Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Good Lord that 7 from SCP is really mesmerizing— as someone said it is perhaps the best example of buying the holder in recent memory. I will add my lowly garbage PSA 4 to the list of examples for comparison. The investors out there who only want 7s and up are free to look down their noses at this one... This was actually an SGC 4.5 that I crossed like a moron due to my desire for uniformity in my collection. Should have stayed a 4.5, yet why let the merits of the card get in the way of good ole inter-company politics 
 |
Putting aside the issue of (IMO) the utter inability of TPG to detect alterations, what is perhaps sadder is the criteria used to arrive at a grade. Wasn't the whole idea behind TPG to establish an unbiased rating system that reflects how a typical collector would view a card's condition? It would seem to me that paramount among the relevant criteria used to rate the card would be how the card looks. Yet that doesn't seem to matter much at all, which is incredible. Yes, I get it that attempting to rate something based on a subjective criteria such as aesthetic appeal interjects subjectivity into the process. But how can one say subjectivity is not already integral to the process? At the end of day a number appears on the flip, which is supposed to reflect the sum total of all various criteria used to evaluate a card's condition. But when the result is what the current system often churns out -- a much higher grade for the card with the much lower aesthetic appeal, card registry or not, the system is wacko.