To paraphrase a statement made by Jack H. Robinson, in print, in 1991:
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>How many times have you observed someone presented with a baseball card, where their first comment, even before knowing the player or set, would be something like "Wow" or "Ugh" or "Oh", or facial expressions that do not require words?<br /><br />This is the expression of CONDITION !<br /><br />Condition differs from grade in that it is an absolute value, immediately apparent, and irrefutable. It will apply equally to a bar of gold, a brick, or any other item.<br /><br />That is, the condition of your card is obvious to everyone. Collectors however, often get what is obvious to everyone else all confused with evaluating characteristics. When this is all very simple.<br /><br />A baseball card is either in choice condition (tremendous eye appeal for its grade), average condition (average eye appeal for its grade), or lesser condition (buy the holder).<br /><br />The paraphrasing of Jack Robinson was necessary because he was talking about coins, not cards, but it still applys. Not everyone accepts Jack's approach to the evaluation of collectibles, but a great many very noteworthy and lesser collectors do. And the coin world's PSA & SGC equivalents feel the impact of his philosophies daily.<br /><br />A portion of his position on this subject is that older collectibles are given "tolerance" which is not afforded to more recent issues, and likewise lesser tolerance is offered to the newer items.<br /><br />It is difficult to think of things in new terms, and I do not blame you if you opt to turn a deaf ear to my meanderings here. However, I do have a question:<br /><br />Do you think that a sliding evaluation scale should be used to assess older cards (differently from newer cards)?

To paraphrase a statement made by Jack H. Robinson, in print, in 1991:
 

Posted By: <b>scott brockelman</b><p>maybe we need a card grade of Scudsy. only a term CQR followers would appreciate.<br /><br />Added:<br /><br />I quite often classify cards into 3 groups Wow, Nice, Piece of Crap. very easy to differentiate.

To paraphrase a statement made by Jack H. Robinson, in print, in 1991:
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Kravitz</b><p>I would agree that the cards should be graded on a scale with more tolerance given to a 100 year old card than a 3 year old card. However, there are many examples of high grade vintage cards, so if one card from 1910 was mint and another example was poor, the scale would have to be the same as any other issue no matter when it was produced. If there were no high grade vintage examples they would have to have a sliding scale. On a side note, grading companies missed the boat when determining the scale. It seems to me that not all grades from 1-5 are equal while most 5-10 are. For instance... a card that has multiple creases would be a 1, while a card with some paper loss and a minor crease is a 2. The difference between some 1's is amazing. You can't say the same for a 6. They should have spread the 1-5 grade through 7. SGC should have 1/2 grades. This would solve a lot of confusion.