times in the lithographic printing process as the colors were added to one another in multiple passes with different color inks. Another production factor that is considered in the grading process.

3. Corners - The majority of prewar cards probably completed the production process with reasonably sharp corners and edges, but some variation probably occurred. Diamond cuts where the corners vary from 90 degrees would be an example of a production factor in this category.

Second though the grading process is influenced to a great extent by what happens to a card after it is produced. A lot of things can happen to a card in 100 years.

4. Distribution factors - Tobacco stains can be related to how the cards were distributed. Polar Bear cards were distributed in tobacco pouches and were prone to this type of staining.

5. Scrapbooks were a popular method of keeping cards. Such cards can be in great condition from a production point of view, but then suffer from glue on the reverse which then may result in paper loss, either from manual removal from the scrapbook or attempted removal of residual glue from the card. Paper loss is a killer in the grading process, that completely ignores the "production" grade of the card. See where I'm going?

6. Tack holes resulted from displaying cards on bulletin boards. Sunlight can certainly result in fading and color distortions. Other factors exist in this category that affect the "post-production" grading of the cards.

7. Handling - the amount of which is favorable, but in a century, the majority of cards have been handled extensively resulting in rounded and frayed corners, wrinkles and creases, a variety of stain, marks added to cards including stamps and pen or pencil notations. All of these defects occurred well after the production process.

Beckett's grading of cards initially included sub grades for all cards:

Centering
Corners
Edges
Surface

Of these four only centering (except for trimmed cards) is exclusively a production factor in grading. All the others were subject to post-production wear and tear (I failed mention the torn card above).
The resultant sub grades therefore could be quite diverse with a card receiving an 8 for centering and 1s in the other subs in the case of a true beater.

The card itself would receive a 1 or 1.5, but not the numerical average of the four subs. I suspect because of these instances and complaints from customers, sub grades were eliminated for vintage cards years ago.

A note on trimming - some cards leave the production process centered, and some end up centered later as the result of nefarious behavior. Everyone wants the former and no one wants the later. To the extent that grading should be able to differentiate these two categories, it has benefit in preventing some folks from being duped.

I fully realize that for many if not most of the readers, I am preaching to the choir (not in the religious connotation, Leon) with all of this, but wonder if there would be any value to a split grade of vintage cards with one grade related to the production quality of the card and another grade reflecting the impact of post production issues. Clearly no grader would have access to the card as it left the production stage, but centering and registration should not change with time.
Using such a system could expand the grading of authentic and low grade cards that have tragic post production flaws on the back only. These cards could receive grades higher than authentic beaters for example.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post (but it could be longer) if I wasted your time, and I will apologize to all if this doesn't result in any discussion.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

...but wonder if there would be any value to a split grade of vintage cards with one grade related to the production quality of the card and another grade reflecting the impact of post production issues. ...

Have you been reading my posts? I have stated the same thing several times before.

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I believe the perfect grading company would give a production grade and post factory grade.

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I have said it before, but I would like to see a manufacturing grade and a post production grade. This way factory errors (miscuts, centering, alignments) would cause their own grade, and mishandling (stains, writing, creases, bad corners) would be in their own.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Next you'll be saying the Monster thread was your idea too.

[bwbc917]

It is widely suspected that Al Gore started the Monster thread.

[MetsBaseball1973]

I welcome a change in grading. Many blurry and off-center high grade cards out there. Centering and registration should weigh more. Centering and registration are also rarer on many cards than nice corners. I mean some cards I look for, a lot are for sale in even high grades, but all are badly centered.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Have you been reading my posts? I have stated the same thing several times before.

Andy, I make absolutely no claim that this is an original idea, but it just occurred to me.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Next you'll be saying the Monster thread was your idea too.

Peter, do tell, whose idea was it?

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Andy, I make absolutely no claim that this is an original idea, but it just occurred to me.

I know you didn't. I am just glad that someone else has finally said the same thing I have been promoting for a while.

[Jantz]

In my opinion Frank, it wouldn't change a single aspect for collectors.

They will all draw the line in the sand the same when it comes to their personal preference. What they are willing to accept compared to what they are not willing to accept.

[pokerplyr80]

An interesting idea, but I don't see it happening, unless enough people want it and a new grading company launches with this new philosophy.

I think they closest you'll come is the current qualified PSA grades. They do half of what you're asking for in that the numerical grade refers to post production and if it's a PD, OC, or MC the qualifier is for the factory issue.

I do wish that all companies would add the subgrades, if for nothing else than clarity on why a card received a certain grade. I would also like to see another category added for focus/registration.

[steve B]

Not a bad idea, but as others have said, a hard one to get going unless it's through an entirely new company.

And that has its own set of complications, including peoples perceptions of how a grading company should operate. Like how we all want the grading done by people who know something if not a lot about the cards so they can avoid errors in identification. BUT many also want people who have no involvement in the hobby besides grading. That's a hard enough combination to find that I think you'd have to train the people from the ground up basically giving a non-hobbyist a serious course in the details and the technical aspects of the cards.

I don't think technology is the answer, although it should be possible to automate some stuff like centering.

When grading first began, I was solidly against it for almost the same reasons stated here. To me the production issues should be entirely separated from the state of preservation. (A miscut card exactly as it came off the cutter can be mint ) But that's not what people overall have wanted.

I do think the grading process needs to be overhauled, I've said before there's no reason other than dealers desire to move a card quickly and perhaps some desire by insurance companies to limit exposure that the more expensive card should be turned around faster than a cheap one. The opposite should be true, a mid 1980's common should be graded very quickly and be less experienced people with a bit of oversight as training, while a far less common card should get a more detailed review by at least a couple people with far more knowledge. In reality, the very knowledgeable people can be very fast at least on the authentic/not authentic/altered aspects. The stamp expertiser at the international show in 2006 confirmed my thoughts about two different ones within maybe 2-3 minutes, while my thoughts had taken maybe 15-20 minutes for one and a lot longer for the other (The one I was "quick" on was real and took him under 20 seconds, the other was altered and took him longer to explain than to know exactly what it was. )

Steve B