Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag
Good point, though I would vary the wording slightly, as follows.
The problem with assigning a numerical grade is that the focus will be on the grade, not the card.
That Wagner is a GORGEOUS Wagner, IMO easily among the top few in the hobby. Yet the focus of this thread is the view it is over graded, and how corrupt SGC is to assign it the grade it did.
Yet if someone was to post a "properly" graded T206 Cobb 8, would there be a single post as to the probability (IMO about 100%) that the card has been worked on? Or how about an "8" that has badly toned borders and poor eye appeal, but "technically" merits an "8"?
I'll repeat a point I have made in the past and believe is worth making again -- The sole function of TPG should be to opine whether a card is genuine or counterfeit, and if genuine if it has been altered in any way. Anything other than that is a subjective assessment, which has no business being treated as some objective statement of condition.
Going back to this Wagner, IMO if we took the universe of slabbed T206s and showed how they really looked before any of the alteration/trimming been performed, I suspect people would not be so quick to opine it does not merit the accolades SGC gives it.
|
As nice of a card as it is the accolades SGC used to describe it only felt like a way to justify the over grade. And while it might be nicer and more genuine than many of the graded T206 Wagners that in no way should be the basis for the over grade. Had this card, like the 52 Mantle in the 9.5, been graded accurately, there would be fewer of us who would be focusing on the disappointment in SGC and more on the card. PSA is just as guilty of this BS but it makes a mockery of TPG, imo and Greg certainly illustrates the many reasons grading cannot be taken too seriously.