A New Idea for Grading Photographic Cards

[barrysloate]

The N172 Harry Wright being kicked around on another thread brought to light that the major grading companies do not grade photographic cards properly. None of them seem to understand that photo quality is among the most important characteristics in determining the card's grade. And none appear ready to change the system anytime soon. So here is what I am suggesting they consider:

On all photographic issues, such as Old Judge, Kalamazoo Bats, Yum Yum, Lone Jack, etc. continue grading the cards purely for the amount of wear exhibited, as is being done today. But add a second 5 point scale as follows:

5= superb photo quality
4= above average quality
3= quality as typically seen
2- below average quality
1= poor quality

Therefore, a card with minimal wear but poor photo quality might grade a 5-1, with the first number being the technical grade and the second one taking eye appeal into account. The market would factor this in, so that a card grading 5-5 would sell for a significant premium over one grading 5-2.

There are probably variations of this that would work as well or better, but it's really time for the labels to reflect what the card really looks like. And of course this would apply only to 19th century cards with real photos.

Opinions are welcome.

[rhettyeakley]

Not a bad idea, it's getting the grading companies to sign on that is the true hurdle. If they were to agree to it I think it would receive widespread hobby acceptance, I don't like that it would take that but in that's probably what it would take these days.

Also, I wonder what kind of premium would be attached to a pink tint OJ with anything above 2 photo quality (on your scale) !?! :D

[oldjudge]

Barry-Good idea. The grading companies could charge to regrade the cards and that would provide a revenue boost (and the incentive to do this). Cards like the Wright are truely a joke, an embarrasment to the grading company and a card that no collector in their right mind would want to own.

[HRBAKER]

Certainly some upside re-grading potential there as Jay suggests. Most likely only those cards that have a shot @ 3 or above are going to get resubmitted. Also the inverse may apply for raw cards submitted, less of the poor quality ones may be submitted moving forward with the double tier grading formula in place. I agree it would be beneficial but the reality is that only the number collectors or slab collectors really are going to buy a card with little to no image graded a "5" anyway most likely.

[barrysloate]

There is one problem I see right off the bat. If only one grading company signed on, they would get only low grade cards with a great photos resubmitted. They would never get a single one with a light photo, because of the stigma attached to the new system. Every lighter photo would be sent to the companies that did not buy into the changes. So it would turn into a kind of grading game.

No Rhett, I don't suspect any of the companies will make the change, but one can always hope.

[HRBAKER]

Barry,
That is most likely correct but maybe over time if someone were to do this then a separate "preference" if you will would set in for the double-graded cards and then the value differential would reflect that. Sort of like the difference between a PSA6 and a PSA6 OC or MC, but in reverse. In this instance the cards "with" the qualifier (the second grade) would see the growth in value making it harder eventually to move cards without it. Interesting thought you have.

[DanP]

Barry, I agree 100% with the concept. I also feel a weighted system makes sense even grading scores for centering and back damage. Why does a card receive the same penalty whether there's a paper tear on the back or the front? I know, some of you guys care as much about the back as the front so maybe not as good as example as the photo image.

1. If a weighted system were used photographic image could be 25% or more of the overall score

2. Card damage should be only 1/2 the penalty if it is on the back

3. Centering could carry more weight then say a minor softening corner

This is my grading system. I realize it won't work for most of you!

BTW, which card would you rather have?

[HRBAKER]

The one on the left, all day, all week.
To me the way that these are graded makes the number grades, regardless of TPG, almost meaningless. The photo' the thing.

[barrysloate]

Dan- all good ideas, but if we ever have any hope of getting one or more grading companies to make a change we should keep it as simple as possible. And I would give your Thompson a 4 qualifier, and the Radbourne a 1.

And this is my 4000th post. What do I win?

[edhans]

Barry,
Congratulations on your 4,000th post and a great idea. And that Thompson is only a four!? At least a 4.5, surely. :)

[barrysloate]

Ed- the first time around they will give it a 4. When submissions slow down then they'll offer the half grades. You know how it works.;)

[Matt]

But add a second 5 point scale as follows:

5= superb photo quality
4= above average quality
3= quality as typically seen
2- below average quality
1= poor quality


Barry - my concern is around the subjectivity of the criterion you mentioned. With the 10 point grading scale, we have a pretty objective definition for most grades (despite 3PG mistakes).

[barrysloate]

Matt- you are absolutely correct that there would be subjectivity, particularly for a photo that straddles two grades. But actual grading is likewise very subjective and very inconsistent. I don't believe this system would be any worse. When you have one where you can submit the same card to a grading company three times and receive three different grades, you have very few objective standards at all. Adding this photo quality assessment shouldn't make it any worse. But of course there will be some kinks to work out.

[bcbgcbrcb]

A major obstacle would then become deciding which cards are "photographic" and thus eligible for this new grading method. I'm sure that would spark as much debate as whether postcards, cabinets, cdv's, etc. are cards.

[19cbb]

Barry - my concern is around the subjectivity of the criterion you mentioned. With the 10 point grading scale, we have a pretty objective definition for most grades (despite 3PG mistakes).

Barry, great idea but have to agree with Matt on the subjectivity issue (Not saying that the current "10 point card grading scale" is objective by any means...)

[barrysloate]

Phil- I don't think it would be that hard to determine which cards are photographic. It would have to be a real photo, not a printed one. Period. I don't think that would be a big issue.

Jimmy- again, it would be subjective but so what? If a photo was assessed a 3 clarity but was closer to a 4, I don't think that would be much of a factor. We know going in eye appeal is subjective, so there would be no surprises. It's a lot better system than giving a card with a very light photo an EX-MT grade because it has square corners.

[Matthew H]

Good idea, Barry, mainly IMO because TPGs will never account for photo quality in the overall grade (like they should have all along)

I think most collectors look for photo quality first so having a second grade for eye appeal is not really necessary. I think the cards that are not visually appealing yet grade high simply get scooped up by people who think they got a great deal on a card to flip. The reality is that collectors don't want the card, only other flippers who decided to stop bidding when they felt like they could no longer triple their money.

[19cbb]

This could be a great discussion topic for the 'Net54baseball Dinner' attendees.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[egbeachley]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Zach Wheat]

The N172 Harry Wright being kicked around on another thread brought to light that the major grading companies do not grade photographic cards properly. None of them seem to understand that photo quality is among the most important characteristics in determining the card's grade. And none appear ready to change the system anytime soon. So here is what I am suggesting they consider:

On all photographic issues, such as Old Judge, Kalamazoo Bats, Yum Yum, Lone Jack, etc. continue grading the cards purely for the amount of wear exhibited, as is being done today. But add a second 5 point scale as follows:

5= superb photo quality
4= above average quality
3= quality as typically seen
2- below average quality
1= poor quality

Therefore, a card with minimal wear but poor photo quality might grade a 5-1, with the first number being the technical grade and the second one taking eye appeal into account. The market would factor this in, so that a card grading 5-5 would sell for a significant premium over one grading 5-2.

There are probably variations of this that would work as well or better, but it's really time for the labels to reflect what the card really looks like. And of course this would apply only to 19th century cards with real photos.

Opinions are welcome.

Good idea Barry. This has one of my main concerns with collecting graded N172's or other photgraphic cards. My main collecting criteria seemingly has nothing to do with grades...but how the photo looks. I think it is pointless to own a PSA 4 Graded Radbourne where you can barely make out the picture.

I don't know how else I would change your list, but it is a good start.

MWheat

[JamesGallo]

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]

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