Posted By:
Gilbert MainesIt seems to me that the evaluation of a baseball card's condition depends only on physical factors associated with the card. If so, these physical factors can be measured. Once measured, an evaluation system can be established and employed to define the card's grade based only on measured variables.
This potential approach differs from the technique currently in place, for example, a leading grading company rates cards with the following degree of
corner wear as shown:
PSA8 = Slightest Fraying
PSA7 = Slight Fraying
PSA6 = Slightly Graduated Fraying
PSA5 = Very Minor Rounding
PSA4 = Slight Rounding
PSA3 = Evident, But Not Extreme Rounding
PSA2 = Accelerated Rounding
PSA1 - Extreme Wear
Similarly, the same company rates surface wear as follows:
PSA8 = None
PSA7 = Slight
PSA6 = Visible
PSA5 = More Visible
PSA4 = Modest
PSA3 = Some Apparent
PSA2 = Obvious
PSA1 = Advanced Stages
Now I ask you: what is the difference between visible, more
visible, modest, and some apparent? The answer is four grades.
IMHO we need a better definition than that - way better.
Additionally, grading companies do not take into account factors including the original card quality as brought out in Judge Dred's recent thread "You be the Judge" and runscott's comment in that thread. Nor do they address other minting (manufacturing) aspects adequately.
Although an effort may result in the generation of a grading system which more closely approximates objective grading, once generated, who will accept it? And if anyone accepts it, what about its impact on the current population of graded cards? There could be noteworthy dollars involved in any change to the current grading methods.
Maybe we should just live with the inadequacies of our current system. What do you think?