Grading Older Cards

[SyrNy1960]

I never understood grades of older cards. I've seen some that looked really nice for their age (early 1900's), but the grade seemed low to me. Are they graded with the same grading system for later year and current cards? I just don't think you can use one grading system for all cards. You have to consider the age and all the years it had to survive until today. Just curious from those collectors who collector early cards. Thanks!

[irv]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

I never understood grades of older cards. I've seen some that looked really nice for their age (early 1900's), but the grade seemed low to me. Are they graded with the same grading system for later year and current cards? I just don't think you can use one grading system for all cards. You have to consider the age and all the years it had to survive until today. Just curious from those collectors who collector early cards. Thanks!

I was the same as you, thought older ones might be graded different, but from my short time on here, and what I have found in my research, it seems they are all graded the same.

I have noticed, and you will to, if you search e-bay, A/H's, and the like, the grading system is a lot more strict nowadays than it use to be imo.

I have seen some older graded cards receive a 4 or better but then you see a newer card graded lower that is in way better condition/shape.

If I was smart, I would have had mine graded years ago as I am now afraid that most of mine will receive a 2 or 3, if I am lucky, whereas if I had them done years ago, most would have received a 5 to 7, imo.

[Fred]

I think the whole idea is to grade all cards the same, regardless of what era they are from. Grading consistently will contribute to low populations of the better condition older/vintage cards, as it should be.

What this does is create the market we are seeing where people feel they have to have the best and will pay dearly for it. In many cases this seems to have increased the value of the lesser condition cards because of the money people will spend on the harder to find better condition cards. Maybe I'm off here.

[SyrNy1960]

Thanks! I just don't get it. For cards in the early 1900's to survive so long, you just have to grade them differently. I've seen some 2 and 3's that really looked nice, and I couldn't figure out why they weren't a 5 or 6.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Fred

I think the whole idea is to grade all cards the same, regardless of what era they are from. Grading consistently will contribute to low populations of the better condition older/vintage cards, as it should be.

What this does is create the market we are seeing where people feel they have to have the best and will pay dearly for it. In many cases this seems to have increased the value of the lesser condition cards because of the money people will spend on the harder to find better condition cards. Maybe I'm off here.

I agree.

Originally Posted by 3arod13

Thanks! I just don't get it. For cards in the early 1900's to survive so long, you just have to grade them differently. I've seen some 2 and 3's that really looked nice, and I couldn't figure out why they weren't a 5 or 6.

When you search and find older cards that are in fact in mint shape, you realize they have to grade lesser cards accordingly.

Look up mint Mantles, Clements, etc etc etc. Some of those cards, surprisingly, look like they just came out of the wrapper.

[glynparson]

People confuse eye appeal and technical grade. I do not think they should be graded differently other than factoring in cutting and printing technologies for the era. Eye appeal does effect pricing though and is a reason some cards sell for more than others even in the same technical grade.

[drcy]

There is a wide variety in the Fair to Poor range for early cards. Ranging from genuinely poor to nice looking but worn. I've been surprised at the nice eye appeal of some cards graded 1 or 2.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

Thanks! I just don't get it. For cards in the early 1900's to survive so long, you just have to grade them differently. I've seen some 2 and 3's that really looked nice, and I couldn't figure out why they weren't a 5 or 6.

When you say "I've seen", do you mean that you had the cards in hand, with a loupe, or on a computer screen?

Some grading companies will give a nice looking card a lower grade if the submitter requests no qualifiers. So instead of grading a card a 5 with a MK (mark) qualifier, the card will get a grade of a 3.

Other grading companies don't issue qualifiers when grading and place a lower grade accordingly, so this also may be why you see a nice card with a low grade.

[KCRfan1]

In other words, buy the card not the holder.

[trdcrdkid]

This is an issue that has been argued in the hobby for decades. The third-party grading companies were created to solve it, and while they have done a lot to reduce confusion, they have not made the issue go away, as this thread shows.

In the olden days (the 1980s and earlier), card grading was very subjective and based primarily on eye appeal. In old hobby publications from the 70s, you see people complaining that they bought a card described as EX, but it had a big crease or something. Even as recently as 20 years ago, you would see cards described in ads as "EX-MT but with pinhole". I think most of us can figure out what that card would look like -- a clean, uncreased card with sharp corners but a pinhole at the top -- but a TPG today would give that card a 1, maybe a 2 tops. The TPGs assign their grades systematically, deducting for flaws such as creases, worn corners, paper loss, etc. (Well, it's supposed to be systematic, but we all know they make mistakes and there's an element of subjectivity.) It doesn't matter how old the card is (at least in theory) or what set it's from; if it has certain flaws, its grade will be reduced.

A card's technical grade tells you what flaws it has, but it doesn't necessarily say anything about its eye appeal, and the desirability of cards at different technical grades varies hugely depending on the age of the card. There are very few PSA 7-8-9 T206s out there, and they command a huge premium over PSA 4s and 5s, let alone 1s and 2s. But there are many more T206s in those lower grades, and plenty of collectors are happy to own them, so there's a healthy market for them and lots of them still get graded by the TPGs. On the other hand, for most card sets since 1980, there are tons of PSA 7-8-9-10 cards out there, and anything below that won't have much value, and few of them get graded by the TPGs.

Below are two articles from 1973 that illustrate how long this exact conversation has been going on. The first, by Cooper Long, was in The Ballcard Collector #94 (March 1973). He describes getting a bunch of cards that had been described as EX-MT, but some of them had writing on the front. He suggests that there should uniform guidelines for grading cards, but also says that, of course, you can't grade a T206 the same as a 1972 Topps; you have to take its age into account. Three issues later in Ballcard Collector #97 (April 1973 #2), Lionel Carter replied to Long, strongly disagreeing that age should have any impact on a card's grade. As he so often was, Carter was ahead of his time, anticipating the way most collectors (and the TPGs) think about card condition today.

[SyrNy1960]

Great points! I think I do get caught up in the eye appeal.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Fred

In many cases this seems to have increased the value of the lesser condition cards because of the money people will spend on the harder to find better condition cards. Maybe I'm off here.

Not off at all. Classic example: 1952 Topps #1 Andy Pafko.

[Republicaninmass]

The only qualifier PSA will not add when requesting no qualifiers is OC. Mk and ST as well as MC will still be noted on the holder

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

The only qualifier PSA will not add when requesting no qualifiers is OC. Mk and ST as well as MC will still be noted on the holder

If that was true every 1914 Cracker Jack would have a ST on the flip...

[DeanH3]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

In other words, buy the card not the holder.

+1. Words to collect by.

[JollyElm]

With regard to the whole debate of whether or not older and newer cards should be graded in the same way, it helps to take a page from archaeology.

For centuries, the only royal tombs found in Egypt were destroyed by time and/or plundered by ancient grave robbers. So all the tombs uncovered by archaeologists were in pretty rough shape and it seemed that nothing better would ever be found. But they were undoubtedly very excited that these sites were discovered in the first place. If these tombs were graded based primarily on the fact that they simply survived all of these years, then each would've received a high mark. So what would have happened to this grading system when Howard Carter stumbled onto King Tut's tomb in 1922? A nearly pristine, nearly entirely complete tomb with all of its riches intact. If an old rundown tomb got an ESA (Egyptian Site Authenticators) 8, Tut's tomb would have had to be given an EGA 13!!!!

(It's a metaphor, so if any of you closet Egyptologists are going to chime in and 'correct' me on certain facts, save it.)

[xplainer]

I would never send in a card I thought would get a SGC10, unless scarce.

Look at this recent card I got back. Some paper loss on the back, but a 10?

[coolshemp]

That Snodgrass looks like it got short graded, to me. But I know SGC is strict with paper loss and glue residue, and have gotten tighter over the years.

[Rookiemonster]

I think that certain cards should be graded different . Like 1951 Bowman horizontal pictures .( You know the names ) so I think the bottom boarder should be a bit smaller imo. (Left to right if it was horizontal). Most of the cards I see this way look muck better then perfectly centered .


First and last cards should be given some kind of special quillifiers. Condition sensitive ( CS). Just so you know it seen more of the brunt . Also this could apply to very certain sets .

The other is cards that have rough edges. That is the definition of mint . Factory fresh .

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

I think that certain cards should be graded different . Like 1951 Bowman horizontal pictures .( You know the names ) so I think the bottom boarder should be a bit smaller imo. (Left to right if it was horizontal). Most of the cards I see this way look muck better then perfectly centered .


First and last cards should be given some kind of special quillifiers. Condition sensitive ( CS). Just so you know it seen more of the brunt . Also this could apply to very certain sets .

The other is cards that have rough edges. That is the definition of mint . Factory fresh .

See Dustin, that makes perfect sense. CS. Because they are. Especially the vintage cards. The first and last cards did take the most beatings. That should be taken into account.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[irv]

Originally Posted by xplainer

See Dustin, that makes perfect sense. CS. Because they are. Especially the vintage cards. The first and last cards did take the most beatings. That should be taken into account.

Makes perfect sense to me.

I think they already are? Price out a 52 Topps Mathews. It's priced, obviously because it's a high number but also due to what you mention above.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=...ps+mathews+psa