A New Idea for Grading Photographic Cards

[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.

[rhettyeakley]

Not a bad idea, it's getting the grading companies to sign on that is the true hurdle. If they were to agree to it I think it would receive widespread hobby acceptance, I don't like that it would take that but in that's probably what it would take these days.

Also, I wonder what kind of premium would be attached to a pink tint OJ with anything above 2 photo quality (on your scale) !?!

[oldjudge]

Barry-Good idea. The grading companies could charge to regrade the cards and that would provide a revenue boost (and the incentive to do this). Cards like the Wright are truely a joke, an embarrasment to the grading company and a card that no collector in their right mind would want to own.

[HRBAKER]

Certainly some upside re-grading potential there as Jay suggests. Most likely only those cards that have a shot @ 3 or above are going to get resubmitted. Also the inverse may apply for raw cards submitted, less of the poor quality ones may be submitted moving forward with the double tier grading formula in place. I agree it would be beneficial but the reality is that only the number collectors or slab collectors really are going to buy a card with little to no image graded a "5" anyway most likely.

[barrysloate]

There is one problem I see right off the bat. If only one grading company signed on, they would get only low grade cards with a great photos resubmitted. They would never get a single one with a light photo, because of the stigma attached to the new system. Every lighter photo would be sent to the companies that did not buy into the changes. So it would turn into a kind of grading game.

No Rhett, I don't suspect any of the companies will make the change, but one can always hope.

[HRBAKER]

Barry,
That is most likely correct but maybe over time if someone were to do this then a separate "preference" if you will would set in for the double-graded cards and then the value differential would reflect that. Sort of like the difference between a PSA6 and a PSA6 OC or MC, but in reverse. In this instance the cards "with" the qualifier (the second grade) would see the growth in value making it harder eventually to move cards without it. Interesting thought you have.

[DanP]

Barry, I agree 100% with the concept. I also feel a weighted system makes sense even grading scores for centering and back damage. Why does a card receive the same penalty whether there's a paper tear on the back or the front? I know, some of you guys care as much about the back as the front so maybe not as good as example as the photo image.

1. If a weighted system were used photographic image could be 25% or more of the overall score

2. Card damage should be only 1/2 the penalty if it is on the back

3. Centering could carry more weight then say a minor softening corner

This is my grading system. I realize it won't work for most of you!

BTW, which card would you rather have?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

Barry - my concern is around the subjectivity of the criterion you mentioned. With the 10 point grading scale, we have a pretty objective definition for most grades (despite 3PG mistakes).

[barrysloate]

Matt- you are absolutely correct that there would be subjectivity, particularly for a photo that straddles two grades. But actual grading is likewise very subjective and very inconsistent. I don't believe this system would be any worse. When you have one where you can submit the same card to a grading company three times and receive three different grades, you have very few objective standards at all. Adding this photo quality assessment shouldn't make it any worse. But of course there will be some kinks to work out.

[bcbgcbrcb]

A major obstacle would then become deciding which cards are "photographic" and thus eligible for this new grading method. I'm sure that would spark as much debate as whether postcards, cabinets, cdv's, etc. are cards.

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by Matt

Barry - my concern is around the subjectivity of the criterion you mentioned. With the 10 point grading scale, we have a pretty objective definition for most grades (despite 3PG mistakes).

Barry, great idea but have to agree with Matt on the subjectivity issue (Not saying that the current "10 point card grading scale" is objective by any means...)

[barrysloate]

Phil- I don't think it would be that hard to determine which cards are photographic. It would have to be a real photo, not a printed one. Period. I don't think that would be a big issue.

Jimmy- again, it would be subjective but so what? If a photo was assessed a 3 clarity but was closer to a 4, I don't think that would be much of a factor. We know going in eye appeal is subjective, so there would be no surprises. It's a lot better system than giving a card with a very light photo an EX-MT grade because it has square corners.

[Matthew H]

Good idea, Barry, mainly IMO because TPGs will never account for photo quality in the overall grade (like they should have all along)

I think most collectors look for photo quality first so having a second grade for eye appeal is not really necessary. I think the cards that are not visually appealing yet grade high simply get scooped up by people who think they got a great deal on a card to flip. The reality is that collectors don't want the card, only other flippers who decided to stop bidding when they felt like they could no longer triple their money.

[19cbb]

This could be a great discussion topic for the 'Net54baseball Dinner' attendees.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't see the need, people can judge photo quality for themselves?

[Zach Wheat]

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