Quote:
Originally Posted by Hankphenom
Slightly off-topic, but this card demonstrates, to me at least, a ridiculous aspect of the standard grading system. Or maybe I just don't understand it--always a possibility! If your system goes from one to ten, presumably the differences between each grade should be about the same, no? Otherwise, why give them numbers where the difference is exactly the same between each grade? Give them names instead, like it used to be. Anyway, back to my point: This example of a beautiful card gets the same grade as a card that had been tossed into a puddle of diesel fuel, run over by a tank, then eaten and disgorged by a camel before being submitted to PSA. On the other end of the scale, you would need an electron microscope to tell the difference between a 9 and a 10. Somebody please explain this to me.
|
Not sure we want graders making their assessments that would include subjective eye appeal as part of the final grade. Grading is already inherently flawed even with specific technical guidelines that are supposed to be followed at each grade level. I think that is where the grader's responsibilities stop and the end user's begin. This Jax was my card and it is graded 100% accurately, technically, due to severe damage to the reverse. This card will always sell for a premium over an example which has been given the same grade due to corner wear, creases and staining, etc.