the 'stache
12-31-2012, 05:03 AM
Since I've gotten into card collecting again within the last few years, one thing that has continually frustrated me has been the variations in grading criteria.
I understand that a card printed and cut today can come out looking nearly perfect, even when examined under a magnifying glass. If it's pulled out of a pack, carefully put into a card saver, and sent off to PSA...assuming everything is properly processed on their end, that card could come back with a gem mint 10 grade.
Compare that to a 1952 Topps, printed 60 years ago. It was produced using the printing methods of the day, and the sheets were cut in a way that created edges that would not compare well to a card printed and cut today. If you were to apply modern grading criteria looking at this card, it would never be graded a 10. However, the grading companies make exceptions for vintage cards. They "artificially raise" the grades.
My question is...should they?
A 10 is supposed to represent the very highest quality a card can realize. It shouldn't really matter when the card was created. A 10 is pristine. Perfection. And when you see a 50-60 year old card graded a 9, and you hold it up next to a card printed two years ago, also graded a 9...it causes confusion. "One of these things is not like the other". A 9 is a card that many times would be graded a 10 were it not examined under magnification.
Why are there two different grading scales for modern and vintage cards? Would having just one grading scale not simplify things, and make things easier for collectors?
The most sought after post-war card is the 1952 Mickey Mantle. If the best-known example of the card were to only grade a 7.5 on the universal grading scale, would that be a bad thing? Is there some psychological need to have a card that should grade a 7.5 graded an 8, or an 8.5? Doctoring cards (repairing paper tears, soaking, recoloring, etc) is considered taboo (as it should be). Well, isn't raising a card's grade solely on when it was produced doing much the same thing?
When the card was printed should not matter, in my opinion. The methods used to create the card should not matter. If that means that some cards that were produced in baseball's "golden age" will never have a 10, a 9 or even an 8 in circulation...is that a bad thing? The market would adjust accordingly, and there would be a lot less confusion.
I understand that a card printed and cut today can come out looking nearly perfect, even when examined under a magnifying glass. If it's pulled out of a pack, carefully put into a card saver, and sent off to PSA...assuming everything is properly processed on their end, that card could come back with a gem mint 10 grade.
Compare that to a 1952 Topps, printed 60 years ago. It was produced using the printing methods of the day, and the sheets were cut in a way that created edges that would not compare well to a card printed and cut today. If you were to apply modern grading criteria looking at this card, it would never be graded a 10. However, the grading companies make exceptions for vintage cards. They "artificially raise" the grades.
My question is...should they?
A 10 is supposed to represent the very highest quality a card can realize. It shouldn't really matter when the card was created. A 10 is pristine. Perfection. And when you see a 50-60 year old card graded a 9, and you hold it up next to a card printed two years ago, also graded a 9...it causes confusion. "One of these things is not like the other". A 9 is a card that many times would be graded a 10 were it not examined under magnification.
Why are there two different grading scales for modern and vintage cards? Would having just one grading scale not simplify things, and make things easier for collectors?
The most sought after post-war card is the 1952 Mickey Mantle. If the best-known example of the card were to only grade a 7.5 on the universal grading scale, would that be a bad thing? Is there some psychological need to have a card that should grade a 7.5 graded an 8, or an 8.5? Doctoring cards (repairing paper tears, soaking, recoloring, etc) is considered taboo (as it should be). Well, isn't raising a card's grade solely on when it was produced doing much the same thing?
When the card was printed should not matter, in my opinion. The methods used to create the card should not matter. If that means that some cards that were produced in baseball's "golden age" will never have a 10, a 9 or even an 8 in circulation...is that a bad thing? The market would adjust accordingly, and there would be a lot less confusion.