Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate
The N172 Harry Wright being kicked around on another thread brought to light that the major grading companies do not grade photographic cards properly. None of them seem to understand that photo quality is among the most important characteristics in determining the card's grade. And none appear ready to change the system anytime soon. So here is what I am suggesting they consider:
On all photographic issues, such as Old Judge, Kalamazoo Bats, Yum Yum, Lone Jack, etc. continue grading the cards purely for the amount of wear exhibited, as is being done today. But add a second 5 point scale as follows:
5= superb photo quality
4= above average quality
3= quality as typically seen
2- below average quality
1= poor quality
Therefore, a card with minimal wear but poor photo quality might grade a 5-1, with the first number being the technical grade and the second one taking eye appeal into account. The market would factor this in, so that a card grading 5-5 would sell for a significant premium over one grading 5-2.
There are probably variations of this that would work as well or better, but it's really time for the labels to reflect what the card really looks like. And of course this would apply only to 19th century cards with real photos.
Opinions are welcome.
|
Good idea Barry. This has one of my main concerns with collecting graded N172's or other photgraphic cards. My main collecting criteria seemingly has nothing to do with grades...but how the photo looks. I think it is pointless to own a PSA 4 Graded Radbourne where you can barely make out the picture.
I don't know how else I would change your list, but it is a good start.
MWheat