Quote:
Originally Posted by perezfan
I immediately thought the same thing. But then realized I was comparing it to the traditional standard, as dictated to us by PSA.
I have always believed that the current grading scale foist upon us has way too much room for variance at the low end, yet has miniscule (almost microscopic) variance at the top end. There really is not much visual difference between a 7-8-9-10. But the jump from a 1 to a 4 is practically life changing.
Perhaps CSG's grading scale will feature more even increments in condition from number to number. If that's the case, I could easily see the 2.5 grade for the Mays. If their intent is to emulate the PSA/SGC scale, then of course it is over-graded.
I personally would prefer a revamped and more evenly spaced grading scale that punishes poor focus or a crease more than a tiny pin hole or speck of paper loss.
|
I agree with all this. This is what the bottom end of the number scale should be for. To lump every card that has a fair amount of handling wear under a "2" grade, seems pretty silly to me.
For those of us who were around before grading company influences and the magical influx of pristine looking 50+ year old cards, this is what most of the cards looked like.
That said, yeah, that card doesn't look great in the holder. If you have a card of that value, at least spring an extra 10 bucks for the sub-grades so you fill up more of the dead space on the flip.
