Grading discussion- Revolutionizing :) the hobby...

[Exhibitman]

I would perhaps like to be careful to separate the questions of valuation and grading. They should not intersect at all, as I see it. The card is what it is, regardless of what someone wants to pay for it.

When it comes to the photographic cards (and Exhibit cards) as SGC handles them (can't speak to PSA since I don't use it) I see two issues:

--First, back damage: the "yes, but" approach to OJs, Exhibits and other blank-backed cards with back damage it seems to me is already part of the discretion of the grader and is already accurately factored into the grades. I have some gloriously sharp albumen cards with back damage in SGC 20 holders and I am fine with that. As far as I am concerned, a noticeable amount of back damage = poor with a bump for exceptional front clarity being part of the grader's flexibility to perhaps a 2 but no more. Sorry, but a vg card to me means basically intact front and back with general wear. The eye appeal of a sharp OJ with album removal scars is definitely more than a typical card in the grade with overall wear and tear, but I think it is already properly reflected in the technical grades up to a 2.

--Second, photo clarity: I think there is where the real issue lies. I don't think the graders give enough weight to clarity of image on the 19th century photographic cards, on the top end; i.e., I think they give a card's corners, edges and crease-free status too much weight. I don't see a very light image as meriting more than a vg grade, even if the card is sharp and clean. That said, I have seen quite a few cards from SGC that have been graded higher than I think technically merited because of an especially sharp front. This one, for example, which has a small back wrinkle but is a 60:



[pardon my sucky scan; the card is actually a lot whiter] I think it got a grade better than technical for the great image clarity. And I agree with that approach. Where I have a bone to pick is the opposite--the weak image with sharp corners.

I guess some of it also comes down to tastes great or less filling; everyone's got a view.

Pricewise, I think the knowledgeable buyers already separate the light image cards from the sharp ones, regardless of the number on the slab. That's the way it should be--buy the card and not the holder.

[Leon]

Just to be clear, I don't personally believe in the "buy the holder" mentality, I am only making an argument that some do, so the holders need to be as accurate as possible. regards

[M's_Fan]

One BIG problem with grading a card based on photo contrast is that many 19th century cards have light contrast simply because they were taken with a lighter background, while others have better contrast only because the background and player are darker.

So to grade on this basis of contrast would have the effect of not grading the card's condition, but grading the photographer's skills. This is not the grading company's job, to rate the photographer's skill.

Also, to slab every 19th century card as "A" is a disservice because it doesn't differentiate the altered cards from the non-altered cards.

I've thought about this quite a bit but I keep coming back to this Churchill-esque conclusion: letting the market settle these disputes is the worst system, except for the all the others.

[Tim Kindler]

In mho the back really matters very little. I think the grading companies should break their grades down into a grade for the front and then a grade or qualifier for the back. I don't get hung up on back damage, staining, writing etc.. If the front is attractive and nice, then I enjoy the card, no matter what is on/ or is missing from the back. An example of this is if I could get an E98 Mathewson with a beautiful front, but has paper loss on the back and is graded a 10/1 because of it; and it is priced under $900 because of the damage....I would take those all day. Just my two-cents.
Happy Collecting and Good Discussion.
Tim Kindler

[Rickyy]

Count me in among those that are flummoxed when the photo quality is there but the grade is downgraded when the back has damage even though their is no image...I have an OJ that has a faded photo on the front with clean back that grades higher than an Exhibit card with clean image but a paper loss on the back...a friend who is a non collector looked at them and asked me why one the grades were lower on the better looking one...I couldn't adequately explain...

[buymycards]

I think the main purpose of TPG's should be to verify authenticity and alterations. For 19th century cards only 2 grades should be necessary -
"Authentic" and "Authentic Altered" with a brief description of the alterations. As far as the other qualities of the card, we can judge for ourselves by looking at the card or the scan.

Rick

[steve B]

The whole issue of image density and fading is a very complex one. There's a good article here
http://albumen.conservation-us.org/l...ly/chap11.html

The rest of the site is well worth reading. It's a lot more scientific than most people are used to, but I feel that some of the cards are getting to the point where their historic and monetary value is enough that a professional approach to conservation and understanding of the print is warranted. Not everyone has the means to even approach the full archival conservation that a large museum can manage, even libraries cant usually find the resources. But understanding the print will help us make better choices about handling and storage

The image density is measurable in a repeatable scientific way. So yes, if it was worthwhile a grading company could determine the image quality accurately every time. But it's also expensive, so it wouldn't make sense for most cards.

A couple points to comment on.
I might have been unclear on is the detailed grade explanation. I don't feel this is something that should be done as a standard practice by the TPG as it takes time. And it's really pointless for many cards. But I do think it should be offered as a premium service for a price that the TPG can consider profitable. Maybe on walkthrough/imediate level cards at first as a test? If a card is $7500+ and you're paying 200 for grading another say 25-50 to have the details included somehow would be worth it to some of us right?

One poster commented on grading companies not grading based on size. I can state for sure that they do reject for size even with no evidence of trimming. I've had two T206 cards rejected, one for being too short, another as miscut. The short card is short, but isn't trimmed. The other also isn't trimmed but has rough cuts showing more than typical chipping top and bottom. It's unusual enough that I believe they didn't feel comfortable calling it unaltered. I have no problem with either rejection, both seem fair. And the cards are still very nice. I sent them in on specials, so someday I may check to see if the short one might be done with a cutom insert. probably not, but I might ask.

Steve B

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by buymycards

I think the main purpose of TPG's should be to verify authenticity and alterations. For 19th century cards only 2 grades should be necessary -
"Authentic" and "Authentic Altered" with a brief description of the alterations. As far as the other qualities of the card, we can judge for ourselves by looking at the card or the scan.

Rick

This may the best post yet. More than anything else third party grading is to tell one what if anything has been done to the card. At that point, each person can decide based on his/her own subjective perspective how desireable the card is and what value to put on it. In today's day and age with easy ability to view a card's image, what more is really necessary?

[E93]

Originally Posted by Leon

Just to be clear, I don't personally believe in the "buy the holder" mentality,

Really, I thought you collected flips.

[E93]

I am happy to see this conversation happening again. I think the grading of 19th century blank back photographic cards has been broken from the start. I agree with Corey and some others that grading should correspond to some degree to the appeal of the material attributes of the card's condition. We are lying to ourselves if we deny that that is why grading (TPG or otherwise) was ever instigated. It is a way to discuss the appeal of the card in standardized ways. That is why, generally speaking, higher grades correspond to more appeal to collectors. Understandably, this in turn corresponds to value in the marketplace. Thus, when TPGs disregard photo quality on 19th century cards, they are disregarding what is probably the most important physical quality of those cards to collectors.

Higher grades should, in general, correspond to higher appeal and value to collectors with some exceptions. If SGC 30s with stunning images regularly sell for more than SGC 70s with faded out images and that is the only significant condition issue that distinguishes them, then there is something broken in the system.

JimB

[barrysloate]

The question is which is more important: eye appeal, or a card's technical flaws? That's the debate.

[E93]

If grading of the card does not correspond to the overall appeal of the condition, then why bother? Just to gather some technical information that does not matter? It matters because it corresponds to appeal. It is hierarchical because it corresponds to appeal - the greater the appeal, the higher the grade (in theory).

How one defines appeal is where it gets a bit subjective, but the hobby seems to have some consensus on 19th century photographic issues that image quality is what is most important. How to grade that and the extent of downgrading various sorts of back damage may equate with is the topic for discussion as I understand it.
JimB

[Rob D.]

If grading is supposed to measure the "appeal" of a card and not its technical attributes, and if "appeal" is subjective to each individual collector, then why would anyone need to have a card graded in the first place?

I'm pretty sure most collectors can decide for themselves how much appeal a card holds. But a lot of those collectors aren't as comfortable spotting flaws, defects or alterations that a TPG often (but not always) will detect.

[barrysloate]

Jim- agree completely. Technical flaws should of course be considered, but eye appeal must be given great weight.

[Leon]

Yikes, I see a conundrum a brewin'.

Unfortunately, so far, I see great arguments on both sides of this equation. No doubt what Jim B says is true and no doubt what Al and Rob D say, is true too. Maybe we could have a technical AND a visual grade on 19th Century Photographic cards? That way we could possibly cure both issues. Heck, I am more on the fence now than I was when I started this .

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

If grading is supposed to measure the "appeal" of a card and not its technical attributes, and if "appeal" is subjective to each individual collector, then why would anyone need to have a card graded in the first place?

I'm pretty sure most collectors can decide for themselves how much appeal a card holds. But a lot of those collectors aren't as comfortable spotting flaws, defects or alterations that a TPG often (but not always) will detect.

+1

[E93]

Originally Posted by Leon

Yikes, I see a conundrum a brewin'.

Unfortunately, so far, I see great arguments on both sides of this equation. No doubt what Jim B says is true and no doubt what Al and Rob D say, is true too. Maybe we could have a technical AND a visual grade on 19th Century Photographic cards? That way we could possibly cure both issues. Heck, I am more on the fence now than I was when I started this .

When I am speaking of appeal, it is NOT only immediate visual appeal that I am speaking of, but more technical condition attributes as well. I just think there needs to be a readjustment in how grading companies weight these and that the grading of N172s is a perfect example of the problem.
JimB

[barrysloate]

I know the argument against considering photo quality is that it is too subjective...but isn't the whole grading process subjective? That is part of my argument- if a grade can change upon resubmission, then there are no strict standards. Therefore, the whole process is subjective. So let a grader look at a photo, assess it, and make his call.

[E93]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

If grading is supposed to measure the "appeal" of a card and not its technical attributes, and if "appeal" is subjective to each individual collector, then why would anyone need to have a card graded in the first place?

I'm pretty sure most collectors can decide for themselves how much appeal a card holds. But a lot of those collectors aren't as comfortable spotting flaws, defects or alterations that a TPG often (but not always) will detect.

Of course there is subjectivity to grading. But that does not mean it is *entirely* subjective. And that does not mean a third party disinterested opinion by supposed experts in evaluating hobby standards is not something that can be appreciated by buyers and sellers.
JimB
P.S. I don't think I ever said (or thought) that grading does not, or should not, include assessment of technical attributes.

[Al C.risafulli]

I guess what I don't understand is this: why does there need to be a visual grade? You can see it with your EYES.

Maybe you can't see small flaws like certain types of wrinkles, bits of paper loss, slight softness of corners, paper pulls. The technical grade of a card accounts for those flaws as well as bigger ones like holes, ink, soft corners, creases, etc.

Your eyes can already see what the card looks like. What do you need a number on a flip to do that for?

I can look at a card that's a 3, and say "Man, that's an ugly 3" or "Wow, that's a gorgeous 3" and make a decision as to whether or not I want to have it in my collection. I don't need another number to tell me that.

I can look at a 3 and say "Wow, if it wasn't for that pinhole, that card would be an 8" and then make a determination as to whether or not I can overlook the pinhole, I can say "That card has all the characteristics of a 3, but the centering makes it look much better."

I can use my own eyesight to tell me whether or not I like the eye appeal of a card. Why do I need another grade to do that?

Al

[bijoem]

I'm all for it Leon.

I've said this before (I believe) - grading companies are 'paper graders'. For the most part it seems they ignore the printing quality or the photo quality. It is a shame.

Funny to see OJs with terrible photo quality get a high grade -
and funny to see other cards with terrible print quality (faded colors / color out of register, etc.) get high grades.

I would much rather the image quality (photo or printed) be considered as important as the paper quality.

How that would work in a numerical system - I have no idea.