Card grading bias?
 

<P>

http://bcc.anaclubs.org/johnson.htm

<P>

Why are there "white strips" and no back images? Hard to compare in my opinion.

From provided image
 

All seem to be graded fine. Johnson does look a little less worn, corners seem a little less rounded.

Because that is where the AH logo is......

could you be a little clearer
 

about your question? Hard to opine without a little more clarity - I assume you are asking if the WoJo should have gotten a grade equal to the others if it wasn't a big name card and at the same time you are again trying to point out your distain or discomfort with SGC? To be fair I think the grading companies usually have the benefit of seeing the backs as well as the fronts but to me the grading of the cards shown all seems to be within normal tollerence - the disparity between WoJo and the others seems minimal to my untrained eye. Sometimes it's like a called strike or ball in baseball. The home plate umpire makes the call based on their objective interpretation of a set of rules. This human element is contrary to the application of static scientific measures to determine "condition".
A better example to highlight such a question will be uncovered when following the link I've included. Please look at the second scan that includes Anson - glad that would never happen at PSA. :confused:
Maybe a better question would be is there a bias linked to who it is that's submitting the cards rather than the cards themselves? Or, what is the actual skill set of the 22 year old who graded the card?
BTW Jerry - there's a postcard auction coming up in which I spied one of those non-baseball Rose PC's buried in a large lot - LMK if you have interest...... Anyone with a link to the threads in which these things were discussed?

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=32100

I went to sleep around 4 am so after 4 hours sleep this post might make even less sense than usual. I always feel compelled to defend my grader of choice (no, I didn't wake up to do so). I will admit that I am kind of upset lately with SGC - as to me they have shown signs of not making proper business decisions with regard to the grades, the holders, the flips. It's how I roll I guess.....

all cards look about same grade to me. This however is no way near a large enough sample size to conclude bias.

Looks to me as if they factored in how good the player was.

My posted statement: all backs are clean and equal. If they were not I would has taken the time to assemble and scan them also.

Eric - Glyn
Your opinion is that the Johnson card is one grade higher than any of the rest? Johnson has less wear than Ganley?

Henry
Simply judge from the image provided.
You may have a favorite grader; I don't. I judge each graded card on its' own merit. We are not debating your favorite ball team we are discussing business. Professional grading is a business. Integrity, honesty, consistency, reliability, fairness, etc., without favoritism business. Making a product with false value is not good business.
IMO the one grade higher is not warranted.
Bias = submitter.
You do realize that at the same grade the Johnson card is worth at about 20 times more than any of the other cards and with one extra grade point about 30 times. That difference is a few thousand dollars.
Someday we will have computer grading that will be free of any influences or "errors".

Dennis
The image is twice the size of the postcard!! Larger than given anywhere.

Bob
Exactly, and the better player - the higher card value.

Looks to me like McBride has most wear and Ganley the least although all are quite close. Not sure what Glyn is seeing.

Jerry, I meant that I would want to see more instances of this occurring before I would state the grading companies are biased. I do agree that all cards you show are roughly the same grade.

Jerry
 

to be clear I have a grader I favor in that my views/standards/parameters most allign with SGC over PSA including issues like assessing grades on cards with paperloss. In any event when I try to buy a graded card that isn't in hand - the TPG itself in conjunction with the grade suggests a range to me within which I can assume it to fall for constancy and pricing. It can also be a "warning" of elements not readily apparent from a picture that lacks description.
I DO NOT get my cards graded for someone else's opinion of the condition. It's mainly aesthetics and protection, I started with SGC and I'm a little OCD (actually OMG), and I can appreciate the extra eye on my cards at times with regard to issues such as trimming and erasure that I might miss - * I might buy such a card but would obviously like knowing before hand as the "value" is linked to the condition. My major problem is that it's often difficult to determine whether an invisible fault has affected the grade over more tangible flaws - I suppose that creates a market for the people who "flip" and reinforces the idiom buy the card and not the holder.
As for the cards shown above the grade disparity doesn't seem that pronounced although I would agree that WoJo's status may have affected THE UNKNOWN GRADER when assessing the card. I think in a recent thread - the discussion in part pointed to the unusual amount of people that chose a superstar as their "favorite card" within a set - the inference being some emotional component (and perhaps visually encountering star examples most often) is in play - the bias. Of course it might also be seen as within normal tolerances as exhibited by tpg examples in the past.
I think it might be important to put all the examples in context. If all of the cards were graded by the same grader at the same time - we would have a more substantial starting point for the arguement.
Jerry - no problem with you whatsoever - I should have answered more succinctly.

Jerry- Agreed!

Ganley -- does it have a slight bend at the upper right where the light horizontal line is?

McBride - Unless it's printed in, it looks like some scuffing on the left side of the portrait.

Clymer - maybe a bit of surface wear to the right of the portrait? Hard to tell. The lower left corner is a little worse then the other cards corners.

Johnson - Nothing obvious, if the others don't have the little bends and surface wear I'd say it's the same.

I think 55 for Johnson is maybe a bit high, but maybe only 1/2 a grade. Without any issues I'd think the others might be a half grade under.


I've seen some stuff that makes me think some HOF or rare cards do get a little bump. That's probably human nature having some influence. Think about the threads about what one card someone would want or would keep. Hardly anyone picks commons.

Overall it's still an improvement over the pre-grading era. The one Wagner I've seen in person had a few serious creases, and writing on the back. The antique auction described it right, and had it as I think F-G. Over the next year and a half or so it was sold 4 times. And became in turn G, G-VG, and VG. With creases and writing.....And each time the price increased by a lot 30K at the original auction, and I think 90K the last time I saw it. I think it's number 39 in the T206 resource gallery.

Pre grading all those postcards would be EX_MT or maybe even near mint from most dealers.

Steve B

The difference
 

The ganley is the one that can most be argued is under graded, however the type of wear is different in my opinion. I hate judging scans and i may feel different in person. The Johnson is more worn where as the Ganley is more bumped and folded corner wise. Again I am going from a scan and could feel different in person. PS I think that line may be the culprit. I honestly could be seeing it wrong but both bottom corners look to have those mild corner creases. i could be seeing things but thats what I saw to justify the grades. I would not argue if they were all the same either but one grade difference when not in hand and I think I may see something, I will usually figure Lummy got it right and I just feel the lower right is more rounded yet less worn than the johnson lower left. Its one of those grading sometimes different than eye appeal things. I honestly feel McBride and Clymer are clearly worse.

Thanks to all for your interest.

The cards in question were all graded at the same time evidenced by the consecutive numbers on the label in the holders. Of this group of four Washington Senators postcards, a together group that mirrored each other in appearance, the Johnson card was chosen to be in a class by itself; although it doesn't look so and it just so happens that that boost in grade swells its' potential value by an additional few thousand dollars. What great news for the consignor and the auctioneer!
The buyer however, should have implicit trust in the ability of the professional grader to fairly evaluate and indicate the true condition of the card in their reputable holder.

Any bidders?

Henry
What we got here is failure to communicate. We went off the track somewhere but I understand your concerns and evaluation.


Someday we may have a CAC (a company that verifies grading company’s grades) a graders grader that is used in the coin hobby for high valued coins.

My Rose Co. postcard article was published in the Oct 17 SCD. I you don’t subscribe it is also online:

http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.co...pany-postcards

<P>