View Full Version : Question About Professional Grading
Archive
11-25-2007, 08:42 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Can someone explain to me lot 532 in Mastro's current auction. It's a 33 Goudey Lajoie, graded PSA 5. It's a beautiful card and I'm sure it would sell for a princely sum regardless of what number the graders at PSA stuck on it. But this cards has noticeable paper loss on the back, extending through several letters of text. To their credit, the folks at Mastro mention the paper loss. But how on earth did this card find its way into a "5" holder? Wouldn't a card like this usually come back as a "2" or maybe even a "1" on a bad day?
Archive
11-25-2007, 09:16 PM
Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>I noticed it,too.<br />VG at best with the missing paper and stain.<br />Still, a beaut, just not a 5.<br /><br />best,<br />Barry<br />
Archive
11-25-2007, 09:20 PM
Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>Paul,<br /><br />That's a pretty good question. Unfortunately, the company that graded this card usually doesn't accept responsibility for the errors that they make. Sure, people are going to say that the grading company will miss one here or there but this isn't just ANY card. It's a frigging Lajoie Goudey. I'd have hoped that they'd treat this card with a little more attention. Spend two minutes looking over the card, not 30 seconds. The following is part of the Mastro item description. Yes, they did the right thing in disclosing the flaw. Hopefully, anyone that would have bid on the card would have looked it over carefully instead of blindly bidding on the card. <br /><br /><br />All aspects of its print are legible (excepting a small number of single characters interrupted by a small area of surface paper loss and accompanied by a raised, rubber-band blemish on the reverse), and the card's eye appeal is quite favorable.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=76917&LastLotListing=Lot%20Search%20List&CurrentRow=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=76917&LastLotListing=Lot%20Search%20List&CurrentRow=1</a>
Archive
11-25-2007, 10:52 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Koteles</b><p>didnt you know that it is a "booger" AND NOT paper loss .just do not look at it with a 5x. PSA did the right thing . pffffff<br /><br />xoxo
Archive
11-26-2007, 08:26 AM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>There is already a thread running that is discussing this issue...<br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1195315460/last-1195700273/SGC" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1195315460/last-1195700273/SGC</a>
Archive
11-26-2007, 12:41 PM
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>I guess I assume that because it is a 33 Goudey Laj that PSA actually did take more time with it. I think that's a pretty good assumption, and in that case the grade is intentional and not an individual's oversight.<br /><br />I don't know if I'd go so high as a 5, but if SGC got ahold of it and gave it the usual 1.5 or 2 I think that would be a worse miss that PSA giving it a 5. Everyone agrees it's a gorgeous card - why put it in the same grade level as a high-end beater because of a minor blemish on the back?<br /><br />If this is an intentional grade then good for PSA. It might not be dead on, but it definitely plays to common sense more than SGC hammering it. <br /><br />J
Archive
11-26-2007, 04:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I agree that grading companies typically deal too harshly with minor paper loss on the reverse. I just wonder why an exception was made for this card.
Archive
11-26-2007, 09:37 PM
Posted By: <b>Larry</b><p><I agree that grading companies typically deal too harshly with minor paper loss on the reverse. I just wonder why an <exception was made for this card.<br /><br />Maybe it was submitted by one of their best customers?<br />
Archive
11-26-2007, 10:02 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"I agree that grading companies typically deal too harshly with minor paper loss on the reverse. I just wonder why an exception was made for this card."<br /><br />I am not sure that an exception was made. I have seen many PSA 5s with paper loss. This card looks like it would have otherwise been a 7. SGC is brutal on paper loss, but PSA does not seem to be. That said, a 4 might have been a more conservative grade.<br />JimB
Archive
11-27-2007, 04:20 AM
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>I agree, Jim. I'm not sure an exception was made either. I think the grade probably got at least some discussion at PSA given what card it is. (Am I being incredibly naive with that assumption? Just seems to make sense to me.) I think a 5 is generous, and also think a 4 is not at all out of line. But an SGC 30 would be more out of line (at least the way I look at grading) than the 5.<br /><br />It could have gotten the tip from 4 to 5 based on submittor. Maybe, maybe not. It's definitely a good possibility, but at least the 5 is arguable. Several here have made the argument in favor of a 5 (or at least in favor of it being close), so I guess PSA could too.<br /><br />J<br />
Archive
11-27-2007, 04:55 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>From my experience GAI is way too lax on paper loss, SGC way too harsh, and PSA hovers somewhere in the middle.<br /><br />Kind of like the Three Bears. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>