One of the things that's wrong with the current grading system

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I know Scott Elkins' E90-1 Joe Jackson card has been discussed at length on another thread. But I thought it was worth starting a new thread to raise a different issue. <br /><br />I think this card is the poster child for what's wrong with the current grading system. (I wish I knew how to link a picture of the card here, but I don't.) The card was graded an SGC30 (good) and the consensus of the board is that under current grading standards the grade is about right.<br /><br />What struck me immediately when I looked at the card is how well preserved it looked. Imagine if you showed this card to any of your non-collector friends and asked them what they thought of its condition. I would guess that almost every one would say that it was in great shape. And imagine if you told your friends that there are EIGHT higher grades than this card earned and only ONE or TWO lower ones (depending upon your grading company of choice). I think they would be shocked. And I don't think that's because they are ignorant. I think it's because they are expressing common sense.<br /><br />Think of all the additional damage this card could have and still be a "30" or a "2". It could have three or four light creases that don't cause any color loss and still be a legitimate 30. It could have a major crease that does cause some color loss and still be a legitimate 30. It could have a small amount of writing on the back, a little paper loss on the back, or maybe even a little paper loss on the front and still be a legitimate 30.<br /><br />But according to the grading companies, all these cards are basically the same. At the high end of the grading scale, if you breathe on a 9, it might become an 8. The damage caused by your breath is considered material under today's standards. But if you take Scott's card and fold the lower left corner with all your strength (sorry, Scott), it receives the same grade it has now. That damage is not considered material.<br /><br />To me, this is simply nuts. And I think I know the main cause of this insanity. Grading companies compete with each other to be "strict" graders. And, to be strict on mid-grade cards, it has to become tougher and tougher to get a 3 or a 4. This leaves "1" and "2" as the dumping ground for cards that traditionally received a grade of VG or VG-EX. <br /><br />I guess, in the end, I don't really care if there are 8 grades higher than Scott's card. But I think there ought to be at least 8 grades lower than his card as well. The lower grades have simply become meaningless. They do not serve their purpose of providing you with reliable information about the card. I think that can only be achieved with several new lower grades. I don't care if they're fractions, negative numbers, or whatever, just as long as there's some way to distinguish between truly nice cards like Scott's and the truly beat up cards that legitimately live in "2" holders under the current system.<br /><br />Sorry for ranting and raving. But seeing such a nice card getting such a low grade because of the grading system (not because of an incompetent individual grader) just kind of set me off.<br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve yawitz</b><p>I don't think it's a problem at all. Heck, I think these discrepancies between eye appeal and third-party grade afford average collectors like myself the opportunity to pick up really cool cards within our means. There's so much variability within the lower grades that the flaw(s) responsible for a 20 or 2 or whatever might not matter on our own idiosyncratic grading scales. <br /><br />Personally, I can tolerate a pretty wide range of condition issues as long as a card's registration is crisp and its color still bold. Creases, subtle paper loss, even pinholes be damned - image is everything.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1169681651.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>In some ways, I understand completely what Paul is saying. However, I tend to agree more with Steve. The wide range within the lower grades affords me the opportunity to pick up some pretty nice looking cards that I otherwise wouldnt be able to afford. That said, I sure wish sgc had some grades eqivilent to a 2.5, 3.5 and a 4.5 (cant understand why they would have a 1.5, 5.5, etc. but no other inbetween grades for lower end cards). Here are a couple more 30s for you:<br /><br /><img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/1909-11T206CobbGreenfMedium.jpg"><img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/1909-11T206CobbBatOnfMedium.jpg"><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>What's wrong... there are soooo many things that can be changed or improved. I'm not even going to get into the subjectivity of grading because subjectivity is a persons opinion or interpretation. There are however "definites". It's like math and literature. Math is a definite, numbers are involved and there is a right answer and wrong answers. Literature may include a persons analysis/opinion of what was read so the answers may not be black and white. There is more than one correct response.<br /><br />1) Using the math analogy I have a pet peeve: CENTERING. This can be measured and it shouldn't be left to interpretation. A ratio is a ratio, what's so difficult to figure out. A ratio is DEFINED yet some of these grading companies just can't figure it out. Bottom line, if the centering doesn't meet the criteria set forth by the grading company then the grading company should not grade a card any higher than what the guidelines permit, regardless of any other attributes that the card may have. <br /><br />2) IMO it's wrong for a grading service to provide a numerical grade to any card that has a COUPON removed/cut-off. For example, I don't get how a Zeenut with the coupon cut off can be graded higher than a Zeenut with it's coupon attached. The cut Zeenut was "mutilated". What if all four corners are sharp on the Zeenut with the "coupon removed" and the two top corners of the Zeenut "with the coupon" are razor sharp but the bottom corners are a little rounded. Why not grade the Zeenut with the coupon and rounded corners a high grade because you could conceiveably cut off the coupon and have four razor sharp corners. What about people that have strip cards with large borders. They could cut the card down to the borders and then the next day submit the card for grading and get an 8 or greater because of the sharp corners (assuming that the card is in nice condition). <br /><br />I bet other collectors have their pet peeves...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Paul brings up some good points and I have always felt that in some of the mid to low grades there are just so many factors to consider. A card with general wear and several creases may get the same grade as a card with a mint front but a minute amount of paper loss on the reverse. Yet these two cards look nothing alike. The only answer would be to create even more grades and more qualifiers but at some point the system would become too cumbersome. I don't know what the right answer is. For now, I guess the current system will have to do. <br /> <br />I do believe that in time small changes will be made in the grading system. After last night's meeting Dave Forman was kind enough to give me a ride home, so we had a chance to spend a half hour discussing the hobby. One of the things I brought up was Old Judges that have superb fronts and pristine photos, but because of a bit of paper loss they get hammered. He said one of the topics they have discussed is possibly grading the fronts independently and then adding a qualifier for the back damage. I like that idea, and while there is no guarantee it will be implemented, at least the process of grading cards is not static.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave</b><p>Yesterday I was posting about grading and I think you really hit it on the head. There are improvements that can be made.<br /><br />I'd love to know more about a card than a number when I'm buying (or even selling for that matter). Especially in the lower grades.<br /><br />The number system (although it's the easiest to understand)... can also leave a card up for debate.<br /><br />That green Cobb above is a great example. The front is spectacular... but why was it graded a 30? Back damage? Hidden crease? Surely it didn't get a 30 for being O/C!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...with the current system, just how it is being used and interpreted.<br /><br />The whole point is that to see a scan is not enough. When you look at the Cobb 30, you know that it has a meaningful flaw that the scan isn't showing you, and that you have to ask some more questions. When you look at the Jackson 30, you know why it is a 30 and do not have to ask any more questions.<br /><br />Grading is there to assist you from getting duped by a good scan and/or a poor explanation of a card's condition by a dealer. Long gone are the days when a dealer can hide behind a mint looking card with a barely noticeable wrinkle and still charge a mint price for it.<br /><br />Besides, the name "Good" is enough to tell your friends that this is in good condition. Heck, one grade up is "Very Good," which you non-card collecting friends would think is about right for a slightly nicer card. The reason that there are so many tiers above Very Good is because there are so many different price points based on specific criteria that become more relevant as the condition of the card improves, though it is true that there are different kinds of "poor" cards, depending on subjective eye appeal.<br /><br />In the end, buy the card not the holder -- and use grading to your advantage to learn more about the card then the seller is willing or able to tell you.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>When I sell a card I will post the numerical grade but then add a sentence or two citing the specific flaws, or perhaps explain why I feel the card should have been graded differently. A numerical grade plus a short description is about the best we can do.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>T206/Dave - Just to answer your question/assumption about the green cobb - there is NO hidden flaw on the card (meaningful or otherwise) other than the miscut. No paperloss, no wrinkle, no crease, etc., etc. For what its worth, the same is true of the bat off.<br /><br />I happen to agree with Dave that it is grossly undergraded. Here is one more card (disclaimer - I no longer own it) for you. This one has a tiny spot of paperloss on the reverse (smaller than a pencil eraser).<br /><br /><img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/1910E93GriffithfMedium.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>Given how SGC graded my Young Portrait, either you're missing something about your Cobb or SGC is discriminating against Cobb...<br /><br /><a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c322/T206Collector/T206%20Collection/YoungPortraitSGC40.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave</b><p>It boils down to it's all a matter of opinion. Here are two PSA 2's I own. The Dessau has a glitch of glue on the back (and yes probably could be soaked off) otherwise probably a strong PSA 5 candidate. The Hoffman I still don't know how it got into a 2 holder. <br /><img src="http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l111/asphaltman76/des.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l111/asphaltman76/hof.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jeff</b><p> If a grader's only task is to grade a card based on how "good" or "nice" it looks, then his job would be so easy as to be unnecessary. The aesthetic appeal of a card and the technical grade assigned by a grader are two different critters. That's what everybody means by "buy the card, not the grade."<br /> <br /> One more point of disagreement: grading companies do not compete with each other for the title of "Most Strict." They compete for the title of "most Accurate" and "most Consistent." <br /><br /> So, if an otherwise beautiful card has paper loss or print loss on the back, it has permanently lost some of its integrity. It's not whole. It is a low grade card, no better than VG, regardless of how pretty it looks. They have to be consistent.<br /> <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave</b><p>If you showed those 2 PSA 2 t206's above to someone who had never collected a card before in their life... 10 out of 10 would pick the Dessau... yet they receive the same grade. <br /><br />Clarification is key on lower grades. <br /><br />And I still can't get over that green Cobb only being a 30... oh well. I'd buy that in a heartbeat in that holder. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I like Steve's approach, but I think it is becoming more difficult to find low-grade bargains. In the lower grades, most people do buy the card, not the holder, so the current system doesn't create an inordinate number of bargains, at least in my experience in recent years.<br /><br />I do still think that the point remains true that the lower grade numbers provide you very little information about the card. At the higher grades, if the grading is done properly, you know exactly what you are getting. You know how severe the corner wear can be, how bad the centering can be, etc. With the low grades, you know nothing. It is, like I said, a dumping ground.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dean H</b><p>Here is another 2 for ya. Why the 2? There is glue residue on the back that can only be seen when tilted under strong lighting. I need a new scan because this card is now in a SGC 2 holder. This card is what convinced me that I can collect lower grade cards and still be satisfied. Eye appeal can be outstanding when these beauties are discovered.<br /><br />Dean<br /><br /> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1169835115.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave</b><p>... on green Cobbs! Haha.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>T206 - trust me, there is nothing Im missing about the cobb. There is nothing there - even viewed under a 15x loupe. Its been downgraded due to the miscut. Based on your young - I will be resubmitting my cobb to see what happens (I bought it already slabbed).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brett</b><p>I have never sent a card in to be graded, but i've seen PSA 2 or SGC 30 cards with heavy creases... Shouldn't a card with a crease be graded a 1 ???<br /><br />When I use to check ebay a few years ago, I noticed that cards graded 2 usually just had pretty rounded corners and no creases. Cards recently I see are in terrible shape and grade a 1.5 or a 2. <br /><br />A 2 is considered "GOOD" right ? I don't find a card that has a crease through it to be in "GOOD" condition,but thats just me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave G</b><p>Different strokes for different folks......<br /><br />If I have an otherwise EX card and it has a corner crease...its certainly not just GOOD - truthfully it is a card that "would be EX but for a corner crease" And there would be many people who would be very happy to get a fine looking card with a minor problem, rather than just have a collection of "goods". In the Non sport area - generally problems are described and the buyer forms his own opinion of value accordingly.<br /><br />I've seen it mentioned a number of times on this board that overwhelming people would accept a visually attractice card with minor problems, than a dog.<br /><br />That is of course unless you absolutely must have the best in a slab <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>I agree with Fred and his assessment. One of the things that drives me crazy but which I have learned to live with is SGC's grading of otherwise ex to exmt cards which have ink writing on the backs (the backs are blank) and come back 10s or once in a while 20s. The cards are so hard to find and SGC's holders for them are superb so I keep sending them in. Mark Macrae once told me that nearly 80% of 1911 Zeenuts have writing on the backs (from tiny ink numbers which some collectors used to catalogue them to collectors writing their names on the back). It would be nice to have the cards graded SGC60 with a qualifier like MK instead of SGC 10 or 20. <br />I also like to collect caramel cards in SGC 20 or 30 which are blazers but have a tiny bit of paper loss on the back. I note from a recent thread that some collectors would rather have multiple creases or doggy corners than any back paper loss and I say to each his own. I own a green E98 Walsh which is almost identical to the highest graded one ever which belongs to Scott Mosley (also green)but it is a 10 because of paper loss. This particular card has more than tiny paper loss but I keep it because the front is so nice. So I agree that, yes, there is a world of difference between an SGC 10 which looks like it passed through someone's alimentary canal and a beauty with back paper loss...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dean H</b><p>I agree with Dave. Give me a nice looking card with a minor problem anyday. It took me a while to do it but I focus primarily on eye appeal. I was guilty of buying the slab at one time. Here is another card that I was apprehensive to buy at first. Bottom line is if you like the card then why does the grade matter as long as you feel the price is fair? But I do understand, when buying, it would be nice to have more details on a card that does not seem to fit the grade. Maybe some kind of system will form so more info will be available to a buyer.<br /><br />Dean<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1169853178.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>I got the magazine that SGC or whoever puts out periodically - this one was a few weeks ago. It included in interview/article with SGC that addressed the issue of adding half-grades, especially in the lower tiers.<br /><br />The gist of the response was that it definitely seemed like half grades would allow for more discrimination among cards, and that the window of what can be called any of the full grades is too wide. <br /><br />But the reason given for not correcting this is because there are so many cards out there in holders right now. I guess I didn't agree with that logic. Why perpetuate something that's ineffective or wrong just because there are cards graded under the current scale? Why put even more cards out there graded on current scale, just because some are out there? <br /><br />The concern was that people would want to see if their current SGC 30's and 40's could go up a half grade. Fine. So run a $3 or $4 in-holder special for anyone with a current holder, with the review limited to whether the card should increase a half grade - yes or no. Seems like that would work.<br /><br />I think it's ironic that you almost have to be more careful to ask for a scan of a low end card than a high end card. Just too much variation allowed in lower grades.<br /><br />Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric B</b><p>The solution is a 1-100 grading scale.<br /><br />The best "scale" out there may be Beckett. But it would be near impossible for a new company to do the 1-100 scale, even if it was 100% objective (done by computers) to break into the stronghold of PSA and SCG.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Dave,<br /><br />I like the contrast you chose for your PSA2 T206 cards. That speaks volumes. I just wished there was some type of industry standard that the services would follow when they grade the cards. Maybe just put AUTHENTIC on the labels and let everyone else be the judge of the condition. <br /><br /><br /><br />I very much regret missing out on a few relative bargains on cards that were deemed SGC20 or 30, PSA2. I've seen some of the most beautiful cards that were HAMMERED because of some really minor technicality. Ok, maybe minor to me is major to someone else but in the overall spectrum of it the cards were beautiful and presented well. Like several have mentioned already - I'll take those cards that present well and reside in low grade holders. Maybe that will be my mission... find the best looking 20's, 30's and 2's out there.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>I think it is clear from the examples shown and from the countless cards in my collection, that SGC is by far the toughest, often 1-2 grades <br />out of step with the other two companies (PSA and GAI). Having said that, they are probably the most consistent...just my opinion.<br /><br /> I think a lot of buyers are looking at eye appeal more than one might guess. That means the PSA name is selling at less of a premium than it used to.<br />The eye appeal factor is also evident in eBay prices for some PSA 1s lately. <br />Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Hey Fred, <br /><br />No offense, but please dont start going after the low grade beauties - I dont need the competition <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/File0783LargeMedium.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>One thing I did not mention is that apparently SGC is now grading Obaks with those blue (factory?) number stamps on the back according to the condition of the card and mentioning the back stamp on the label. At least I thought that was what I heard. For those of us who had an entire set of Obaks slabbed by SGC and routinely knocked down 2 grades each for the back number stamp, it makes you grind your teeth! PSA has rountinely graded the same cards according to the card's condition and then added an MK qualifier, one of the few times I have agreed with PSA's grading. So bottom line is an SGC 30 (good) with back stamp under the old criteria looks idential to a PSA 4 (vgex). Now the card wil be an SGC 50 with qualifier if I understand the new criteria correctly. Oh well......

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Myron</b><p>I agree with what Judge Dred said. They should just determine that the card is authentic and leave grading to the collectors.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brett</b><p>Buy the card and not the grade <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave Gimes</b><p>...."Buy the card and not the grade"<br /><br /><br />Now there is a truly wise man - and a real collector as well <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>t-205</b><p>I agree with Brett. to many ppl get wrapped up in the grade and value. instead of the card at itself. buy it for the love. majority of collectors now do it for money. its to bad...