what do you look for in an Old Judge card?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw 

I have only recently gotten into the Old Judge issues and I have heard several schools of thought on what makes for a top-flight card. Personally, I rank attributes as follows:

1. Photo clarity
2. Layering/curling/cracking
3. Lack of front creases
4. Corner rounding/front wear
5. Back condition

Should there be a different form of grading for OJ and other real photo cards as opposed to "regular" cards from the era?

Should they be treated as postcards often are, where postal use of the item is underplayed by collectors as long as it does not affect the image or writing?

Realistically, what should a card be graded for damage to the back (glue residue, light peeling, tape, writing, etc.)? How does card back condition affect your purchase decision?

I recently purchased an OJ with great front clarity and a single crease but with the back top layer of paper mostly peeled from album removal. Since the card was in an album until the dealer pulled it out, the card is nearly white and very clear. I also bought a card with no creases, intact back, but a creamy front and medium quality image. SGC would probably grade the first one fair to good. It graded the second one vg. I agree with the grading from a technical perspective, but personally, I like the first card better.

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry

I look at Old Judges more like a photo than a card. Here is what I would look for in either:

1. Photo quality
2. Front surface problems- creases, scratches, stains, etc.
3. Corner rounding and layering
4. Back damage

I think that different cards need to be graded differently. This may offend some grading purists, but a 1887 Old Judge card should not be graded with the same criteria as a 1990 Topps Refractor.

I would also prefer to have a card described to me with as much detail as possible rather than just a single overall grade. For example, I would prefer to have an auction company state that one Old Judge appears to be EX-MT, but has light back damage and another appears to be EX-MT but has an very light photo and a crease than to just see VG next to each one. The first example I would not mind having in my collection while the second I would not want.

Further, I would may bid on a card that is decribed as being EX-MT with a phenomenal photo but has back damage and a pinhole in the border. If it were just called Fair, I probably would not bid on it. In fact, I would prefer to have this Fair card as opposed to the second VG example cited above even though the technical grade is lower.

I have seen SGC VG-EX cards that I would love to have in my collection and others that I would never consider. I would prefer to have as much info as possible and then I will decide if it fits into my collecting specifications.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom

with what Adam has pointed out. I've collected Old Judges for 5-6 years and all of mine are graded by SGC. Don't necessarily agree with all the grades but aesthetically, I like the holders and believe it or not, graded cards do typically sell better than ungraded cards in similar grades. Whether that can be attributed to what people perceive as proof of authenticity, I don't know.

As for backs on OJ's.....like everyone, I would prefer that they be entirely clean but since the backs were intended to be blank, I do not have major heartburn if there is writing or some type of blemish on the back. That does factor into my buying decision though. I know Jay has a SIGNIFICANT amount of OJ's and, as such, is primarily looking for pose variations. Since his quest is for the obscure, he is more likely willing to pay more for the poses he needs with less regard to condition or back sensitivity. I'm looking for players, not poses (except for Louisville OJ's.....).

As for SGC.....while I think they're definitely the best at grading, I do feel they are sometimes inconsistent on grading. They seem to place more of a premium on just card condition with not as much regard to registration or photo clarity. That does factor in, but I've sold SGC84's on ebay that had far worse clarity than SGC60's. Only knock on the 60's was that they had some corner wear.

Also.....if there is ANYTHING AT ALL on the back of an OJ, you will likely not get better than SGC40 with SGC.....right or wrong, they downgrade the card to that level, then work from there on condition. I've got two different Comiskey's. One has some paper attached the back and is graded SGC40 while the other has someone's name stamped in black ink on the back which was somewhat smudged. Same grade. That's where I do like the qualification MK from PSA. I only have 1 PSA graded OJ and I will likely cross it over to SGC sometime in the future. But.....PSA will give a card a grade based on the condition, then with writing on the back add the MK qualifier. I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest about qualifiers that has been hashed and rehashed ad naseum here but that's my feeling on the backs of OJ's.

One interesting thing with OJ's is the crease. Creases that break the front of the paper are pretty severe but I've got some OJ's with what I would term 'ripples' in the back of the paper. I was talking to Jay about this the other day that I really believe that the quality of paper wasn't what it is today and many of the creases or 'ripples' on the backs of these OJ's are period and part of the production process. Should they be graded differently? I don't know. I would just hate to see a really decent card that might get SGC70 to SGC84 be graded SGC40-50 due to a crease on the BACK of the card. And I have some of those in my collection.

I also agree with Harry in that I do like full disclosure when I bid on something in an auction. With notation to the back conditon as it MAY affect my bidding.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

....that counts the most. After that it's probably just a matter of your own personal level of anal rententiveness.

I'm not so freaked out about wrinkles (creases that break the surface of the picture on the other hand aren't so great) or back damage (with the exception of skinning). For me, decent corners are high on my list, but if push came to shove and I had the opportunity to get a card on my want list with outstanding picture clarity and all of the above faults, I'd probably grab it. These items aren't seen every day, so I'd be taking while the taking was good.

I don't think you can have separate rules for 19th century cards, because that then opens the door for scads of separate rules for other things, but simply a low technical grade from any reputable grading company probably wouldn't prevent a true collector from grabbing an Old Judge card they needed or wanted.

[Archive]

Posted By: John(z28jd)

I think the Old Judge set is given alot of slack in what people would accept as far as condition.Basically all i want is a card with a nice picture and back damage doesnt even bother me mostly because theyre blank backs anyway.Also alot of people are willing to take them with minor pinholes or even with the ad trimmed off the bottom.Half of the old judges i have arent gradeable but i have some with great pictures,so to me picture quality is the most important

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

Can someone discuss just what exactly is a "rebacked" Old Judge? I see that description all the time. Has some just added cardboard to the backing or what???

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom

when something foreign to the original card was added to the back. Since the cards have photos adhered to cardboard, lots of people would soak or remove the photo and paste in an album. Then people might remove from the album and try to get it back to a similar state by adding cardboard to the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Adam --

The three primary qualities I look for in an Old Judge would be type of cut, picture quality (degree of contrast), and corner sharpness. To me, all three are of equal importance, although with some of the tougher cards (e.g., Delahanty, Spotted/dotted ties, California leaguers), picture quality becomes more of a tenuous issue since well-registered and deeply-contrasted subjects are virtually non-existent for some players and poses.

As far as the cut is concerned, N172s are all over the map. Personally, I don't mind a slightly unusual cut if the other qualities of the card are outstanding. Also, I don't mind an occasional small border on top or bottom -- certainly, within some years of issue, who is to say that certain player poses didn't all come with slightly smaller dimensions or less space for the borders? It is also noteworthy to point out that some issues of the same player poses from the same years are cropped inconsistently and, as a result, were not all designed to have the same border widths.

I find the issue of N172 corner wear to be interesting. By virtue of the type of manual cutting that was performed on Old Judges, some specimens originally came with four perfectly sharp corners while others did not (corners were a bit blunted). This unusual quality almost makes it necessary to provide certain allowances for this 19th century issue...just something to be aware of.

Next, there's the subject of those issues possessing a "pink" tint. Some collectors have suggested that this tint is a result of aging while others think it may have something to do with the type of stock that was used. I tend to think it was the latter and I rarely downgrade an "affected" N172 because of this condition. In addition, I tend to believe that some years were printed on a different (whiter?) stock than others and that one should not necessarily downgrade a card due to some types of perceived discoloration.

The reverse side of Old Judges, however, is a different issue. Like any mainstream, blank-backed issue, I think a high-grade example absolutely has to have a perfect reverse side. Examples that have back damage due to scrapbooking or archival activities, should generally not grade higher than Vg-Ex. With most types of writing, I would look at the defect in a similar manner; although I would rather have a card with a small amount of writing than with paper loss.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I agree with most of you that the photo is the most important feature in choosing (as opposed to grading) an Old Judge. One of the problems with grading Old Judges is that photo quality is all over the map. Some cards have perfect photos, while other cards have photos that are almost indiscernible.

This problem just doesn't exist in most other sets. In most sets, "photo quality" is a subtle thing that may separate a PSA 9 from a PSA 10. It is difficult to imagine, for example, a 1952 Topps Mantle with photo quality so poor that the card must be downgraded to VG. But, with Old Judges, you could rationally grade an otherwise perfect card with an invisible photo as a 1. I don't know how PSA, SGC, etc. deal with this issue, but it does seem to me that the standard (modern card) criteria just don't quite fit for Old Judges.

[Archive]

Posted By: jeff s

price . if it's cheap, it's mine!

Even though many of my cards are pretty bad, I do like nice contrast...my serious old judge habit started when I bought several dozen oj's from TIK jr., all skinned...but almost all are just beautiful images. If there were more skinned oj's out there, I'd only collect cards with the following attributes: skinning, nice contrast, and < 12% of NM SCD price.

After that, I think a lot of people (including some of the people that have posted already who didn't mention this) look cool poses. Yeah, it isn't a grading issue, but I'd rather have an f-g two-player card or a unique pose (like the great flop/slides, like the comiskey i currently have up on ebay, which aren't unique, but i think they're cool) than another g-vg "batting" pose with the damn ball hanging on a string.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Sorry; love to quote Blazing Saddles.

<<Examples that have back damage due to scrapbooking or archival activities, should generally not grade higher than Vg-Ex. With most types of writing, I would look at the defect in a similar manner; although I would rather have a card with a small amount of writing than with paper loss. >>

I absolutely agree with this, which is why I take umbrage at the "holistic" approach to grading.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

What does "skinned" mean? Does it refer to any paper loss at all on the card back or is there some degree of removal after which the card goes from back damage to "skinned"?

[Archive]

Posted By: jeff s

generally means that only the topmost layer (the photo) remains. The cardboard back is entirely removed. The card, then, is paper thin. Sometimes, though not always, it is so thin that the image is visible as a shadow on the back. (That, some would say, is excessive trimming.)

[Archive]

Posted By: jeff s

"skinned" in the last sentence above, not "trimmed." That's probably obvious.

[Archive]

Posted By: jeff s

check out my current auctions ("psa1") -- I was actually surprised that cards with noticeable back damage got 40s, and ones with lots of damage (though not UGLY damage) got 30s. I've 150% scans of front &back on all of those auctions, so if you're thinking about sending cards in, they may give you an idea of how they'll be graded.

(I'm really not trying to constantly plug my auctions here...just want to help <g>).

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Adam --

I see your point, but consider this. The current dubious (had to beat Leon to it) method of qualifying a card is not sufficient to properly define the number of qualifying defects on a specimen. In other words, if the writing is on the front of a card, if the writing was done in thick black sharpie, if the writing was lightly applied with a #4 pencil, or if the writing obscures important biographical or statistical references on the reverse, it will all be qualified the EXACT SAME WAY by a certain grading company. Without a proper distinction, then, how can a qualifier consistently provide necessary clues to a collector -- especially when faced with a "blind" email or not-so-clear eBay purchase?

My feeling is this -- the Old Judge Series is much different than many 20th century blank-backed issues. And perhaps, because of its popularity and scarcity, pen or pencil marks are accepted more than they otherwise would (or should) be under a value-oriented collecting paradigm. Maybe...perhaps...if the market requires it, I could see a specific "qualification exemption" for the N172 series; but only then, I could see exceptions made for small and relatively unobtrusive marks on the reverse side and nothing else (i.e., Lt MK.).

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry

I was told by an advanced photo collector/dealer that the pink tint that is sometimes found in photos (and Old Judges) is a result of a post production chemical reaction, due to a poor developing process and is considered a flaw. It seems as though most of the pink cards that I see also have poor contrast which may support this theory.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Since this is my primary area of collecting let me chime in also. For me the paramount factor in judging an Old Judge's quality is picture sharpness. For me a pinkish photo (unless it is still very clear which can sometimes happen) is a killer for a card. After that I look at the general appearance of the front of the card. Centering, corners, wear and tear all enter into this. Lastly, I look at the back of the card. Writing/glue residue/minor paper loss from scarpbook removal mean almost nothing to me. If you offer me two cards with identical fronts and one has glue residue and the other has a clean back, of course I'de take the one with a clean back. If you charged 10% more for it I'de go for the one with the residue. I prefer original cards--not rebacked or skinned--but I will take these if I need the card until/if a better one comes along.
Someone asked about the pinkish coloration on some Old Judge. This occurs almost exclusively on 1889 and 1890 issues. I always heard that it might have been caused by a problem in the development process, but perhaps MW is right and it was caused by a bad batch of photographic paper. By the way, besides pink cards there are also some purple ones and, from what I have seen, these tend to have sharp photos.
By the way, I am not trying to say that my way of looking at this issue is the right answer. Like so many things it is a matter of personal preference and this is what I prefer. I don't collect slabbed cards(although I have purchased a few when this was the only way to get a card I needed) so issues that effect a grade are not that important to me but should be important to those who want to have their cards entombed.
It's great to see a thread like this. It shows how the popularity of this issue has grown. In the mid-1980's I used to buy football matchbook covers from hobby pioneer Frank Nagy. I once asked Frank if he had any Old Judge in stock. He told me no. He had given them all away years before. When people ordered from him he would throw a few Old Judge in as a free gift. Oh for the good old days!