[the 'stache]

I agree with you, Mike.

In my very humble opinion, a grader's job is to critically assess the piece of cardboard before them, and absolutely nothing else should factor in their assessment. If you believe PSA's video of the on-site grading process, the grader never knows who submitted the card. Well, the name of the player on the card, also, should not matter. Mickey Mantle's baseball cards should receive the same treatment as Mickey Tettleton's cards. Do they? I would assume most, if not all of PSA's graders are hobbyists. If they're holding a 1952 Mickey Mantle, can they be objective? They may stick to their protocols throughout the entire process, but who knows how any personal feelings about the card might affect their judgement?

Going back to what you said, Mike:

IMO, it would seem that when they get a very sharp looking vintage card, that is when they really look close and dissect for any possible indication of alteration.

Absolutely, and that is what they should be doing. Getting a high grade on a card should be hard. A 9.5 card is near perfection. You should need a loupe to see a flaw. A 10 should be absolute perfection. And, if you ask me, there are too many 10s and 9.5s out there.

It is my humble opinion, again, that there should be one flat grading scale that applies to all cards. There should not be any adjustments made to a grade, or grading scale, because a card was printed 60 years ago. If a card is rough cut, well, then it should be adjusted downward accordingly. It doesn't mean the card isn't beautiful. It just means it won't be a 10, or a 9. A 10 gem mint card is a 10 gem mint card. Perfect centering, razor sharp corners, pristine edges, and a remarkable surface. No blemishes, no scratches. No print flaws, no registration issues. If that means there are no 10s from cards printed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, so be it. Realize that the printing technology employed at that time was incapable of printing 10 condition baseball cards. I just think the whole idea of bumping a card up because it was printed on an ancient machine is ridiculous. Grading, though there are guidelines, is a subjective process. When you ask graders to start making allowances for cards that are old, you creating more room for error.

Originally Posted by freakhappy

It has to be real tough sometimes as graders, especially when it comes to high grade examples. IMO, it would seem that when they get a very sharp looking vintage card, that is when they really look close and dissect for any possible indication of alteration. It seems for every good TPG story, there is a horror story to go with it.