[Al C.risafulli]

I think that there are people who criticize a TPG for not being as good as they are at grading, but then suggest the TPG write a novel summarizing the card's condition is perplexing to me.

There will always be errors in grading, we will see them regularly, just as there are always errors in any sort of assembly line-type process. The difference between the two, of course, is that when Panasonic makes a bad TV, you bring it back to the store and they give you a new one, then send the defective one back to Panasonic. In the card hobby, someone gets a bad card, they post a scan of it on a message board, there's a thread about it, 15 people take a copy of it and store it in their images file, and bring it back out every time there's a new thread on the topic. Then the card goes on eBay and gets circulated around the hobby again and again and again.

To me, I'm perfectly happy with the 1-10 (or 10-100) scale, understanding that I use those numbers as a guide. When I go to the liquor store, they say that some beer magazine rated one beer an 88 and another a 92, and it turns out that I prefer the 88 because I like hoppy beer better than malty beer. I'm not ready to put the beer magazine out of business over it.

That said, here's what I think about the back damage and photo issue:

With respect to back damage, I want it reflected in the grade, even in a blank-backed card. It's part of the card. If I buy a blank-backed card and it's graded a 5, and I get it and there's a speck of paper loss on the back, I am angry. The back of a card is part of a card, and I want the card judged in its entirety.

With respect to photography, I do not understand how a faded OJ that causes severe eyestrain if you want to see whether or not the player has a mustache can grade a 5. If I have a 1965 Topps Rod Kanehl, and the registration is out of focus, that's a print defect that's reflected in the grade. An 1887 Connie Mack should, in my opinion, be similarly judged.

-Al