Originally Posted by hilgum
Wow - so much faith in quickly trained 20-somethings, and so little faith in established technology.
The problem with computerized card scanning and grading is not a technical one—it’s a business-case one. Computer-aided visual inspection has been a part of quality control in manufacturing for decades. You’d be hard pressed to find a sophisticated manufacturing enterprise that doesn’t utilize it. And meanwhile, the folks at Google and elsewhere are developing driverless-car technology based in part, and heavily reliant on underlying edge-detection and pattern-matching algorithms. I can use Digital ICE on my flatbed scanner to remove dust and scratches detected in scanned images, and then do further image editing in Photoshop, relying on its sophisticated image-analysis tools (think Magic Wand!). My iPhone camera focuses automatically. And a lot of this is virtually instantaneous. I would argue that the only real technical problem for card grading is that you would risk ending up with a system that would find—and make grading decisions on—details that are not actually visible to the naked eye.
Look at the grading standards for the major TPGs: centering, focus, sharpness of corners, breaks in surface gloss, stains, print or refactor lines. The numerical grades simply quantify the measurements of these features. If these features can be seen—and they can!—they can be quantified and factored into an evaluation function that can be tailored to any specific subgroup of cards you want to define (machine-cut, perforated, hand-cut, … T206, ’52 Topps, ’71 Topps, etc.).
But what’s the business case for such a system tailored to sportscard grading? Like everything else, it’s expensive technology, even when a lot of the hard technological work has already been done. As Pete (ullmandds) has mentioned, most cards have already been graded. This is an interesting observation, and I think largely true (ignoring all the cards now and forever more being produced, obviously). What’s the motivation for people to submit already graded cards to a computerized TPG? Andy (bn2cardz) is also right - there isn’t any “hope” for an anomalous upgrade from a deterministic algorithmic process. Why risk obtaining a lower rating on an existing PSA- or SGC-graded card. Why spend money to have a mid-grade card boosted, when it’s generally the case that a mid-grade card is a mid-grade card for an obvious reason. It would be a questionable business decision to rely on your revenues solely from PSA 7.5s. And lastly, I don’t see the motivation for existing TPGs to change their grading model.
While I too might be reluctant to submit a hundred-year-old ungraded card to a computerized grading system, for fear that it might not receive randomly generous treatment but instead be analyzed dispassionately (and accurately), factoring in warts and all, I’d certainly be more inclined to favor purchasing computer-graded cards over those graded by a “kid” who’s been trained in the art for a matter of weeks. 8->
Cheers,
- David.
|