[drcy]

If you get an artifact carbon dated or thermoluminesciently tested (another method for dating), the result will include the carefully calculated margin of error with the result. Why do they do this? Because they are scientists (one of the main carbon dating places is at the University of Arizona physics department) and care about accuracy in their results.

What does this margin of error in the result force you to do? It forces for you to not just rely on that result, but look at the items from different aspects. For example, thermoluminescence testing, which is a highly advanced atomic testing of the material, often has a large margin of error. The margin of error means it doesn't pinpoint a year or decade or even century, but tells you that the material is either centuries old or new, which is very important information for identifying an item as authentic or a fake. But the authenticator has to consider other aspects in pinpointing the item and its date, such as the style, history, etc. In fact, what often happens with expensive and rare ancient relics and artifacts, the art historian or whomever looks at all the other stuff-- look, style, research-- to judge the identity and age, then the thermoluminescence test is done as the final check, or piece in the puzzle. The historian says this vase appears to be a 14th century Chines, and the thermoluminescence test says "We can't tell you the century, but it is indeed centuries old and not new."

Similarly, if the graded card label includes a margin of error with the grade, that will force the collector to consider other things-- usually how the item looks. This, of course, is what many people on this board already do. But I would like this margin of error to be explicitly be expressed and calculated throughout the entire hobby.

Would this approach blow up, or at least significantly alter, the baseball card hobby calculations that don't express and incorporate the margin of error? Yes, but this just says those numbers are bad. That physics professor at the University of Arizona would say you have to include the margin of error in the carbon dating result, and subsequent consideration of that result. He would say you can't not do it, and not doing it would be scientific malpractice.

So, as I said, if it were up to me, a grading margin of error would be estimated and placed right on the front of the label with the grade, and the margin or error be integrated into all hobby number calculations. Would this significantly alter present calculations such as the registry and some price guides, and alter much hobby perception/consideration of grades? Yes, but that's because those current calculations are perceptions/considerations of grades are currently off.

An example of a change in consideration would be a collector saying "The label says NmtMt 8 +/- 18%. I guess I'd better look at the card itself and see what I think." Oh, the horror, the horror. How would the baseball card industrial complex survive such thinking?