View Full Version : Grading blank back cards OJ and others
Archive
08-08-2007, 06:11 PM
Posted By: <b>joe</b><p>Does anyone think grading standards should be changed to not include grading the backs of blank backed cards? Especially Old Judge cards? It would seem that cards that do not contain stats, printing, any other information on the back would matter. <br /><br /><br />Joe <br><br>Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!
Archive
08-08-2007, 06:30 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>A back is a back whether it's got something printed on it or not. They have to be treated the same for grading purposes.<br /><br />The real question with OJs and other photographic issues is should the clarity and quality of the picture be considered when grading it? I've seen SGC80s and higher with pictures you can barely see and SGC20s with stunning pictures, but get killed because of glue, tape, minor paper loss on the back. I'm sure almost every OJ collector will take the 20 over the 80 any day.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.
Archive
08-08-2007, 06:32 PM
Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Grade it all. Top, back, sides, bottom, front, corners. It is only a number.<br />Then grade it differently, such as forget the back. Then you will have another number.<br />Then grade it differently, include fading - and guess what you will have?<br />Then grade it differently ...
Archive
08-08-2007, 06:56 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Collectors all prefer Old Judges with strong photos and are usually willing to overlook other faults. Very few really care about back damage, and they will not pay a premium for a card that has a high technical grade if the photo is light.<br /><br />I think most serious Old Judge collectors, myself included, disagree with the way they are graded. There should be a policy change.
Archive
08-08-2007, 07:03 PM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>Do any of the grading companies downgrade for pink OJ's? To me that and severe fading is way more distracting than corner wear, and certainly moderate back flaws.
Archive
08-08-2007, 07:18 PM
Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>I agree with Barry that almost all serious collecctors are concerned #1 with the player image when it comes to OJ's and similar issues and are less concerned with the technical points that the grading companies focus their numerical grades on. I think the only way to change this is for the collectors who submit these cards for grading on a regular basis to continuously keep bringing it to the attention of the grading companies.
Archive
08-08-2007, 07:33 PM
Posted By: <b>Silver King</b><p>The first card I ever purchased was an OJ N172 SGC 40. I didn't know anything about grading or old judges or really anything about these old cards. I only bought the card because it was a family member. When I got the card I thought it was great that I found it but I was dissappointed because it looked faded to me. I just assumed that all cards from the set were like that. Later on I found two more authentic cards, one with pin holes and the other with a crease. These two cards are a thousand times nicer to me because you can actually make out the details in the picture. In a prior post I mentioned that perhaps there should be different numbers assigned to different categories but the bottom line is that it's still just an arbitrary number.