My Crazy New Grading Idea Under 6 = Authentic

[Jason19th]

Today I received my Mantle for the 1960 set I am putting together. It’s a beautiful card with great centering and nice corners and a clean back. But it’s got paper loss on the right boarder so if I sent it in it would at best grade a 1 ( and that would be correct grade under current standards) The problem as I see it however that there are many other cards that would grade a 1 (my 1959 Mantle for instance) which look much worse to any objective viewer.

Here is my solution. Grading companies should only give numbers to 6-10 (ex-mt - gem) Everything else is just authentic. This allows us to correctly value the actual condition scarcities and then let collectors (an investors) value everything else on a card by card basis. This eliminates all of the artificial handwringing about one crease vs two, a mark vs wax stain , a pinhole vs paper loss, off center vs miscut. It comes how does the card look and what do you want to pay for it.

[raulus]

T206 Wagner gets this scale too? Or do you make an exception there?

[Jason19th]

Originally Posted by raulus

T206 Wagner gets this scale too? Or do you make an exception there?

No this would apply perfectly to Wagner. All of the non-trimmed cards are lower grade and they are all equally rare. Let eye appeal rule the day

[ullmandds]

what about trimmed examples...are they still A too?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

what about trimmed examples...are they still A too?

Yes this is the thing...how could a "5" get the same grade as a heavily trimmed card? Doesn't make sense to me

[Seven]

Practically my entire collection is now authentic!

In all seriousness, I care little for the graded number, I go strictly by eye appeal.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Yes this is the thing...how could a "5" get the same grade as a heavily trimmed card? Doesn't make sense to me

How can a card with a pencil or pen mark be considered bad and a signature be good? Is a 10 graded autograph still a 10 if there was a stray mark accidentally added at signing? So a 10(mk) …..

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

No this would apply perfectly to Wagner. All of the non-trimmed cards are lower grade and they are all equally rare. Let eye appeal rule the day

Cool cool. So basically all of the Wagners are authentic.

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

Today I received my Mantle for the 1960 set I am putting together. It’s a beautiful card with great centering and nice corners and a clean back. But it’s got paper loss on the right boarder so if I sent it in it would at best grade a 1 ( and that would be correct grade under current standards) The problem as I see it however that there are many other cards that would grade a 1 (my 1959 Mantle for instance) which look much worse to any objective viewer.

Here is my solution. Grading companies should only give numbers to 6-10 (ex-mt - gem) Everything else is just authentic. This allows us to correctly value the actual condition scarcities and then let collectors (an investors) value everything else on a card by card basis. This eliminates all of the artificial handwringing about one crease vs two, a mark vs wax stain , a pinhole vs paper loss, off center vs miscut. It comes how does the card look and what do you want to pay for it.

I think a better solution is for collectors/investors to stop thinking of the grading companies as gods who dictate pricing and what is acceptable. There is no rule saying you must agree with the grade on the label. Just pay what you want to pay based on how the card looks to you regardless of what the number or letter or company on the label is.

[Alaskanmade]

So using this logic 90% of graded T205's would now become "authentic"?
Seems like this idea can work ok for cards from the 50's and newer, but for older more condition sensitive sets it kinda all goes out the window.

[luciobar1980]

I think this would be an OK idea if all cards were purchased in person and could be carefully examined. Otherwise it'd kinda be a sh*tshow.

[conor912]

I think this idea needs some refinement 😀

That said, I do agree that there are issues with this “1” bucket that seems to cast an ever-increasingly large net. The “poor” designation now seems capable of having its own 1-10 scale.