T206Collector
05-05-2009, 04:56 AM
I was giving a lot of thought to the SGC grading scale as well as PSA's somewhat recent adoption of half-point grades. Both companies are attemtping to categorize cards in as descriptive terms as possible -- and from a business standpoint, who could blame them? More possible grades means more potential revenue, especially at the top of the scale where minute differences in cards could result in big differences in grading (elasticity of high graded cards?).
Anyway, SGC claims to have a 100-point scale, which is untrue since there are no SGC 62s, and they would get skewered if they adopted a true 100-point scale. Heck, we can hardly agree on the differences between a 60 and an 80. They have the illusion of a broad grading scale, but with PSA's half-points, they're now both selling the same product, basically.
I think the illusion goes much deeper. And since I believe the true virtues of 3d party grading are to authenticate, identify alterations and show serious hidden defects, I think I could live with a 4-point scale:
1. Mint -- any card with sharpish corners, decent centering and no creases or blemishes.
2. Excellent - adopt SGC 60/PSA 5 definition
3. Very Good - adopt SGC 40/PSA 3 definition
4. Poor-Fair - anything less than VG.
Cards would continue to run the gamut --
some will be better than others at each level, just as they are today, but you would
have to use your own judgment as to aesthetics and value.
My way obviously eliminates the "ultra high grade" approach to collecting, at least as that grade is attempted to be defined universally by an objective source. It also would obviously hurt the graders a bit in the wallet. But I think there should be smaller scales and more independent judgment. Or at least, think these principles should underly the current grading system.
Anyway, SGC claims to have a 100-point scale, which is untrue since there are no SGC 62s, and they would get skewered if they adopted a true 100-point scale. Heck, we can hardly agree on the differences between a 60 and an 80. They have the illusion of a broad grading scale, but with PSA's half-points, they're now both selling the same product, basically.
I think the illusion goes much deeper. And since I believe the true virtues of 3d party grading are to authenticate, identify alterations and show serious hidden defects, I think I could live with a 4-point scale:
1. Mint -- any card with sharpish corners, decent centering and no creases or blemishes.
2. Excellent - adopt SGC 60/PSA 5 definition
3. Very Good - adopt SGC 40/PSA 3 definition
4. Poor-Fair - anything less than VG.
Cards would continue to run the gamut --
some will be better than others at each level, just as they are today, but you would
have to use your own judgment as to aesthetics and value.
My way obviously eliminates the "ultra high grade" approach to collecting, at least as that grade is attempted to be defined universally by an objective source. It also would obviously hurt the graders a bit in the wallet. But I think there should be smaller scales and more independent judgment. Or at least, think these principles should underly the current grading system.