Grading system idea..

[CrackaJackKid]

Since a lot of prewar cards get assigned the lonely number “1” and as we all know there can be a vast determination by what qualifies for a 1 by both PSA/SGC. What do you guys think if someone implemented a “.5”? I personally think it would help determine values on lower end examples.

[griffon512]

only if half the card is missing...

[swarmee]

Not necessary.

[CrackaJackKid]

Not necessary.

Seriously?? I completely disagree.

[Cozumeleno]

Interesting thought, but isn't that what A is for?

[swarmee]

I think that a Poor can be valued by eye appeal. Seems that thousands of people do it daily. Not sure why it's so confusing.
Here's a really nice PSA 1 1956 Mantle. Looks like an EX-MT 6 except for the pinhole at the top center. Value? I'd say equal to a PSA 2.5.
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1956/Topps---Base/1351/Mickey-Mantle-(Gray-Back).jpg?id=00ec6fc3-6fb9-4586-8a51-502a66934505&size=zoom
Would AUTH also need a half grade?

[lowpopper]

I have thought the same thing for years. Some 1s look great and some
look like roadkill. A Pinhole (PH) qualifier would be a nice addition too. Why
should a NM-MT card with a pinhole get the same grade as a beater with a
pinhole? I would prefer an 8 (PH) over a 1/1.5

[lowpopper]

My post was not in reference to swarmee's Mantle.

You got there right before I did

[swarmee]

Not my card, just a great looking example for the grade that I noticed on COMC. If I can save up enough store credit, it might come home with me.

[CrackaJackKid]

I have thought the same thing for years. Some 1s look great and some
look like roadkill. A Pinhole (PH) qualifier would be a nice addition too. Why
should a NM-MT card with a pinhole get the same grade as a beater with a
pinhole? I would prefer an 8 (PH) over a 1/1.5



Agreed. A super nice example with a pinhole should get a qualifier. If I could upload big pictures I would post examples of the lower end examples I was pertaining to.

[Thecafewha]

I don’t prefer my cards to have holes in them so I’m ok with them getting a “1”. * How large can a hole be before it’s not a pinhole? What if the thumb tack left any indentation marks? What if paper torn on reverse? Too many variables to consider for a damaged card.

*I do have many cards in my collection that have pinholes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Throttlesteer]

I just hope "Hole" doesn't become a qualifier. I would hate to see what the flip would show with an Authentic card and a Hole qualifier :D

[luciobar1980]

We really don't need a .5 IMO. I mean where does it end? Then many .5s will look drastically different, etc. Leave the 1, the rest is in the eye of the beholder.

I could see a PH Pinhole designation though as a really nice example of a card with a small pinhole is wayyy preffered (for me) over a beat up 1. PH Qualifier, easy peasy.

[CrackaJackKid]

We really don't need a .5 IMO. I mean where does it end? Then many .5s will look drastically different, etc. Leave the 1, the rest is in the eye of the beholder.

I could see a PH Pinhole designation though as a really nice example of a card with a small pinhole is wayyy preffered (for me) over a beat up 1. PH Qualifier, easy peasy.

You’d think I was trying to completely alter the entire grading scale by merely suggesting a .5. And what do you mean where does it end? Why do you insist it has to branch off from there?

[gregr2]

My Wojo, nice looking card, small pinhole makes it grade a 1.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180828/66eca5c6c090e709ef0481a9c161a3b6.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lowpopper]

Has Beckett ever give out a 0.5? They give 0.5 on subgrades.
would quad 0.5 subgrades yield a 0.5 or would they just not
grade it? I need the answer...It’s gonna bug me until I find out.


And yes, a pinhole (PH) would need a clear definition. If the card
has any indentations from a thumb tack it would not qualify IMO.


And to get super abstract, the “hole” question for an Authentic
is a good one. What’s the biggest hole we could put in a card
and still get it slabbed authentic. Fun contest coming soon. Lol

[steve B]

This would be a contender, but I'm not paying for it to sit somewhere for a year to find out.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=25399

[glchen]

I'm thinking:

1: POOR+ : Poor, complete card but with nice eye appeal
0.5: POOR: Poor, complete card in bad shape
Authentic: Card that is missing parts or has alterations

Saying that, for the registry, Authentic is already given 0.5 points, so it pretty much rules out the above.

[MikeGarcia]

This would be a contender, but I'm not paying for it to sit somewhere for a year to find out.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=25399

..
..the front centering is in the "3-ish" area..... "0.5 centering would be more towards 100-0 ??

..

[brianp-beme]

..
..the front centering is in the "3-ish" area..... "0.5 centering would be more towards 100-0 ??

..

Actually, the gaping hole is nicely centered. I imagine collectors would pay a premium for that type of hole centering.

Brian

[swarmee]

I'm thinking:

1: POOR+ : Poor, complete card but with nice eye appeal
0.5: POOR: Poor, complete card in bad shape
Authentic: Card that is missing parts or has alterations

Saying that, for the registry, Authentic is already given 0.5 points, so it pretty much rules out the above.

Incorrect. Auths are now worth PSA 1 for the registry. They made that change 1-2 years ago.

[steve B]

..
..the front centering is in the "3-ish" area..... "0.5 centering would be more towards 100-0 ??

..

Hmm... so the centering would get it more than an "A"? Even with the "small "hole?

[steve B]

I had to go look to see if they grade the Alex Gordon cutout card. They do, so even a rather large hole won't always prevent a number grade.:D

[drcy]

My response to this idea is: Use your eyes.

[Eric72]

I just hope "Hole" doesn't become a qualifier. I would hate to see what the flip would show with an Authentic card and a Hole qualifier :D

I literally laughed out loud...well done, sir.

[Stampsfan]

This would be a contender, but I'm not paying for it to sit somewhere for a year to find out.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=25399

Wow, that's a big pin.



CGC does have a .5 grade with comics, FWIW.

[tschock]

I think that a Poor can be valued by eye appeal. Seems that thousands of people do it daily. Not sure why it's so confusing.
Here's a really nice PSA 1 1956 Mantle. Looks like an EX-MT 6 except for the pinhole at the top center. Value? I'd say equal to a PSA 2.5.
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1956/Topps---Base/1351/Mickey-Mantle-(Gray-Back).jpg?id=00ec6fc3-6fb9-4586-8a51-502a66934505&size=zoom
Would AUTH also need a half grade?

I'd pay the going rate of "poor" prices for that card. And I'd probably be waiting in line as well.

[swarmee]

I had to go look to see if they grade the Alex Gordon cutout card. They do, so even a rather large hole won't always prevent a number grade.:D

Well, that's a factory issue. I'm sending in a Lavar Arrington with the same error (printed card without license to show Arrington) in my bulk shipment getting out before the month ends. Doesn't look like they've graded one of that one.

[Leon]

It's not really needed but wouldn't harm anything. The lower grade cards have a lot more subjectivity to their aesthetics so a .5 could be lower end poor :). Call it "VP or Very Poor?"

Since a lot of prewar cards get assigned the lonely number “1” and as we all know there can be a vast determination by what qualifies for a 1 by both PSA/SGC. What do you guys think if someone implemented a “.5”? I personally think it would help determine values on lower end examples.