Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your comments and I don't want to get in the middle of an argument here, but my feeling is grading is subjective and that there really aren't that many objective standards in the grading process. That's why I hate the numeric grades cards receive because it's pretending that there really is an objective and precise standard. That's why the same card can be resubmitted several times and get a different grade each time.
I think eye appeal is very important and should be part of the grading process. If a card is ugly for the grade, good chance it's overgraded. If it's "the best 3 I've ever seen", maybe it is in fact better than a 3. I'm just not a big fan of third party grading in its current form, and think it could be done a whole lot better. Not saying I have the answer to how it should be done, I'm just not a fan.
|
Hi Barry,
I am not sure why the op decided to start an argument with me. I was not giving my opinion on whether the grading standards were right or wrong. Only trying to suggest that most times a card has a technical flaw that renders a grade much lower than the card would appear and upon examination in hand based on current grading standards, the grade would be justifiable.
Eye appeal should play apart in a grade but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the grading process is supposed to be an objective process following certain guidelines but at the end of the day we have people making these calls. The market has always been sophisticated and compensates where the grading process has "failed". A nice 4 might sell for more than an average 6. I see it all the time and support that market as both a buyer and a seller.
Greg