REA Auction T206 Plank Grades (?)

[insidethewrapper]

Check out Lots 272 and 282 in the REA Auction. They both have the same grade of 30 (2). How can that be ? How could SGC grade these 2 cards the same ? Any opinions or comments ?

[T206Collector]

As I've explained on here a few times, grading is a pyramid. At the top, you have the 10s. 10 means perfection and thus all 10s will be identical. As you go down the pyramid, grades are set for a variety of reasons -- 9s almost all look the same, but 3s, 2s and 1s have a huge number of potential flaws, including paper loss on reverse, creasing, corner wear, etc. What makes a card an SGC 30 could be a variety of factors, that tell you nothing about the eye appeal of the card without looking at it.

Professional grading is not designed to reflect eye appeal. It is designed to point out flaws, often hard to see or hidden, in a piece of card board. When you see a clean-looking SGC 30, you actually know there are a lot of hard to see flaws. When you see a badgered up SGC 30, what you see is what you get. But not all SGC 30s will look alike -- in fact, at that level of the "pyramid" you will have a lot of different looking cards.

Hope this helps.

[insidethewrapper]

Sure is a lot of difference between the 2 cards graded 30. That one card should be a (1) at the best. Eye appeal needs to be part of the total grade. It was obvious these 2 cards are not alike at all , that is why the difference in price with BP was $ 17k. Poor grading .

[E93]

The two cards were accurately graded per SGC's standards. I agree with you that eye-appeal should be a greater factor. Just my opinion. If grading does not reflect the desirability of a card's physical characteristics to a large degree, I think it is missing the point. That said, bidders certainly did and there was quite a price disparity between the two. But it was not a mistake by PSA. THey were graded back-to-back on the same submission.
JimB

[glchen]

I think part of the reason is qualifiers which SGC does not have. If the card has a light pencil mark on the reverse, it won't get above a certain grade regardless of eye appeal. Same thing if the card has light paper loss, glue, pinhole, etc. If a card has any of these defects, it won't reach above a certain grade regardless of eye appeal. Another thing is creasing. I recently purchased a raw 33 Goudey Burleigh Grimes. In the top loader, you cannot see any creases. However, once you take it out of the top loader, you can see the crease. Put it back in, you can have to look really hard at an angle to see the crease again. So with creases like this, even if they only affect eye appeal slightly, can drop the grade significantly.

[T206Collector]

...for subjective things like "eye appeal" entirely misses the point.

Grading is only designed to objectively point out hidden flaws in a card. Indeed, grading was invented to add objectivity to an otherwise entirely subjective grading standard.

Again, all 1s will look different -- some will be great looking cards and some will be real beaters. All 10s will look the same.

Edited to add: Grading is MOST important for the nicer SGC 30. The fact that people bid so highly on it shows that eye appeal was important, but, in my opinion, also shows that some people were willing to ignore the technical grade and the flaws that were not apparent in the scans or catalog images.

[egbeachley]

One card was a 1.51 and the other was a 2.49. Both round to 2.

Or I guess they could be considered 1.01 and 1.99. This way one card could be considered almost twice as good as the other.

[E93]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

...for subjective things like "eye appeal" entirely misses the point.

Grading is only designed to objectively point out hidden flaws in a card. Indeed, grading was invented to add objectivity to an otherwise entirely subjective grading standard.

Again, all 1s will look different -- some will be great looking cards and some will be real beaters. All 10s will look the same.

Edited to add: Grading is MOST important for the nicer SGC 30. The fact that people bid so highly on it shows that eye appeal was important, but, in my opinion, also shows that some people were willing to ignore the technical grade and the flaws that were not apparent in the scans or catalog images.

I guess we disagree. People pay more for higher grades in general because they have more appeal. When the standards grading companies use do not reflect the appeal of specific cards, people ignore opinion of the grading company and bid according to the appeal of the card. Case in point: 2 Planks.

"Grading is only designed to objectively point out hidden flaws in a card. "

If this were true, the grading scale would not need to be hierarchical with greater value ascribed to higher grades.
JimB

[Leon]

Originally Posted by E93

If this were true, the grading scale would not need to be hierarchical with greater value ascribed to higher grades.
JimB

Obviously higher grades don't always bring more money . Look what happened to Pup's T205 Johnson in an SGC84 holder. It's a great card but, for an 84, had a few visual issues...mainly the slant cut. That eye appeal kept the card to under 6k. I talked to a few people about it and they didn't go higher because of the visual appeal. The buyer bought the card and not the holder. That was the right thing to do but also cost some money vis a vis the holder it was in. And had that been a spectacular looking 7 it would have gone for right at 10k. Just my opinion. regards

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by E93

I guess we disagree. People pay more for higher grades in general because they have more appeal. When the standards grading companies use do not reflect the appeal of specific cards, people ignore opinion of the grading company and bid according to the appeal of the card. Case in point: 2 Planks.

"Grading is only designed to objectively point out hidden flaws in a card. "

If this were true, the grading scale would not need to be hierarchical with greater value ascribed to higher grades.
JimB

I'm not sure we have a disagreement, as much as a misunderstanding. What people want to pay for certain cards is subjective. Where a grading company puts a card on a scale of heavy flaws to no flaws is designed to be objective, based on the accepted industry standards of what it means for a card to be VG or higher.

We almost never get into these disputes over cards graded higher than VG, because the difference in objective flaws between a 4 and a 10 are generally minor and easy to decipher. Where these discussions hit pay dirt is where you have a Minty looking 1 and a chewed up 1. How can they both be 1s?! Well, the point isn't that they're both 1s, the point is that the Minty looking 1 has some major flaw that you had better slow down to check out.

[Steve D]

I agree with T206Collector, about "eye appeal" being subjective and that therefore, it should not be a factor in third-party grading.

It really goes back to the old saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure". To collectors like Jim Crandell and Bruce Dorskind, anything below a PSA 8 doesn't have "eye appeal". That is perfectly fine. There are many collectors like them who only collect the highest graded cards.

To many other collectors, a card with "lovingly rounded" corners has tremendous "eye appeal", as that card exudes the fact that it was loved and cared for by a young collector who idolized the player depicted on the card.

Third-party grading must remain "objective" in order to remain viable. It can not look at subjective factors like "eye appeal".

Steve

[T206Collector]

Another way of looking at it is that we can all agree that a card with a strong, visible crease belongs no higher than a 3.

We can also agree that a card with some amount of paper loss on the back belongs no higher than a 3.

Both cards could technically be 3s, but look totally different. In fact, the front of one would have better eye appeal. But that doesn't mean there's something wrong with either grade.

[teetwoohsix]

Here is a card I bought raw off of ebay awhile back.To me,I thought it had great eye appeal,and was sure it would get a V/G 40,,,,it's hard to see from my crappy photo,but I suspect it was only given a 30 because of a few very slight surface wrinkles that you can hardly see even when looking at it in your hand under a bright light.I could not see these wrinkles in the scan when I bid on the card,they are so slight.I don't even know if they would be called a surface wrinkle-it's the only term I can come up with.

My point is,even though I wanted a better grade,based off of eye appeal,SGC gave it a correct grade based off of technical flaws.It is what it is,right?

[E93]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Another way of looking at it is that we can all agree that a card with a strong, visible crease belongs no higher than a 3.

We can also agree that a card with some amount of paper loss on the back belongs no higher than a 3.

Both cards could technically be 3s, but look totally different. In fact, the front of one would have better eye appeal. But that doesn't mean there's something wrong with either grade.

The appeal of the whole card needs to be considered. Problems on the back should be less weighty than a problem on the front, but it is still part of the card.
JimB

[glchen]

Originally Posted by E93

The appeal of the whole card needs to be considered. Problems on the back should be less weighty than a problem on the front, but it is still part of the card.
JimB

This is going to get close to Beckett then with grades on corners, edges, backs, etc.

[wonkaticket]

I agree with Jim on this the fact that the overall appearance isn’t weighed more into the grading system is silly to me. It’s not hard to consider things like color, clarity, registration etc. Heck they do this with precious gems…

I’ve spent the better part of my collecting looking for just the right cards. I will always pass on the higher grade for the lower grade if the card looks better. At the end of the day it is the card you are buying not the holder for me at least. Most all of my collection cards have the visual appearance of at least 2 grades higher when they can be obtained.

A few that look better than their assigned grades..IMO..you may disagree.






I can’t understand why someone would pay a hefty premium for a 7, 8, and 9 when they can have a better looking 4-5. In fact I think auction houses need to a better job calling out collections that have amazing eye appeal. In many ways it’s harder to say put together a T206 set where each card is amazing in every aspect not just the technical aspects of corners and centering.

I also think there should be a small premium or value to buying a collection or set that has the visual appeal of more $$ cards..but that is just my two cents.

Cheers,

John

[M's_Fan]

I agree that eye appeal should be a part of the grade scale. I know its subjective but you could break it down by category (colors, image quality, etc) that would help. People say its subjective and it is, but in most situations eye appeal is one of the most obvious things about a card. It's like what a judge once said about pornography- "I know it when I see it."

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

In fact I think auction houses need to a better job calling out collections that have amazing eye appeal.

John

In my opinion, sellers and auction houses ALWAYS think there cards have tremendous eye appeal. In fact I've noticed that when a seller starts blabbing about eye appeal, the card in fact does not have eye appeal, and the seller is trying to hype up the card. So I usually shrug off flowery descriptions of cards.

However, what about sellers pointing out that the grade of the card they are selling actually isn't deserved? I've actually only seen this once, in the recent REA, a very nice Ruth Goudey #144 was described by REA as being overgraded! I couldn't believe the honesty, a refreshing thing in this hobby!

REA: We grade this card more conservatively than PSA at approximately Vg-Ex, due to the approximately 80/20 left-to-right centering, a little too much corner wear, a small surface indentation above Ruth's right shoulder, and a light stain on the left border.

[Abravefan11]

I politely disagree -

Eye appeal should not be part of the grading process. It's subjective and would further muddy already murky waters.

Wonka beautiful cards regardless of what the number says on the flip.

[M's_Fan]

It is subjective, but we all agree that eye appeal is one of the most important aspects of a card, if not the most important, right?

Well how can you grade a card but ignore the most important aspect of judging a card? For decades before grading, we all used eye appeal as our #1 criteria, or at least #2 or #3, but now all of a sudden the grading criteria are written in stone like commandments, and we've left out the most important criterion? It seems silly.

I will admit that the effect is mitigated by the fact that buyers know when a card has eye appeal and will bid accordingly. But this fact does not show the success of the current system, it merely shows the importance of eye appeal despite the defective grading system.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by M's_Fan

It is subjective, but we all agree that eye appeal is one of the most important aspects of a card, if not the most important, right?

Well how can you grade a card but ignore the most important aspect of judging a card?

Your logic is flawed - the player on the card is also one of the most important aspects of evaluating a card (for most issues, THE most important aspect) yet that factors not into the grading system either. It depends what grading is meant to do - at one extreme you can say you want grading to be used to specify the desirability of the card - that would take into consideration eye appeal, the player on the card, scarcity, as well as the technical aspects. At the other extreme, you can say that grading is to put a number on the objective technical aspects of the card and that's it.

The way the system is, grading tends towards the latter, because that is what is most concrete. TPG only provides one piece of information we use when evaluating a card. In concert with the player on the card, the eye appeal, the scarcity and some other factors, we then make our own subjective determinations.

[Abravefan11]

Grading is technical and takes specific conditions into consideration. Creases, wrinkles, paper loss etc.

There are visual things that I don't find appealing that may not bother someone else. That makes it extremely subjective as I stated before.

What is visually appealing should be left up to the buyer.

[teetwoohsix]

Everyone has made some excellent points.I can't add much more to what has been said,I just wanted to say:

John,you have an amazing collection of T206's!!! I love them all, but the EPDG Mathewson is jaw-dropping!!!!!!! Thanks for showing those,,and by the looks of the scans,,all do appear to look better than the given grade.Awesome cards!!!

Sincerely,Clayton

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Most all of my collection cards have the visual appearance of at least 2 grades higher when they can be obtained.

I can’t understand why someone would pay a hefty premium for a 7, 8, and 9 when they can have a better looking 4-5.

I also think there should be a small premium or value to buying a collection or set that has the visual appeal of more $$ cards..but that is just my two cents.

I agree with virtually everything Wonka said. In fact, the statement that "Most all of my collection cards have the visual appearance of at least 2 grades higher" just means that his cards look really crisp, but suffer from hard to see technical flaws. If you use the numbering system alone to collect cards, you will wind up "paying a hefty premium for a 7, 8 and 9 when they can have a better looking 4-5."

But, if you use the numbering system as it was designed, to help you find the flaws in cards that are not so easily seen, then you will not be disappointed. Buy the card, not the holder -- and use the numbers as an aid.

My understanding is that color and registration are added into the equation by the grading companies, but it is on the margins in the higher grades only. And I am fine with that approach because those are easily perceptible "flaws".

[Kawika]

Eye Poppers, John!

[wonkaticket]

Thanks for the nice words guys.

Paul made some good points in his last post; in fact everyone has had some pretty good points.

It still drives me a bit bonkers to see out of focus 8's and 9's yes technically they may have perfect corners and centering but if the image is flawed that should really downgrade. In fact if they downgrade so aggressively for a stain on the reverse they should do the same for the front being out of focus etc.

Maybe they should add a new qualifier like OR “Off Registration” or something?

Here’s a few more that I think look better than the assigned grade.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Here’s a few more that I think look better than the assigned grade.

How on earth are these 2s?

[Bridwell]

Great cards, John!!!

Sometimes putting a card in a holder does it an injustice. I've seen PSA inexplicably downgrade some really nice cards. Sometimes, its a tiny wrinkle or a spot of paper loss on the back. Sometimes its a hint of glue residue on the back. I've cracked out about 20 PSA cards and re-submitted to PSA as raw cards. The grades went up about 1/2 the time! Sometimes you just get a PSA grader having a bad day or in a bad mood!

Ron R

[wonkaticket]

All of them have a small stain or area of discoloration on the reverse from either scrapbooks or tobacco...no residue or paper loss.



Also if anyone has a full set of 2's that look like this I'll trade out right..

[JK]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

I agree with Jim on this the fact that the overall appearance isn’t weighed more into the grading system is silly to me. It’s not hard to consider things like color, clarity, registration etc. Heck they do this with precious gems…

I’ve spent the better part of my collecting looking for just the right cards. I will always pass on the higher grade for the lower grade if the card looks better. At the end of the day it is the card you are buying not the holder for me at least. Most all of my collection cards have the visual appearance of at least 2 grades higher when they can be obtained.

I can’t understand why someone would pay a hefty premium for a 7, 8, and 9 when they can have a better looking 4-5. In fact I think auction houses need to a better job calling out collections that have amazing eye appeal. In many ways it’s harder to say put together a T206 set where each card is amazing in every aspect not just the technical aspects of corners and centering.

I also think there should be a small premium or value to buying a collection or set that has the visual appeal of more $$ cards..but that is just my two cents.

Cheers,

John

John - Like you, I have spent a lot of time trying to find cards that look better than their grade. I still agree with T206 that grading needs to remain objective. If not, by whose standards do we consider when adding the subjective element? Yours and mine or collectors like Bruce and Jim C? Moreover, if the grading companies actually did assign a greater value to the visual look of a card, good luck finding all those beautiful 2s, 3s, and 4s (and the reasonable prices that accompany them).

Here are a few of my favorites:

[wonkaticket]

Wow Josh!! Super cards, those are just amazing.

[teetwoohsix]

I agree,those are some beautiful E93's!!! Thanks for showing those!! Also,another excellent group of T206's John!! Appreciate you showing those also-thanks guys.

Sincerely,Clayton

[M's_Fan]

Originally Posted by Matt

Your logic is flawed - the player on the card is also one of the most important aspects of evaluating a card (for most issues, THE most important aspect) yet that factors not into the grading system either. It depends what grading is meant to do - at one extreme you can say you want grading to be used to specify the desirability of the card - that would take into consideration eye appeal, the player on the card, scarcity, as well as the technical aspects. At the other extreme, you can say that grading is to put a number on the objective technical aspects of the card and that's it.

The way the system is, grading tends towards the latter, because that is what is most concrete. TPG only provides one piece of information we use when evaluating a card. In concert with the player on the card, the eye appeal, the scarcity and some other factors, we then make our own subjective determinations.

I thought this was obvious, but I guess not. I'm talking about evaluating the card's CONDITION. Not the player, scarcity of card, or other non-condition related aspects.

As someone said, they grade diamonds based on color, but color and registration/focus don't enter into a card's grade until way high on the grading scale.

The result is a grading scale that is obsessed with corners, creases, and stains, but ignores other objective factors that have a heavy influence on the card's condition. The result is you have these awful looking 5's, 6's that are way out of registration, but a sharply focused and sharp cornered card with just a hint of a stain on the back is a 2? That's stupid.

Those of us in the eye appeal camp, for lack of a better word, DO NOT want to unleash a grader to grade a card however he wants based on a touchy-feely "eye appeal" standard. That would be totally subjective and wouldn't please anyone. That's not what we want.

We DO want the grading companies to give more weight to OBJECTIVE factors like registration/focus and color. These are objective factors that a card grading service should give more weight.

In this world, Wonka's 2's would be graded higher than the 4 or 5 that is way out of focus but is stain free.

[teetwoohsix]

I don't always understand the way PSA grades cards.Here is a PSA graded T206 Kleinow Boston graded VG 3 (sorry again for the crappy photos).As you can see,it has a slight crease across the chest area,also visible from the back side.And,note the staining on the back also.I am happy with the card itself,but am confused on how PSA grades.I think SGC would've only given this card a 30 (2).

[Matt]

Originally Posted by M's_Fan

Those of us in the eye appeal camp, for lack of a better word, DO NOT want to unleash a grader to grade a card however he wants based on a touchy-feely "eye appeal" standard. That would be totally subjective and wouldn't please anyone. That's not what we want.

We DO want the grading companies to give more weight to OBJECTIVE factors like registration/focus and color. These are objective factors that a card grading service should give more weight.

The point of the extreme example I suggested above was to give the opposite extreme of the scale. From your comments, you seem to believe that color and registration are equally as quantifiable as if the card does or does not have a crease. I believe that's where the disagreement comes about. I'm open to your suggestion, I'd just ask you to write the grade description that takes into account color and registration to show how it is quantifiable e.g. http://www.sgccard.com/grading_scale.htm. Or, perhaps you are envisioning something like PSAs half point scale where it's just a VG card with super nice color and registration, so it gets a 3.5? I could hear that.

[Orions father]

I present this similar card. I am more of an SGC person, but this recent purchase let me down. (Yes it was a case of buying the grade, not the card. The ebay images were not up yet and I wanted it. That is my lame excuse.)

[teetwoohsix]

I like your Kleinow David-and it's got a Tolstoi back to boot!! I am not a fan of creases,even if they are light.I don't mind them as much if it's on a corner,but when it's across half of the card,I'm not a fan.

When I bought the Kleinow,maybe because the crease was across the body,I didn't notice it.And was used to SGC grading-and yes,I relied too much on the grade.I have bought SGC cards with no scan of the card,just sort of relying on the grade,and wanting the card,and was usually not suprised at what I got.I feel with PSA,you have to totally inspect the card-because a V/G 3 can have decent sized creases and fairly heavy staining.

Lesson learned to buy the card,and not the holder

Clayton

[Orions father]

That is where we have to agree to diagree, if you will. I would have much rather have the "display " value of your front compared to mine. But that is what makes the world great, to each thier own. Although I must agree with other posters, the graders should stay out of something so subjective.

[JK]

Thanks John, Clayton. John, I should have added (though it probably goes without saying) that those are some fantastic looking cards that you posted as well.

[ScottFandango]

PSA CLEARLY STATES that they use eye appeal in their grading....

[FUBAR]

Personally i think the Kleinow is slightly over graded. I would be disappointed if i purchased a 40, without a picture and that came. I have seen nicer 30's....