Posted By:
warshawlaw The post about gluing a card back together raised a really interesting issue: what does a "1" grade mean and how should it be used? I raise the issue separately because I have seen more than one card with chunks missing from it or major tears graded a "1" by SGC (check their pop report for N310 Corbett cards--the "1" listed there was missing two chunks) and someone in the recent gluing thread mentioned that PSA had graded a Mantle that had been glued together.
The first aspect I am thinking of is the use of a "1" or similar lower grade on cards with major damage like missing pieces, tears, major back damage or peeling, etc. I know that the services will grade a card with this kind of damage because I have had some OJ's graded this way. So, the first question is at what point does the damage to a card become so profound that the card is ungradeable at any level?
The second aspect is the rationale behind the apparent selection of certain alterations as gradeable (albeit as a "1") and the rejection of others as "bad" alterations. Why is a card with a torn off corner, a rip from a thumbtack, or a peeled back gradeable but a card with a trimmed edge ungradeable? Is there any rational basis for the distinction or have we merely accepted wholecloth a decision made by others as to what is acceptable? Why, for example, do the services grade Zeenuts and Red Man's with the coupons trimmed off yet not a T206 with a trimmed edge? I know that some people say that a tear or removal of a tab is "regular" wear but a trim is an "alteration"; to me this is mere semantics. I mean, first of all, in the case of a "tear" or missing corner no one who did not do the damage knows precisely how it happened. It seems to boil down to a judgment call as to whether someone intentionally trimmed the card or inadvertently tore off its end, which I feel is an inherently indefensible call to make.