Grading discussion- Revolutionizing :) the hobby...

[Leon]

In a conversation I had yesterday, with one of my friends in the industry, I was discussing the possibility and feasibility of grading 19th century blank back cards in a different manner. It centered around exploring grading the front of the card/photo independent of back damage. Rather than net grading a card there might be greater importance on the front and photo quality. A grading company might also consider lowering a card's grade if the photo is of poor quality while the rest of the cards attributes may appear stronger. I am interested in hearing others' comments and input on whether a grading company should expand to include 20th century cards, and if they could apply the same policy to backs with printing? I am posting on the board to help cultivate some constructive dialog and gauge the interest level. This concept has a chance of succeeding if the desire and need are there?

[Matt]

Interesting discussion. To me it comes down to the purpose of the grade assigned by a TPG. I don't believe the job of the TPG is to assess the desirability of a card, but rather, to objectively identify condition issues. An ink mark is an ink mark whether it's on the front, or back of a card, and whether the card is blank backed or not. Obviously, when we go to value a card, we would value it differently if it was on the back as opposed to the front, just as we value a card of Ty Cobb differently then one of Ed Abbaticchio, but that's not the grading companies job. This division of responsibility (where the TPG is responsible for objective condition issues and the buyer is responsible for other issues effecting desirability) became blurred when the TPGs started the set registry system, where tougher/more desirable cards get a multiplier, yet no difference is made whether the card has blank ink all over the front or a stray mark on the back. Nonetheless, I believe set registries are a side-dish to the main job of a TPG and as such, would expect a TPG to evaluate all cards the same.

[Leon]

Matt,
How many times do we see a 19th century (shadow) of a player, with a high grade, and shake our heads? I understand that folks should buy the card and not the holder but doesn't it diminish the effectiveness of grading when we see a piece of cardboard with what looks like a stain on it, and it's really the player? I don't know the answer but think it's a darned good discussion to have.

[Robextend]

I don't collect OJs, but I always marvel at them when they are posted on the B/S/T or other appropriate threads because they are stunning cards. With that said, I don't understand how a card that is faded to the point where you can barely tell who it is can receive 3's and 4's from a TPG.

[Matt]

Matt,
How many times do we see a 19th century (shadow) of a player, with a high grade, and shake our heads? I understand that folks should buy the card and not the holder but doesn't it diminish the effectiveness of grading when we see a piece of cardboard with what looks like a stain on it, and it's really the player? I don't know the answer but think it's a darned good discussion to have.

Absolutely a good discussion to have. If the TPGs want to downgrade cards for being washed out, just as they do for having a crease I don't object in principle, so long as they do so for all issues equally. Practically, I think there might be two problems with it. One is it would render all grades given up to now suspect as the grading standard would be changing - it would be like the PSA half point adoption on steroids, as there your PSA 4 might be a 4.5, but there's no way it would become a 1. The second is that fading is something that can occur even once the card is slabbed, which means a card slabbed as a 7 might technically be a 3 next week if left out in the sun, though still residing in a 7 slab.
Also, as far as shaking our heads when seeing a faded card graded as a 3, IMO that's because there is a subtle mistake people are making that the grade translates into the value of the card - that two cards of the same player, one being graded a 2 and one a 4, there 4 should be worth more. As I explained above, I don't believe grading to be the only factor in determining a cards desirability, so I don't have an issue with a non-faded 2 being worth more then a faded 4.

[Robextend]

The second is that fading is something that can occur even once the card is slabbed, which means a card slabbed as a 7 might technically be a 3 next week if left out in the sun, though still residing in a 7 slab.

That is a good point I failed to take into account in my post.

[thekingofclout]

Now, I'm certainly not a card guy, but it occurred to me that with OJ's and like cards, which are basically TYPE 1 photos, maybe they should only be authenticated and skip the grading all together.

I would think that true market value would then show it's purest form...

[barrysloate]

We've had this discussion many times on the board, and the overwhelming opinion about blank backed cards, specifically Old Judges, is that none of the grading services understand how to grade them. There should be a penalty for back damage, even on a blank backed card, but it should account for only a small part of the total grade. The single most important factor on an Old Judge is the photo quality, and I don't believe this is given any consideration whatsoever in determining the final grade.

A grading company that would give bonus points for strong photo contrast, and a penalty for light photos, would be hugely popular among OJ collectors. However, if your question is could a new grading service emerge and succeed if they were willing to consider this, I would say it would be a very long shot. I think the best business model for a new emerging grading company would be to get the grade right every time- period. I know this is theoretically impossible but that should be the company's goal. I know a couple of new grading companies have emerged recently but they do nothing more than what the established companies do, only they probably do it worse. If a new company emerged that could do a much better job with both grading accurately and with detecting altered cards, I think it would have a pretty good chance of succeeding. It would be an uphill climb but it could be done.

[steve B]

I'm on the fence on this one.

Grading as it is has a lot of issues, none of them particularly solvable. But it's a decent system, so totally discarding it wouldn't make sense.

To me Ideally the grade should represent the technical state of preservation of a card "as produced". In other words, stuff like centering and print problems shouldn't count against a card. Anything beyond alteration or wear is purely an aesthetic preference.

So all the grading companes already make aesthetics part of the grade. From that standpoint I don't see any problem grading cards like Old Judges with more of a focus on the image quality. Fading should be penalised more than it seems to be, Although I do have a few technical questions about that specifically for Old Judges. - Is it really fading, or is it just poorly developed or exposed?

Perhaps a split grade? One for technical preservation, downgrading for creases, paper loss writing etc. And another grade for aestheric stuff like centering and image quality.

I know the detailed scans group got panned, but I also think that a grading company offering a premium service that included a detailed explanation of the grade would be good. Not necessarily for common or modern cards, but for the expensive or higher grade stuff it might be worthwhile to know what fault made a card an 8 rather than a 9, or what flaws made an otherwise great looking card get a mediocre grade.

For that matter split the grade 3 ways. Preservation as produced, issues created during production, and overall eye appeal. With that, we could each look at what aspect we find most important.

Steve B

[barrysloate]

And let me say I also agree with Jimmy that I think the "grading" companies should only authenticate cards and nothing more. To me the numerical grades are virtually worthless. Detecting subtle alterations is a huge asset for the hobby; assigning a numerical grade is nothing more than an opinion, and every advanced collector could render the same, or virtually same opinion that a grader could. All it takes is a little experience handling cards. But since those numbers will never disappear, then the next best solution is to get them right.

[oldjudge]

Not a major point to me one way or the other. I grade cards that I plan to dispose of (the exception rather than the rule) or those I want to protect. I think all the grading companies do a really poor job on blank backed photographic cards but there is no easy solution. Should SGC adopt a new procedure for Old Judges? If they do, what happens with all the cards that they have already graded? Collectors need to be knowledgeable and disassociate grade from value on Old Judges.
BTW, the grading companies also do a really poor job on 19th century cards without blank backs. I don't know how many Goodwin Champs that I have seen, with SCG60-80 grades, that have had some degree of paper loss on the backs. The grading companies easily see this loss on blank backed cards and reduce the grades accordingly. However, on cards with a lot of print on the backs, like Goodwin Champs, they often miss small patches of paper loss.

[oldjudge]

Barry--We both know that doing away with grades will never happen. Without registry sets PSA could close up shop.

[barrysloate]

Jay- you touched on a very good point. Is the set registry out there to help collectors, or to keep the grading services in business?

[Leon]

BTW, the point of my topic was not to propose a new grading company, but to help make the top 3 current one(s) better. I personally don't think we need another grading company but that too could be a debate for some.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I disagree to an extent with Barry. If we could view and handle cards before we bought them, and examine them with a loupe, then yes numerical grades would be irrelevant, we could grade our own. But buying online, there are many things one cannot see in a scan that a grade clues us in to.

[thekingofclout]

I disagree to an extent with Barry. If we could view and handle cards before we bought them, and examine them with a loupe, then yes numerical grades would be irrelevant, we could grade our own. But buying online, there are many things one cannot see in a scan that a grade clues us in to.

And vice versa...

[barrysloate]

Fine. Then here are some suggestions to improve what we already have:

1) Make absolutely certain that altered cards do not find their way into holders. I can't even count the number of high grade cards I've handled that were graded by one of the big three that were short. Nearly all those short cards are trimmed. Identify them the first time around and keep them out of holders.

2) Grade cards as absolutely carefully and accurately as possible. Sometimes I wonder if some percentage of cards are deliberately undergraded in the hopes of getting resubmissions. Grading can never be done perfectly but it can be a lot better than it is now. Everyone in the hobby has heard horror stories about grading: one of my favorite is a major ebay dealer told me he resubmitted a 7 because he felt it was undergraded. It came back a 6. He submitted it again and this time it came back a 5. If the same card can be a 5 or 6 or 7 on different submissions then there is a problem with the system.

3) Get a better understanding of photographic cards, especially Old Judges. Like it or not, they are different than other baseball cards. A very light card can never be a 7 no matter how sharp the corners are. Likewise, a card with a gem quality photo should never be a 1 even if an expletive is written on the back. These cards demand a little different approach and the first company that recognizes this will be ahead of the curve.

[barrysloate]

Peter- could you buy a card online if it had an adjectival grade, such as Very Good or Excellent? I'll agree that scans are not always clear enough. I just think that numbers denote a level of accuracy that does not really exist.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I can't even count the number of high grade cards I've handled that were graded by one of the big three that were short. Nearly all those short cards are trimmed.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the trade association, I could not agree more.

[Anthony S.]

Leon,

If the system ain't broke, don't fix it.

[thekingofclout]

Leon,

If the system ain't broke, don't fix it.

Nuf Ced

[barrysloate]

Allow me to pose a hypothetical situation:

Suppose a collector submits an Old Judge for grading. The characteristics of the card are it has a superb photo, nearly perfect, but has some paper loss to the back. The grading company checks it for alterations, and ultimately encapsulates it. But instead of giving it a numerical grade, it prints a label which reads: "Gem quality photo, paper loss to reverse." No number grade is assigned. I now have two questions for the board:

1) Does anyone have a problem with only this descriptive grade?
2) Can anyone come up with a numerical grade that better expresses the qualities of the card?

[Leon]

Hey Anthony,
That is certainly my point.

[Anthony S.]

Leon,

It's funny that you started this thread, because I was thinking about the exact same thing last night. The premium that some collectors are willing to put on sharp corners and a clean back on a card where you can barely even see the player in the picture never ceases to amaze me. Looking at those cards is like practicing for glaucoma.

[ullmandds]

Barry...I like that idea!

[egbeachley]

Should SGC adopt a new procedure for Old Judges? If they do, what happens with all the cards that they have already graded? Collectors need to be knowledgeable and disassociate grade from value on Old Judges.

I think that could easily be solved by identifying the scale used and prominently identifying the difference on their website.

SGC 84 - Photographic Grade Scale

But there still is the pesky problem of fading after slabbing. I think they should all be photographed upon grading and available on a website as a theft and alteration deterrent. Buyers can check....due diligence is key.

[barrysloate]

I don't think fading after slabbing is much of an issue at all. The cards are already 120 years old. How much are they going to fade over the few years they may be in collectors hands? And nobody is storing them under direct sunlight. Most will remain in safe deposit boxes or in desk drawers.

[oldjudge]

Barry is exactly right. There is a decay curve for albumen photos under artificial light. Most of the degradation of the photo occurs fairly early in the photo's life. Thereafter, the degradation is minimal.

[tiger8mush]

Allow me to pose a hypothetical situation:

... But instead of giving it a numerical grade, it prints a label which reads: "Gem quality photo, paper loss to reverse." No number grade is assigned. ...

I love that idea, and believe it should be done for all cards, not just OJs. Beckett was a step better than just a single grade when it broke down the grade to four subgrades of corners, edges, surface, and centering, but it did away with that idea a few years ago and only continues subgrades for modern cards.

A description is a lot more helpful IMO than a simple overall number.

"EX/NM corners, strong original photo, hairline surface crease at top left, 50/50 centering" is better than "VG" grade, but of course that will cost the TPGs more time, which = more $$$$

[benjulmag]

Interesting discussion. Thank you Leon for initiating it.

In deciding what factors to consider when grading blank-backed photographic cards, one should first ask what is the purpose of third-party grading. The answer to that question will determine what factors should be considered in assigning a grade to a blank-backed photographic card.

In my view, the purpose of third-party grading is to provide an objective assessment of how the market will value the card. The higher the value the market will put on the card, the higher should be the grade. Based on this purpose to third party grading, it seems irrational then to ignore factors the market will take into account in assigning value and to give great weight to factors the market cares little about. Perhaps the single most important factor the market takes into account in valuing a photographic card is photo quality. Who wouldn't prefer a photo with good definition and contrast to one that is light and blurry? So photo contrast certainly should be scrutinized as strongly as sharpness of corners, and points awarded to cards with exceptionally outstanding images, and taken away from those cards with poor photo quality. As to back damage, while not irrelevant, it is not nearly as important as photo quality because being blank-backed, there is no information or content being impacted. So whatever defects a card's verso might have, I do not feel it should have a material impact on the grade. I just don't believe the market will penalize too greatly a blank-backed card with a glue stain on the verso.

The end result is that when all relevant factors are considered and given proper weight, a card will receive a grade that will reflect its value in the market. 8's will go for more than 7's. We will not have what exists now when a 4 could sell for more than a 7. That is ludicrous, and the fact that that situation exists cannot present a more compelling argument that grading companies need to reassess the factors they consider when grading blank-backed photographic cards.

[Al C.risafulli]

I think that there are people who criticize a TPG for not being as good as they are at grading, but then suggest the TPG write a novel summarizing the card's condition is perplexing to me.

There will always be errors in grading, we will see them regularly, just as there are always errors in any sort of assembly line-type process. The difference between the two, of course, is that when Panasonic makes a bad TV, you bring it back to the store and they give you a new one, then send the defective one back to Panasonic. In the card hobby, someone gets a bad card, they post a scan of it on a message board, there's a thread about it, 15 people take a copy of it and store it in their images file, and bring it back out every time there's a new thread on the topic. Then the card goes on eBay and gets circulated around the hobby again and again and again.

To me, I'm perfectly happy with the 1-10 (or 10-100) scale, understanding that I use those numbers as a guide. When I go to the liquor store, they say that some beer magazine rated one beer an 88 and another a 92, and it turns out that I prefer the 88 because I like hoppy beer better than malty beer. I'm not ready to put the beer magazine out of business over it.

That said, here's what I think about the back damage and photo issue:

With respect to back damage, I want it reflected in the grade, even in a blank-backed card. It's part of the card. If I buy a blank-backed card and it's graded a 5, and I get it and there's a speck of paper loss on the back, I am angry. The back of a card is part of a card, and I want the card judged in its entirety.

With respect to photography, I do not understand how a faded OJ that causes severe eyestrain if you want to see whether or not the player has a mustache can grade a 5. If I have a 1965 Topps Rod Kanehl, and the registration is out of focus, that's a print defect that's reflected in the grade. An 1887 Connie Mack should, in my opinion, be similarly judged.

-Al

[barrysloate]

Al- fair analysis, but I'd like to rebut one of your points. You may not care whether a beer rates an 88 or a 92, because you will choose the one you prefer regardless. And they are both likely to cost about the same, give or take a dollar, so that doesn't matter either. No harm, no foul.

But in the world of baseball cards an 88 might sell for $1000, and a 92 might sell for $3000. So getting it exactly right is far more important. Nobody expects a grading company to be perfect every time, but we do have the right to demand a very high level of accuracy based on the great differences in a card's value. If an 88 sold, for example, for $1000, and a 92 for $1050, nobody would care what the grade was.

[Al C.risafulli]

Sure, Barry, that's a great point.

But with cards, I also have the latitude to review a card and decide whether or not it is worth paying the upcharge for the higher grade. I guess I'm not the greatest example, since there's only one issue that I collect where the numerical grade actually has any importance to me, but in that issue ('38 Goudey), I have passed on higher-grade cards that I didn't feel were worth the premium, and I have also purchased lower-grade cards that I felt were nicer than the ones in my collection.

For example, I had a Gehringer in 8 that was very nice. I now have a Gehringer in 7 that, to me, is nicer (though I agree with the grades of both of the cards).

I guess in a perfect world, all of us would give credence to the TPGs, but not at the expense of failing to use our own brains when making a purchase.

-Al

[Matthew H]

I think TPGs should continue to grade back damage accordingly regardless of issue, there are too many sellers that use nothing but the number on the slab as their description of the card.

I like the idea of having a separate grade for photo quality; however, do we really need the TPGs to tell us how nice the photo is? Photo quality seems obvious to me.

Anthony- Your Hellman is a beautiful card. If it were given a higher grade due to photo quality, it probably would have cost more. Would you really want that? :D

[barrysloate]

Al- I would be less of a stickler with regard to accuracy if there really wasn't that big of a price differential between grades. But we've all seen how the value of a card increases exponentially between a 7 and an 8, an 8 and an 8.5, an 8.5 and a 9, etc. I find it truly shocking that collectors are willing to pay these enormous premiums when the grading companies themselves can't even guarantee the accuracy of their grades. As I noted earlier, you can submit a card three times and receive three different grades. How do collectors pay such huge premiums under these conditions? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Given how subjective and often inaccurate grading is I might imagine a marketplace where a 7 sells for $100, an 8 for $110, and a 9 maybe for $120. Because who is to say that today's 8, upon resubmission, might not be tomorrow's 7?

Frankly, I find the whole thing goofy. But nobody listens to me.

[Leon]

Anthony- Your Hellman is a beautiful card. If it were given a higher grade due to photo quality, it probably would have cost more. Would you really want that? :D

It is more valuable than a card with a very light photo so why shouldn't it cost (and sell) for more? As mentioned, isn't part of the whole grading industry to help determine value? Now, since he has that card, and the potential to have a higher number could exist in a new scenario, thereby making the card worth more....my guess is Anthony (or anyone) wouldn't be against having a more valuable card. Just sayin'......Good debate so far. If anyone thinks the top 3 grading companies don't read this board then I think they are mistaking. Keep the comments, good, bad and indifferent coming. best regards

[Al C.risafulli]

why shouldn't it cost (and sell) for more? As mentioned, isn't part of the whole grading industry to help determine value?

Is it?

I don't see the grading companies adding price tags onto their flips (although one of them does publish a price guide).

That's the thing. Regardless of what the grade is, a good portion of the cards in this hobby are sold via auction, where an auctioneer determines the floor, and bidders determine the ceiling (shill bidding notwithstanding).

And yes, there are people who have chosen to pay a premium for the higher number on the flip.

But there are others - many on this board - that don't, and are more interested in paying the premium for scarcity, eye appeal, or some other variable in the equation.

-Al

[Anthony S.]

Anthony- Your Hellman is a beautiful card. If it were given a higher grade due to photo quality, it probably would have cost more. Would you really want that? :D

While I think the current system is pretty absurd, I do like the fact that alot of collectors will refrain from bidding on an otherwise aesthetically pleasing card because of a 1 (PSA) or a 10 (SGC) on a label. Unless, of course, I'm selling the card.

[smtjoy]

Interesting Thread!

My one comment is I just feel that the TGC's should grade the clarity and registration of a card. As was mentioned above they do for non vintage and modern cards, submit some 1975 topps baseball and see how they downgrade for print marks. I just dont understand why this is not considered in OJ's and others. I have no problem with the OJ above getting an SGC 10 from back damage and I want to see that repersented, I just think its a mistake for them to not take off for lack or registration. IMO the PSA 7 above should have graded much lower just based on the fact you can hardly see the player, maybe a 3 or 4.

[obcmac]

I thought about a seperate thread for this topic, but Barry mentioned one thing in particular that I've also been thinking...trimmed cards in holders. As a collector of mostly unslabbed low grade cards...it seems to me that many of the slabbed cards are trimmed. I don't think there is a slabbed collection of t206's around that has a greater average border width than my collection. So the question is...why shouldn't border width be considered? Cards are easy to trim and corners can be sharpened...but they are impossible to lengthen. Grading corners but not length does nothing but demand people trim their cards. And while we're at it, I think all auctions should be dutch auctions (where the price starts high and is lowered)...then shilling would be impossible (gasp).

Mac

[Leon]

And yes, there are people who have chosen to pay a premium for the higher number on the flip.

-Al


Exactly my point. Thanks AL...

[Ohio_Collectibles]

I think we need a new grading company that grades graded cards.... Oh wait..... nevermind.

[tiger8mush]

it seems the ploy is to get cards that are technically a low grade (i.e. paper loss on back of card) into slabs with a higher grade so they will sell for a higher price.

why should the TPG be responsible to decide the significance of the area of the paperloss with respect to the grade? So a N172 with paperloss on the back could still have a grade of NM? What if the paperloss was on the players foot? Could it stil be EX? And if it was on his face then it'd be just a Good grade? Whats a shoulder? VG? This would open up a can of worms, cuz what about M101-4s? If its a blank back vs Sporting News or Holmes Bread etc.

Paperloss is paperloss as far as a technical grade is concerned. The consumer can decide the price they are willing to pay cuz whats pleasing/detracting to one person may not be to another.

[Leon]

Paperloss is paperloss as far as a technical grade is concerned.

I sort of disagree but understand what you are saying. Paper loss on a blank back is not as significant as one with printing on it...at least I think most people, myself included, feel that way? Why should they be downgraded the same if they are different. That is most of the point of this discussion. (and photo quality)

[tiger8mush]

I totally understand what u're saying Leon, but what about blank back T206s and other blank back cards? TPGs should be TECHNICALLY assessing cards. Obviously that is just my opinion, as I can see your arguement for giving a higher grade for a card that is more pleasing to the eye.

The error is not in how TPGs grade cards (other than it should be 100% technical and therefore exact, but thats another topic), but the fact that the hobby correlates a direction relationship between a slab grade and market price. Why do we want the TPGs to dictate what should be appealing to us? Can't we be allowed to collect the card and not the slab?

Next will be pinholes. Should a NM card with a pinhole be downgraded to Poor? Well, it has eye appeal! So we'll call it EX/MT. Unless its bigger than 1/16th in diameter or near the subjects face, then its just VG.

Eye appeal is subject. Like others have said, keep things objective! Its bad enough that, like Barry said, you can submit the same card 3 times and get 3 different grades. Imagine how much it'll vary when eye appeal affects the grade!

sorry for the rant :)
Rob

[barrysloate]

Rob- with regard to Old Judges maybe the focus should be not how much paper loss there is, but why paper loss carries more weight than the quality of the photo. Even I agree paper loss on a blank backed card should cost grading points, but nothing is more important than the clarity and richness of the photo.

[barrysloate]

And to continue Rob's thought about how to handle pinholes on a card: how about dispensing with the numerical grade and simply have say "Excellent appearance-pinhole" on the label. That tells me all I need to know. A high or low number would tell me nothing.

[tiger8mush]

but nothing is more important than the clarity and richness of the photo.

good point Barry. Is it possible to technically assess the clarity and richness of a photo so that when its submitted 10 times it could get the same grade most of the time and not vary by 3 grades? If its subjective, you could get 5 graders tell you 5 different grades. Heck, some may like the pinkish looking Old Judges and give those a higher grade!

[tiger8mush]

And to continue Rob's thought about how to handle pinholes on a card: how about dispensing with the numerical grade and simply have say "Excellent appearance-pinhole" on the label. That tells me all I need to know. A high or low number would tell me nothing.

Seems similar to PSA's idea on Qualifiers. Like having a EX/MT card with a pinhole qualifier (i know, the pinhole qualifier doesn't exist, but same idea, no?). But could two pinholes get the pinhole qualifier? 3? At some point too many pinholes = excessive loss of paper and therefore lower grade, right?

[barrysloate]

Okay, I'm going to throw out another idea, and I'm borrowing it from the coin business:

As I've mentioned before I collect large cents, which are 150-220 year old copper coins. Copper generally does not hold up well over time, and a great many of the surviving coins suffer from some level of surface corrosion. The numismatic industry likewise uses numerical grades, such as Good 4, Fine 12, Very Fine 20, etc. But if a coin exhibits some corrosion the label might read "Fine Details- Corrosion." There is no numeric grade offered in this situation.

To apply this to baseball cards, maybe only cards that possess certain criteria can even qualify for a numerical grade. For example, if a card has some corner rounding and a light crease, and no other visible problems, it would qualify for a VG 3. Likewise, a sharper card with no creases might be an EX 5. However, if a card has a NR MT appearance but also a pinhole, it simply gets a "NR MT- pinhole" label and does not qualify for a number. An Old Judge with back damage could receive an "EX-MT- paper loss" label but also no number. The point is not every card necessarily would qualify for a number grade. And it would likely mean that those that did receive numbers would be more desirable (it's subjective of course) than ones that didn't.

I think in that respect the coin hobby has a better system than we do. Not every card merits a numerical grade, only those that are problem free. Cards with extraneous issues need to be treated differently. How do collectors feel about this idea?

[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:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/rareboxingcards/websize/N174%20Wilson.jpg

[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

[Rickyy]

Count me in among those that are flummoxed when the photo quality is there but the grade is downgraded when the back has damage even though their is no image...I have an OJ that has a faded photo on the front with clean back that grades higher than an Exhibit card with clean image but a paper loss on the back...a friend who is a non collector looked at them and asked me why one the grades were lower on the better looking one...I couldn't adequately explain...

[buymycards]

I think the main purpose of TPG's should be to verify authenticity and alterations. For 19th century cards only 2 grades should be necessary -
"Authentic" and "Authentic Altered" with a brief description of the alterations. As far as the other qualities of the card, we can judge for ourselves by looking at the card or the scan.

Rick

[steve B]

The whole issue of image density and fading is a very complex one. There's a good article here
http://albumen.conservation-us.org/library/monographs/reilly/chap11.html

The rest of the site is well worth reading. It's a lot more scientific than most people are used to, but I feel that some of the cards are getting to the point where their historic and monetary value is enough that a professional approach to conservation and understanding of the print is warranted. Not everyone has the means to even approach the full archival conservation that a large museum can manage, even libraries cant usually find the resources. But understanding the print will help us make better choices about handling and storage

The image density is measurable in a repeatable scientific way. So yes, if it was worthwhile a grading company could determine the image quality accurately every time. But it's also expensive, so it wouldn't make sense for most cards.

A couple points to comment on.
I might have been unclear on is the detailed grade explanation. I don't feel this is something that should be done as a standard practice by the TPG as it takes time. And it's really pointless for many cards. But I do think it should be offered as a premium service for a price that the TPG can consider profitable. Maybe on walkthrough/imediate level cards at first as a test? If a card is $7500+ and you're paying 200 for grading another say 25-50 to have the details included somehow would be worth it to some of us right?

One poster commented on grading companies not grading based on size. I can state for sure that they do reject for size even with no evidence of trimming. I've had two T206 cards rejected, one for being too short, another as miscut. The short card is short, but isn't trimmed. The other also isn't trimmed but has rough cuts showing more than typical chipping top and bottom. It's unusual enough that I believe they didn't feel comfortable calling it unaltered. I have no problem with either rejection, both seem fair. And the cards are still very nice.:) I sent them in on specials, so someday I may check to see if the short one might be done with a cutom insert. probably not, but I might ask.

Steve B

[benjulmag]

I think the main purpose of TPG's should be to verify authenticity and alterations. For 19th century cards only 2 grades should be necessary -
"Authentic" and "Authentic Altered" with a brief description of the alterations. As far as the other qualities of the card, we can judge for ourselves by looking at the card or the scan.

Rick

This may the best post yet. More than anything else third party grading is to tell one what if anything has been done to the card. At that point, each person can decide based on his/her own subjective perspective how desireable the card is and what value to put on it. In today's day and age with easy ability to view a card's image, what more is really necessary?

[E93]

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


Really, I thought you collected flips. :D

[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.

[Leon]

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 :(.

[tiger8mush]

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]

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 :(.

When I am speaking of appeal, it is NOT only immediate visual appeal that I am speaking of, but more technical condition attributes as well. I just think there needs to be a readjustment in how grading companies weight these and that the grading of N172s is a perfect example of the problem.
JimB

[barrysloate]

I know the argument against considering photo quality is that it is too subjective...but isn't the whole grading process subjective? That is part of my argument- if a grade can change upon resubmission, then there are no strict standards. Therefore, the whole process is subjective. So let a grader look at a photo, assess it, and make his call.

[E93]

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.

[Al C.risafulli]

I guess what I don't understand is this: why does there need to be a visual grade? You can see it with your EYES.

Maybe you can't see small flaws like certain types of wrinkles, bits of paper loss, slight softness of corners, paper pulls. The technical grade of a card accounts for those flaws as well as bigger ones like holes, ink, soft corners, creases, etc.

Your eyes can already see what the card looks like. What do you need a number on a flip to do that for?

I can look at a card that's a 3, and say "Man, that's an ugly 3" or "Wow, that's a gorgeous 3" and make a decision as to whether or not I want to have it in my collection. I don't need another number to tell me that.

I can look at a 3 and say "Wow, if it wasn't for that pinhole, that card would be an 8" and then make a determination as to whether or not I can overlook the pinhole, I can say "That card has all the characteristics of a 3, but the centering makes it look much better."

I can use my own eyesight to tell me whether or not I like the eye appeal of a card. Why do I need another grade to do that?

Al

[bijoem]

I'm all for it Leon.

I've said this before (I believe) - grading companies are 'paper graders'. For the most part it seems they ignore the printing quality or the photo quality. It is a shame.

Funny to see OJs with terrible photo quality get a high grade -
and funny to see other cards with terrible print quality (faded colors / color out of register, etc.) get high grades.

I would much rather the image quality (photo or printed) be considered as important as the paper quality.

How that would work in a numerical system - I have no idea.