GRADING: Waddayawant?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>From the pen of Barry Sloate:<br /><br />grading October 1 2006, 4:05 PM <br /><br />Here goes- I've been thinking about this and I would like to propose some radical changes that are needed. Some will disagree, no doubt. Here goes:<br /><br />1) Grading fees are too cheap, and should be DOUBLED...no, I take that back, I think they should be TRIPLED! You heard me, but here's what you get in return- more time spent with each card, and more eyes examining it. Collectors buy a raw card for $200, pay $15 to have it slabbed, sell it for $500 and then complain the fees are too high. I say make it expensive but make absolutely sure you get it right, whatever it takes! When I see these bulk deals "send in a hundred cards and we'll only charge $6 a card" I think to myself "cheap prices, cheap service, bad results."<br /><br />2) END THE PRACTICE OF RESUBMISSION! Get it right the first time, fingerprint the card in a database, and that's it! No more playing games by resubmitting the same card again and again until you get the grade you want. That alone erodes my trust in the system. If there is no objectivity to grading then it is meaningless.<br /><br />3) I don't know the level of animosity between the big three, but they should get together and set certain grading standards that are mutually consistent. Each company currently has different standards and again it's just a game- who is the most lenient on back damage, who puts less emphasis on bad centering, etc. <br /><br />These are three suggestions, I elicit others. If things continue the way they are, the whole thing will just continue to be a bigger and bigger farce.<br /> <br /> <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Here is what I think about grading – the system currently available to the collector should remain in force unchanged. A new product should be offered to the collector. An upscale, higher end, higher cost, higher reliable, higher etc. product.<br /><br />This product should have the features described below. The subjectivity of grading should be minimized by quantification of the total card area of damage. If rounding damage is viewed differently from staining, paperloss, writing, etc. Correction factors are assigned to each measured area. But I do not see a difference. Each graded card is photographically archived to provide permanent evidence of the accuracy of the measurements made. Measurements beyond affected area assessments, such as surface gloss reflectivity, could be evaluated if deemed worthwhile.<br /><br />In addition to card assessment improvements, the new product should include improved card protection. Holders should be manufactured which do not open, and are air tight. Additionally holder materials such as polycarbonate (as used by PRO) should be evaluated to provide UV protection.<br /><br />Such a product will involve increased grader costs to actually document the two dimensional affected area measurements, and will require specialized (but not high tech) equipment. Additionally, the crack outs/resubmission market will be eliminated and new holders are an additional cost center. So, this grading product will not be applicable to low end cards. But that is what the current product is for.<br />