One thing the grading companies could do to help in terms of the "provenance" argument is to start keeping / making available more detailed notes, at least on cards over a certain value. When was the card graded? Was it a raw submit or a crossover? How many times has it been reholdered? At least for the super high-end pieces, graders notes would be a lot more transparent too. What were the overall impressions of the card? Why were the corners a 5 and not a 6? Why did the card get a .5 bump? What is the graders interpretation of centering in comparison to the standard?
All of this would give tremendous more insight into the process. And the position of the TPG's as long as there have been TPG's (with the noted exception of Beckett doing sub-grades, which they no longer do on vintage) is that well, this is our opinion - but we are only going to give you a number and not tell you why this is our opinion. Which of course leads to frustration and hot heads later when a card that looks like a 5 all day long is a 3, and when a card that looks otherwise like a 7 is a 5, and the other way around when a card that looks like a 4 somehow got a 6. I guess the grading companies think that this would open them up to liability - in the inevitable case that the graders notes for a particular card were then later found not to match the stated standards / description of the grade?
The earlier post about provenance rings true though. For expensive works of art offered for sale, there can be a virtual accompanying book on the provenance of the piece. I agree that it certainly would not hurt to start thinking more in those terms for cards. At least for the iconic pieces of the hobby...I'm not sure I want to see detailed provenance for every '89 UD Griffey graded Mint 9...
