Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
When you submit a Dale Coogan though, they're not pulling up examples of previously graded copies to see where it might fit in among the hierarchy of other Coogans. And they shouldn't be expected to, because we want them to keep grading fees affordable. But when they're grading cards like this Ruth and the 9.5 Mantle, I would argue that it's the right thing to do. Even if the grades look silly in comparison to other recently graded cards.
This is why you shouldn't move goalposts.
|
That IS moving the goalposts. The graders claim they do NOT give preferential treatment to high end cards and lift the grades for them. The whole reason for grading, besides the much more honest ‘it juices the money printer’ is that it’s supposed to be a consistent set of criteria applied to the cards to make condition less of a debate. It’s not consistent when there’s 2 completely different sets of rules where the big cards get juiced. They did it with an Wagner fairly recently as well, SGC is clearly overgrading the best cards they get, presumably for the obvious financial reasons. Again, I know that corruption will be very popular among a lot of the hobby but it’s absurd and in a normal business would reduce customer confidence.