Quote:
Originally Posted by Hankphenom
OK, so we have maybe 5% loss/residue and some staining on the worst backs, and eye-popping fronts--you know, the important side by a factor of what, 10 or 100 in relation to the backs? If that justifies 1.5s all around for these extreme rarities that are basically never seen in ANY condition, I rest my case. I will go to my grave believing that is a flawed grading system, one that everyone accepts now, but that really doesn't make much sense in the real world. They would all be at least 3s or 4s if I were king of the forest. That would leave a ton of room for any surfacing in much better shape, while not lumping them in with ones driven over by tanks in the mud on the downside. Not trying to pick any fights here, and I totally get where we are. Of course, I should just let it go, but someone many years ago pulled this absurd system out of their butts and decreed it to be so, and it will never seem logical to me.
|
Respectfully, I've got to disagree with you Hank. The whole idea of grading (in my mind) is that a grade is assigned to a whole card that survived in a certain type of condition.
A '57 Bel Air with an immaculate body and a destroyed interior is not in showroom condition, just because she looks pretty on the outside. Following your logic, a skinned card should grade high because the front looks great while the rear side is completely missing.
The inside of a fence is just as important to the security of a property as the outside. Its all a complete package in my mind. If the backs on these cards have paper loss, then they are graded properly as-is. What if the front had paper loss and the backs were immaculate?