I went with needs an overhaul. Maybe not a massive overhaul, but maybe a couple important changes and a slight expansion.
The changes?
1) have a Grading summit or whatever it took to get the big 3 together and settle on how to handle marks, paper loss, etc. I think they're all close to in line with corners and centering, but to have them grade differently because of a bit of paper loss on the back that one sees as a big problem and another sees as a small problem actually hurts everyone.
2) Maybe setup a third party as a go between for crossovers. I can see why none of them report to the others, it gives away info about a certain volume of business. so maybe go through a third party that would report them blind, no info about the crosover being done by anyone in particular. They could even track breakouts by colectors if they reported it. Doing this would make the pop reports a lot more valid.
3)Make BccG redo itself as 2,4,6, 8, 10 to make it less scammy. and do away with the traditional grades for that. Go with Awful, not so bad, kinda nice, really nice and wow!
For expansion, I think there's room for a superpremium grading service. Lets say, a slab with a panel next to the card for career stats or such. And behind that side panel a place to put a detailed report that explains the grade.
Also, the superpremium grade would be a combination of a mechanical grade - creases, %corner wear - Just the state of preservation of the cardboard and ink. Then have an aesthetic grade including stuff like centering, registration, and image quality.
I've only graded a handful of cards, and traded for one other. I can't see much value in grading 1s and 2s, I'm pretty able to tell when a card is beat.
But....Call me a putz if you must, it's fun to look at the card coming back and see that it's the best one graded. Yes, sure there are likely nicer ones out there, but just for the moment to realise you've got a card that's really that nice compared to others of its kind is pretty cool.
Steve B
|