NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-30-2011, 01:49 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default A New Idea for Grading Photographic Cards

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.

Last edited by barrysloate; 06-30-2011 at 01:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-30-2011, 02:56 PM
rhettyeakley's Avatar
rhettyeakley rhettyeakley is offline
Rhett Yeakley
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,648
Default

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) !?!
__________________
Check out my YouTube Videos highlighting VINTAGE CARDS https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbE..._as=subscriber

ebay store: kryvintage-->https://www.ebay.com/sch/kryvintage/...p2047675.l2562
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:10 PM
oldjudge's Avatar
oldjudge oldjudge is offline
j'a'y mi.ll.e.r
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Bronx
Posts: 5,349
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:18 PM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,255
Default

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.
__________________
Check out my aging Sell/Trade Album on my Profile page

HOF Type Collector + Philly A's, E/M/W cards, M101-6, Exhibits, Postcards, 30's Premiums & HOF Photos

"Assembling an unfocused collection for nearly 50 years."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:21 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

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.

Last edited by barrysloate; 06-30-2011 at 03:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:33 PM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,255
Default

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.
__________________
Check out my aging Sell/Trade Album on my Profile page

HOF Type Collector + Philly A's, E/M/W cards, M101-6, Exhibits, Postcards, 30's Premiums & HOF Photos

"Assembling an unfocused collection for nearly 50 years."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:49 PM
DanP's Avatar
DanP DanP is offline
Dan Paradis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southington, CT
Posts: 946
Default

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?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Thompson 1887 Old Judge SGC10.jpg (78.6 KB, 254 views)
File Type: jpg Radbourn 1887 Old Judge SGC40.jpg (75.6 KB, 253 views)
__________________
Dan
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-30-2011, 04:00 PM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,255
Default

The one on the left, all day, all week.
To me the way that these are graded makes the number grades, regardless of TPG, almost meaningless. The photo' the thing.
__________________
Check out my aging Sell/Trade Album on my Profile page

HOF Type Collector + Philly A's, E/M/W cards, M101-6, Exhibits, Postcards, 30's Premiums & HOF Photos

"Assembling an unfocused collection for nearly 50 years."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-30-2011, 04:08 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

Dan- all good ideas, but if we ever have any hope of getting one or more grading companies to make a change we should keep it as simple as possible. And I would give your Thompson a 4 qualifier, and the Radbourne a 1.

And this is my 4000th post. What do I win?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-30-2011, 04:19 PM
edhans's Avatar
edhans edhans is offline
Ed Hans
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Buffalo, N.Y.
Posts: 1,220
Default Re: A New Idea for Grading Photographic Cards

Barry,
Congratulations on your 4,000th post and a great idea. And that Thompson is only a four!? At least a 4.5, surely.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-30-2011, 04:23 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

Ed- the first time around they will give it a 4. When submissions slow down then they'll offer the half grades. You know how it works.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-30-2011, 04:44 PM
Matt Matt is offline
Matt Wieder
member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 2,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate View Post
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).
__________________
To send me a Private Message, click here.
Please check out my albums.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-30-2011, 04:52 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-30-2011, 04:56 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,813
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-30-2011, 04:57 PM
19cbb's Avatar
19cbb 19cbb is offline
Jimmy
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
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...)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-30-2011, 05:37 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-30-2011, 05:40 PM
Matthew H Matthew H is offline
Matt Hall
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,817
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-30-2011, 06:22 PM
19cbb's Avatar
19cbb 19cbb is offline
Jimmy
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 329
Default

This could be a great discussion topic for the 'Net54baseball Dinner' attendees.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-30-2011, 08:09 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,180
Default

I don't see the need, people can judge photo quality for themselves?
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-30-2011, 08:16 PM
egbeachley's Avatar
egbeachley egbeachley is offline
Eric Bea.chley
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
I don't see the need, people can judge photo quality for themselves?
I just got on and was going to say the same thing. And someone even mentioned that if a 3 looked like a 4 the market would take that into consideration. Sheesh!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-30-2011, 10:49 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,813
Default

If the criteria for this alternative grading scale is "real photos" only, other than Old Judges, are there any other cards that would fall into this category besides the ultra-rare 4 Base Hits, G & B, etc.? Off the top of my head, the one other set that I can think of is the Tatoo Orbit (self-developing) cards.

Although I agree with your thinking, Barry, that image is almost everything on these types of cards, my guess is that 95% of the time that this would come into play would be for Old Judges only.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-30-2011, 11:02 PM
aljurgela's Avatar
aljurgela aljurgela is offline
Al Jurgela
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb View Post
If the criteria for this alternative grading scale is "real photos" only, other than Old Judges, are there any other cards that would fall into this category besides the ultra-rare 4 Base Hits, G & B, etc.? Off the top of my head, the one other set that I can think of is the Tatoo Orbit (self-developing) cards.

Although I agree with your thinking, Barry, that image is almost everything on these types of cards, my guess is that 95% of the time that this would come into play would be for Old Judges only.
Phil,

Punch, Billiken and both Aguilitas issues are photographs - highly variable in focus and quality. I am sure that most people do not care about these cards much, but it would be nice to include them if this idea ever took off (and I hope that it would).
__________________
Al Jurgela
Looking for:
1910 Punch (Plank)
50 Hage's Dairy (Minoso)
All Oscar Charleston Cards
Rare Soccer cards
Rare Boxing cards
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-30-2011, 11:04 PM
JamesGallo JamesGallo is offline
James Gallo
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Philly
Posts: 731
Default

Great idea, but as mentioned I think some people (ie advanced and knowledable collectors) already do this. This was proven by the extremely soft price of the Wright in the Goodwin auction. It went for about half or less of what a good image in the same grade would have sold for.

I too would rather have a card with a lower grade and a stronger image. This is very similiar to a card having a nice front but a beat back, it will sell for more cause the front is nice.

As for the grading system Beckett might be the first to do this, They could use the auto grade part of the slab any just put in a photo grade instead.

I know SGC can have problems with what is put on the label and PSA seems to be all over the place, but Beckett could do it nicely and with ease.

James G
__________________
WTB Boston Store Cards esp Ruth, Hornsby and 1915/16 UNC Strip cards and other Boston Store's too.

Last edited by JamesGallo; 07-02-2011 at 08:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-01-2011, 04:24 AM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

Well despite some people feeling this would not be necessary, I think that a better system for grading photographic cards is needed. We originally felt that a card in otherwise Excellent condition, but with a very light photo, might grade no higher than Good. But this was considered too radical, and something no grading service would consider. So I tried to come up with an alternative that might work better. If collectors say just leave everything as is that's fine, but I still feel that the system currently in place is a poor one.

Last edited by barrysloate; 07-01-2011 at 04:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-01-2011, 07:17 AM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,159
Default good discussion

Good discussion guys. We had this discussion a few times before but it seems no grading company wants to take the first step (or maybe they are just against it for any number of reasons).

Jimmy - with enough drink tickets I think anything and everything will be discussed at the Dinner .
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-01-2011, 08:02 AM
novakjr novakjr is offline
David Nova.kovich Jr.
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 20 miles east of the Mistake
Posts: 2,269
Default

I believe that the photo quality is already considered in the psa standards.. I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think it relates to the grade the same as the photo does on standard cards.. Here's some excerpts from the psa website where picture is mentioned.

NM 7: Near Mint-"Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register"
EX-MT 6: Excellent-Mint-"Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register."
EX 5: Excellent-"Focus of picture may be slightly out-of-register."
VG 3: Very Good-"Focus may be somewhat off-register"
FR 1.5: Fair-"The picture will possibly be quite out-of-register"

Using these stages as a guide, I'd say that the PSA 5 Wright that got all of this rolling, would subjectively fall to a 3(at best) if graded properly. As far as high quality cards with a bad photo, I believe that would fall under the OF(out of focus) qualifier... I could see that card possibly getting a 5(OF).**Ignoring the possible trim**

The problem here isn't that there's not a system to take the photo quality into account. The problem is that there's been no consistency in applying the system that is already in place..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-01-2011, 09:38 AM
Matthew H Matthew H is offline
Matt Hall
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate View Post
Well despite some people feeling this would not be necessary, I think that a better system for grading photographic cards is needed. We originally felt that a card in otherwise Excellent condition, but with a very light photo, might grade no higher than Good. But this was considered too radical, and something no grading service would consider. So I tried to come up with an alternative that might work better. If collectors say just leave everything as is that's fine, but I still feel that the system currently in place is a poor one.
I like the current grading system because IMO it keeps plastic collectors away from the "low grade" cards with a nice photo. It also seems to keep alot of oj's raw. Which is the way I like to collect them. I like slabs sometimes but if its an old judge, I open it.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-01-2011, 09:47 AM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

Matt may have come up with the best solution yet: keep 'em raw!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-01-2011, 10:32 AM
Howe’s Hunter's Avatar
Howe’s Hunter Howe’s Hunter is offline
Ed McCollum
member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 913
Default Sorry to be coming in so late on this, but

where is the N172 Harry Wright card/photo shown that is the starting point of this thread. I'd just like to see it, but when I type N172 Harry Wright in the search criteria, I get a want list from June, another post in April, then it jumps back to 2010. Just curious to see what started this all. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-01-2011, 10:52 AM
novakjr novakjr is offline
David Nova.kovich Jr.
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 20 miles east of the Mistake
Posts: 2,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuckInOmaha View Post
where is the N172 Harry Wright card/photo shown that is the starting point of this thread. I'd just like to see it, but when I type N172 Harry Wright in the search criteria, I get a want list from June, another post in April, then it jumps back to 2010. Just curious to see what started this all. Thanks.
19th Century B/S/T section.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-01-2011, 12:06 PM
Zach Wheat Zach Wheat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-01-2011, 06:36 PM
JamesGallo JamesGallo is offline
James Gallo
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Philly
Posts: 731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuckInOmaha View Post
where is the N172 Harry Wright card/photo shown that is the starting point of this thread. I'd just like to see it, but when I type N172 Harry Wright in the search criteria, I get a want list from June, another post in April, then it jumps back to 2010. Just curious to see what started this all. Thanks.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=138657
__________________
WTB Boston Store Cards esp Ruth, Hornsby and 1915/16 UNC Strip cards and other Boston Store's too.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-01-2011, 07:54 PM
paul's Avatar
paul paul is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,329
Default

I like the idea. But I think a major hurdle from the grading companies' wooden perspective would be the set registries. For all those millions of collectors putting together N172 or G&B sets, how would you count the photographic quality subgrade in the registry contests? I don't think the grading companies would be perceptive enough to realize this is a non issue.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-02-2011, 04:42 AM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

Interesting point Paul, and one I hadn't considered. Perhaps for registry purposes the actual grade would be the only thing that counts. The photo quality directly impacts the value of the card, so that number would be important when it's being sold. But the registry is kind of arbitrary to begin with; it's just a way to assess and compare sets on paper. Don't think it's as important in that scenario. These are the kind of details that would still need to be worked out.

I realize theoretically the #3 set could be better than the #2 set based on photo quality, but that's life. There is only so much one can do with these numbers.

Last edited by barrysloate; 07-02-2011 at 04:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-02-2011, 08:51 AM
tothrk's Avatar
tothrk tothrk is offline
Bob.T*th
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 212
Default Could be a variation

I think that Wright card in question is the rare blank front/blank back combo.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-02-2011, 09:10 AM
JamesGallo JamesGallo is offline
James Gallo
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Philly
Posts: 731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul View Post
I like the idea. But I think a major hurdle from the grading companies' wooden perspective would be the set registries. For all those millions of collectors putting together N172 or G&B sets, how would you count the photographic quality subgrade in the registry contests? I don't think the grading companies would be perceptive enough to realize this is a non issue.
I don't see this as a problem. You could do a multiplier where the photo grade gets added to the card grade and gets you it's registry value.

Ie a low grade cards with a nice photos would get a higher value on the registry. They already weight the cards on the grade and the point value so this would just add another calculation to it.

Since they grade cards with both an autograph grade and a card grade there should really be no reason they can't do a card grade and a photo grade.

This same new value system could be used for autograph cards to and it would encourage cards to be resubmitted for several reasons.

Auto cards in high grade would gain even more value in a set

Lower grade auto cards would get a bump for a nice auto.

Photo cards in low grade would get a bump if they had a good photo, so it might not be as pointless to grade them to put on the registry

Can you imagine a PSA 9 card with a PSA 10 auto getting 10 or 11 registry points it really would open up a whole new world if they crossed it over.

I think this could be done with the right company and an open mind.

James G
__________________
WTB Boston Store Cards esp Ruth, Hornsby and 1915/16 UNC Strip cards and other Boston Store's too.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A 6-year odyssey....AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 sub-set....75 cards complete (I think) tedzan Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 30 03-06-2011 12:38 PM
Looking for people to write articles about certain cards. mmync Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 0 09-27-2010 05:55 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:41 AM.


ebay GSB