The "technical" aspect of creasing in grading....

[YazFenway08]

hello all. Looking for some opinions/guidance, as I have very limited grading experience. I have gotten much better at evaluating centering, corners/edges and surface wear...but but the proper assignment of creasing into a final grade still eludes me.

Pictured are 8 cards that I am considering sending to SGC for evaluation...SGC primarily because at $30, given their poor condition and relative "value", it seems somewhat balanced.

7 of the 8 cards have very heavy creasing, but otherwise exhibit pretty normal wear/rouding/etc for a lower grade card...the exception is the '34 Foxx which is actually pretty nice in hand except for the pencilled initials on the front....it is presented here as a comparison tool for the other 7 cards.

I personally don't like creases but I readily acknowledge that many collectors have less aversion. I have tried to educate myself on grading standards from the various TPGs and auction/sales histories, but frankly once you get below a "3" it seems widely variable and hugely subjective...nothing groundbreaking in that statement...all "1" are not created equal.

so, my questions:

(1) how bad does a card need to be creased for it to fall over the edge from a "1" to only an "A"? It seems that the criteria for a "1" allows for it to be missing actual pieces of the card...so would a TPG really only assign an "A" to something that had been altered?

(2) It seems that "creasing" is a prevalent grading aspect of "2s", "1.5s" and "1s"...but what is the actual "weighting" or sliding scale?. Meaning, for example, the '33 Bengough is basically creased into quarters, the Ruffing and '34 Dean have multiple creases that affect their visages...while the creases on the '33 foxx, Gomez, Ruffing and Grove are prevalent but don't really affect the "picture"/eye appeal nearly as much...at least to my eye. Does that translate to the formers being "1"s and the latter "1.5"s and "2"s?

(3) Even if the '34 Foxx is a "2(mk)" and all the rest are just "1"s, am I crazy for even wanting to grade these? My thinking was this...based on some sales/auction histories of "1"s, a couple of these cards could still be worth a couple hundred bucks...making it easier to perhaps swap toward that mid-grade Diamond Star Lefty Grove i still covet...raw just seems like a bad bet on these and I am anything but a grading evangelist.

I know that was quite the ramble...Thanks in advance for any opinions

Mike

[chadeast]

I can't answer all of your questions, but as someone who is just about finished putting together a graded 1933 Goudey set, mostly SGC, I can give you my 2 cents.

Most cards with any kind of noticeable creasing get a 1.5 from SGC. And by noticeable, I mean apparent on closer inspection. I have a number of 1.5's that looked like 3s to me at first glance, until I went hunting for the crease. Your cards are way beyond that level, being clearly damaged even without close inspection. They are certainly 1's or A's, nothing higher than that (except maybe the Foxx as you noted). But there are some really nice looking 1's out there (see recent "buy the card, not the slab" thread), so I would be very careful in assuming that these cards would get anywhere close to the prices that other 1's receive. Take a look at those 1's first before you decide. I'm not sure you'll get your grading fees back in sales, you may do just as well listed them ungraded on the BST here. But you should have low expectations on their value, IMO.

EDIT: here is one of my nicer 1.5s with a crease. My Epson V330 scanner makes creases look like the Grand Canyon, so I can tell you that in person this crease is almost impossible for me to see even though I know its there.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51266581593_f579cfe64b_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2m7fCBc)https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51267129014_1cbf0707e6_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2m7irku)

[perezfan]

Given the current market and cost + wait times of professional grading, I would not bother submitting those cards. I think you will not realize enough incremental price from them to cover the cost of grading, shipping both ways, and lost time.

Without going into an in-depth breakeven analysis, that's my 2 cents. Get what you can for them in their current state, and do not invest a ton of extra money or time.

[YazFenway08]

Thanks Chad. I don’t disagree. I did a somewhat detailed look though some sales and saw some “1”s that looked like they had been run over by a lawnmower and sold for $100 and a “1” like your described with very minimal apparent creasing sell for $300, etc. ...amd then vice versa

It is possible some of what I see are not “real” sales but not sure.

I don’t have unreal expectations about value on these cards...but these lessons will be applied on cards that matter much more...

I appreciate the feedback...keep it coming

[chadeast]

Thanks Chad. I don’t disagree. I did a somewhat detailed look though some sales and saw some “1”s that looked like they had been run over by a lawnmower and sold for $100 and a “1” like your described with very minimal apparent creasing sell for $300, etc. ...amd then vice versa

It is possible some of what I see are not “real” sales but not sure.

I don’t have unreal expectations about value on these cards...but these lessons will be applied on cards that matter much more...

I appreciate the feedback...keep it coming

If you decide to grade some, the Foxx's, Grove, Dean, and I suppose Bengough are the only ones worth even considering. People list really beat up Bengoughs for crazy prices, something that defies logic yet has been going on for a long time now, so there is some value there. Just not sure if you'll get your $30 grading fee back in the sale, on the Bengough or any of these. I'm waiting for sub-$20 grading to return at SGC, hopefully not longer after PSA opens back up, so it may be worth waiting for that. Of course, I may be waiting forever :)

[YazFenway08]

the points all you guys are making are valid.

I know the PSA "auction prices realized" data is far from a perfect tool...

but if you look just back a year or so for "comps", you see PSA "1"s of the '33 Foxx in the $250-300 range, the '33 Grove in the $125 range, the '34 dean at $200, etc.

interestingly, there is a '34 Foxx "2(mk)" sold in April 2019 for $200 and I think mine is a tad better...

So even if you assume that SGC pre-war graded is trading at a discount to PSA, and you assume that all the PSA prices included the juice, I still think spending $30/card and waiting 6 weeks (?) for PSA to do their thang might make sense, especially if I also send in some no brainer cards to defray shipping expense. I know I am leaving out things in the cost analysis, but that seems like netting $100ish with modest hassle on the Foxxs which is more than I could get raw

Basically, Chad and Mark, you are right on the money (pun intended)...I might just send the Foxx's and chalk it up to educational expense

[Jcosta19]

So even if you assume that SGC pre-war graded is trading at a discount to PSA, and you assume that all the PSA prices included the juice, I still think spending $30/card and waiting 6 weeks (?) for PSA to do their thang might make sense,

Basically, Chad and Mark, you are right on the money (pun intended)...I might just send the Foxx's and chalk it up to educational expense

I assume you meant SGC to do their thing?

I just send 3 cards at the $30 level that are on their way back right now and the turn around time was 9 days (plus 3 for shipping).

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[YazFenway08]

Justin...yes, meant SGC. I had just been looking at PSA site et voila...

good to hear on your current experience with SGC turn around...This might be a relatively low risk way for me to dip my toe in water and learn a little...

[hcv123]

When it comes to A's and 1's - Eye appeal makes a world of difference and can have a significant influence on the price. So as best you can from photos be sure you are comparing apples to apples - not just looking at the number on the holder.

Something that hasn't been said, but if the Foxx with the pencil wasn't a 1 before the pencil, it almost assuredly would be with it.

Another alternative - list raw in the BST for what you believe to be fair value sitting in SGC 1 holders and see if you get any bites. You can always send to SGC and who knows maybe you move 1 or more raw.

[YazFenway08]

Thanks Howard. Understood about eye appeal and apple to apples. Not a bad idea on B/S/T...I'm just trying to get comfortable on what even I think is a fair range if I decide to sell.

a lot of this was just a way for me to learn a bit about TPG processes and self-assessment for...without any great exposure, risk or expense. I think I will include a couple of these in a batch and see...I will certainly help for the next round

these certainly aren't as nice as the '34s I bought from you on your set break last winter!

[Casey2296]

A "1" with a good crease and a "1" with a bad crease.
-

[Gorditadogg]

I think those cards are all probably 1's. I don't think any would get A's. The Grove and the 24G Foxx might be 1.5's.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[steve B]

They must have tightened up a lot on creases.

My three biggest surprises were creased.

This one presents really well in hand, nice corners but one is missing a tiny flake of surface. Less than some rounded corner 50's I saw at the time. When I asked about it the guy pointed out the tiny hardly visible crease/wrinkle about halfway up on the left side.
I'd expected much better than a 50
https://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=7483

While this one has a light crease down the center. Very typical of cards that got a little stuck in a page or were sloppily removed. If I remember it right it runs down to about shoulder height.
I'd expected a solid 30, since it's pretty nice but creased. Crease can't be any better than good right? Wrong I guess....
https://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=7872

The this one, expecting a 30 at best, rounded corners, corner crease, overall edge wear.
Nope! VG??? Ok, I can live with that.

https://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=13911

Before I made a a few submissions, I'd have said that creases always make for g-vg at best. Now I'm not so sure.

[perezfan]

That was a pretty nice "gift" from SGC, on the E97 Cy Young. If submitted today, I'd be surprised to see it grade that high. Super nice card, but also a pretty lenient grade, IMO.

[steve B]

That was a pretty nice "gift" from SGC, on the E97 Cy Young. If submitted today, I'd be surprised to see it grade that high. Super nice card, but also a pretty lenient grade, IMO.

Yeah, I was surprised. I've seen other cards graded VG with a crease, but they usually have nicer corners.

Had it done in person at a show, along with a few really easy ones. My SL blankbacks, and CB Cobb which were obviously A for the blanks and a 10 for Cobb. They did charge a bit more for Cobb and Young since the cards were better than their dollar limit.

I sort of suspect the bump was partly because I didn't balk at the extra, and every card in the small batch was really easy.

[YazFenway08]

i get the eye appeal and good crease/bad crease examples. I appreciate everyone sharing.

to my eye, this Mantle falls into the good crease category. Its actually more of a wrinkle on the lower left (facing) I think the card presents rather nicely...and I would have a hard time selling it for "1" or "2" money based on that particular crease and crease position