Grading help
 

I feel that NET54 is the premier place to come with questions about the hobby. With that in mind, can anyone direct me to a resource that gives a comprehensive grading criteria? It seems the hobby has matured and there is no longer a one-size-fits-all system that was in place 20 yrs ago when I stopped being a "dealer".

For instance, a trimmed, marked, or creased card was once "worthless". That doesn't seem to be the case now. Also, different issues seem to have different criteria. I wonder if there is any generally accepted criteria in place and if there is somewhere where I can brush up.

Using my "Old" grading technique, this '35 Diamond Star I would rate as a NM to NMMT without the trimmed corners and traced name. With these flaws, I'd give it a Poor.

How would you grade this?
Thanks!

Authentic and point out the marks and clipped corners.

a few thoughts
 

Since much of the hobby has taken to grading I think you have to look at how the Big 3 (SGC, Beckett and PSA) grade their cards. I don't think there is a one size fits all that we can go by. Reading things on the internet and studying those three grading companies criteria will give you a good idea. I would call the card shown an AUT card due to trimmed corners and the marks with an otherwise NRMT appearance. No doubt AUT cards are more accepted than they used to be and that might be due to the AUT cards being in slabs. It has given them a bit more legitimacy and therefore increased their values. Everyone will have their own opinion on this subject too. Happy collecting!!

Gary, Leon, Thanks! I didn't realize that's what Auth was. I thought that was for when they would grade an auto, but not the card it was on. :)
Are there certain issues, or vintage that have grading leeway? (See thread on T206 PSA 3). I couldn't imagine that card getting any better than a 1, or
.5 if that exists.

There is a very big rub in grading to a lot of us in that there really isn't, and could be argued shouldn't, be much leeway with sets. To me, it seems there is some leeway given to larger cards (T3s seem to get a bit of leeway). Many folks want to see photographic cards, such as N172 Old Judge, have their grades be more weighted towards the photo and not inconsequential things such as the blank backs. So far none of the established grading companies have done that. Since grading is done by humans there will always be some mistakes made. I would say the card in the thread showing the PSA 3 T206 is probably a mistake. I think even Joe O would probably say it shouldn't be in a 3 holder.

It would grade "Authentic".