Jerry
to be clear I have a grader I favor in that my views/standards/parameters most allign with SGC over PSA including issues like assessing grades on cards with paperloss. In any event when I try to buy a graded card that isn't in hand - the TPG itself in conjunction with the grade suggests a range to me within which I can assume it to fall for constancy and pricing. It can also be a "warning" of elements not readily apparent from a picture that lacks description.
I DO NOT get my cards graded for someone else's opinion of the condition. It's mainly aesthetics and protection, I started with SGC and I'm a little OCD (actually OMG), and I can appreciate the extra eye on my cards at times with regard to issues such as trimming and erasure that I might miss - * I might buy such a card but would obviously like knowing before hand as the "value" is linked to the condition. My major problem is that it's often difficult to determine whether an invisible fault has affected the grade over more tangible flaws - I suppose that creates a market for the people who "flip" and reinforces the idiom buy the card and not the holder.
As for the cards shown above the grade disparity doesn't seem that pronounced although I would agree that WoJo's status may have affected THE UNKNOWN GRADER when assessing the card. I think in a recent thread - the discussion in part pointed to the unusual amount of people that chose a superstar as their "favorite card" within a set - the inference being some emotional component (and perhaps visually encountering star examples most often) is in play - the bias. Of course it might also be seen as within normal tolerances as exhibited by tpg examples in the past.
I think it might be important to put all the examples in context. If all of the cards were graded by the same grader at the same time - we would have a more substantial starting point for the arguement.
Jerry - no problem with you whatsoever - I should have answered more succinctly.
|