Pricing of qualified grading
 

Greetings all!

Curious how everyone feels about the value of a graded card with a qualifier. For instance, a PSA-4 Miscut T206 ... valued like a straight-up 2? 3? Frankly, I'd buy the card based on eye appeal, so if the MC doesn't affect how I see the card, I'd still be interested. Just don't want to seriously overpay, of course.

Thank you!
Eise


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Pretty much how I approach the price. Usually a 2 grade demerit.
That being said, I personally would prefer a 9 oc,st to a similar centered 7. The 7 will never (well shouldn’t) ever have the qualities of a 9, but other than the “q”, the 9Q should. Just my $.02

Qualifiers should have qualifiers
 

Agreed that the standard for at least the past decade that I've been buying vintage has been to dock 2 grades. I further agree that if the eye appeal isn't hurt much that I would rather have a nice 8 that is off-center or marked than a 6 with no qualifiers.

I have an N28 Allen & Ginter Comiskey from 1888 that is graded at PSA 5 (MK). If the image below you can see the mark, which looks like a couple of dots and maybe that tiny smudge up top that possibly came from a ball-point pen. I also recently learned ball point pens were invented in 1888.

The seller was asking for what a 4 was going for at the time of purchase and I sprung at it. I just don't see how these little dots take the value down two grades. Had they been on the back I'd have paid the value of a 5 for this card. At least that's what I'll try to convince everyone if I ever sell it!

A couple of dots, but a long pencil mark above the ball cap. I would not have paid a 4 price for this 5(MK). That's a huge mark, which severely detracts from the eye appeal.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/c...5/images/1.jpg

For a large pencil mark, more than 2 grades less in price. I cannot understand the logic in how damage from a pen or pencil is not part of the grade. It is after production damage by the end user, like a crease. The PSA system makes no sense at all. A significant mark should allow a card to grade a 3 at absolute best.

For a MC, I would pay over the price of a properly cut card for my T cards, with the rate depending on set and degree of MC. For a Topps card, about the same as a properly cut card unless it’s a 1971 Topps football, in which case the value is unlimited.

An OC, a grade or so less.

Oh my God.... How have I missed that for a decade and assumed it was part of the design? LOL!! Okay, now I overpaid.

I would prefer that they do away with qualifiers. Just numerically grade it and take in account any qualifier by reducing the actual grade.

Qualifiers are stupid. "This card would be mint if it wasn't so horribly off center with print dots". That is ridiculous.

That's like saying "My girlfriend would be beautiful if it wasn't for the third eye in the middle of her face.

This right here. Agree 110%.

I agree, how can you have a "9" that is 90/10 OC. Just grade based on the card with no qualifiers.

+1

Centering never should have been a factor in grading to begin with.

Lol. How many times can we have this exact discussion?

300? It's a chat board. People chat.

To the original question, 2 grades is the perceived hickey. Some are more eyesores than others though.
.

I agree with the concept that 2 grades is an appropriate adjuster. In part it’s probably driven by PSA’s deduction of two grades when doing the set registry math, and the rest of us not having a more refined approach to take.

At the same time, a lot of collectors avoid qualifiers, so the adjustment in many cases might be even larger by the market.

One further observation is that some items are so hard to find in any grade that a qualifier probably doesn’t make much of a difference at all. But for those cards, the same phenomenon holds true at the bottom of the grading scale as well, with or without qualifiers.

As one of a seemingly few on net54 who enjoys and seeks out the 'right' cards with qualifiers, let me offer a couple of quick examples as to why the the two-point drop in value doesn't often compute.

According to that theory, a PSA 8 OC and a PSA 6 should be the same price, so I did a quick search on PSA's 'Auction Prices Realized' site to find cards that had similar centering, and grabbed these four examples (not my cards)...


This first pair was graded long ago, and although the centering is decently alike overall, the PSA 8 OC does have much better centering, and look how much sharper the corners are. For a moment, imagine the centering was (literally) exactly the same on both. The card with the qualifier is so much stronger in every other aspect, so it should never sell for the same price as the PSA 6. It is much more 'valuable.'

Attachment 559191


In this example, the PSA 6 is a recent grade, so it must be better than the 6 in the previous example, but again, the card with the qualifier is much better in every aspect. The two cards should never command the same price.

Attachment 559190


These are non-cherry-picked examples, so you can find a million other cards to either agree with or refute what I am saying, but the basic fact remains: “All OC cards are equal, but some OC cards are more equal than others.” :D

I pretty much avoid them for the most part. There would have to be a huge discount for me to buy a PSA card with a qualifier.

I don't think MC has much value to collects as it is pretty easy to see if something isn't well centered.

The MK designation has some value though as the qualifier helps you not miss it (unless you are ParisianJohn :D ;) :p ). An erased mark, if detected, also gets the MK from PSA, which is handy. Though I assume they miss a lot of erasures.

I agree with all this, and a big problem with MC is half the time it's on the back, which 90% of collectors wouldn't care about, except for the qualified grade.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I like the concept of qualifiers but only for factory defects. The card is the exact condition it was made in, but according to aTPG it is determined to be outside a certain arbitrary standard , thus has this qualifier. I think it provides a lot of information on the condition of the actual card. I wish they would add a qualifier for a rough cut, nothing worst than a straight 8 that looks like a 69 Deckle edge. Also if a card has been marked or stained or doesn’t meet a size standard, it shouldn’t receive a numerical grade, only an A and the reason and let the buyer determine the value.

Would disagree with this particular point, simply because CJ,s and T cards would rarely receive a numerical if stains were an automatic “A”

OTW spot on.

Buy the card - not the holder
 

In agreement with some previous posts and a couple of points to add:

1) I think each card needs to be evaluated based on its visual merits as Darren so greatly illustrated.
2) I think the value of qualified cards as you go down the grading chain in general goes down as a percentage of the unqualified card. Take for example the 1951 Bowman Mantle 8oc that sold for almost 70K in Heritage last night - that was about an 85% discount to an unqualified 8 which had really nice eye appeal. 6's have been in the $37K-$40K range. When we are talking very low populations, like many 9oc's and some 8oc's, I don't think the "2-grade price drop" necessarily applies.
3) Not all qualifiers are equal. to me an M/C is the worst as it visually detracts the most from the card. Some "MK's" are worse than others. St's are sometimes near impossible to see (other times - glaring). there are varying degrees of o/c's.

While certainly the market has spoken and it makes a lot of sense that qualified cards should be valued less than unqualified cards, but similar to how "not all 8's are created equal", I think it should be thought of as a price range that varies with the eye appeal and supply of the card.