Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate
Joann- do you think a grading system that used descriptive grades would be any less accurate than one that used numerical ones?
|
I think the problem with the current system is the implied precision that comes from having 10 standard grades and now half grades, along with the fact that computerization and the hobby have attached financial values to each level.
Think about the old price guides. They usually only reported value for maybe three grades - a low, medium and high. Everything else in between was allowed to slide along a scale in between the values and conditions given. The points on the scale would be determined by buyer/seller negotiation. I doubt that the exact positions of condition and value along those continuums (between reported points) would exactly line up with each other every time.
Before 3PG, you would negotiate a price for a VG card based on what the buyer was willing to pay for a VG card and the seller willing to sell it for. The card may not have been exactly VG and the price may not have been exactly going rate for a VG card. The buyer and seller hit something reasonable to both.
The problem with internet and increased remote (not in person) sales was when the card was not close to VG. Example, take the buyer position. He might say "I am willing to pay $X for a VG T206 Mathewson". He negotiates to pay $X for a VG, gets the card and believes it to be a P/F at best (assume for this argument that he is correct). His position would then be "If I had known it was P/F, I would only have been willing to pay $Y, not $X."
Note that there isn't anything in that scenario that says there was some arbitrary independent number that got at exact value. That's probably why it worked fairly well - no one was trying to defend tiny little slivers of financial position based on fractional numeric grades. The whole concept of negotiation and mutual agreement worked fine as long as both parties were in the same ballpark on condition. They didn't have to be exact - just close enough. That's where the 3PG system was and could be very helpful - by making sure there was some reasonable basis for both parties to be "close enough".
Now instead of maybe 6 categories there are 10, and even 20 if you count the half-grades. And they have all been assigned specific values. That's just flat out crazy.
Even reading the grading definitions doesn't help. Cards almost always have some characteristics of two different grades and sometimes more. How can any grading company purport to be able to thread the needle and fit a card neatly into one of 20 available slots? Attaching money - sometimes significant money - on the 1/20 pick being exactly right is asking for trouble.
So to get back to Barry's question, I think that the descriptions could be better if it went back to being
fewer of them because they would not have the implied precision. There would be more room for negotiated gray areas between grades. If there were 20 verbal descriptions or even 10, I don't think it would be any better - card grading is simply not that precise.
Finally, scanner technology has gone to the moon and back since 3PG was started. It's too bad that this doesn't help bridge the gap a little bit in terms of not being able to see the card in person. I understand that you might not want to buy a 5-digit card on a scan no matter how good the scanner. But with modern scanners, is there really any reason to be grading $35 commons?
Joann