Grading of "Tweener" Cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I'd be interested in the forum's thoughts about cards that have clean sharp corners/edges but a glaring problem elsewhere (example below). How should these be graded? A card with that kind of damage might be considered poor, but without that damage, the card is a 5 or 6. Should that be graded as the average of the two (as it seems SGC did here), or do you prefer a designation such as PSA offers of 5(MK)?



In this case, an ink spot (it's not a hole) right on his forehead is the glaring flaw.

Also, what if the spot was on the back instead?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Are you sure that's an ink spot? Because if it is, even a 40 is generous. I'm not sure a card qualifies as a 40 if there is ink on it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil Garry

I think that PSA's qualifier system more accurately reflects the overall condition of the card but, value-wise, most collectors hate purchasing a card with a qualifier and would probably prefer the SGC "average" method.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Barry - The seller said it was a "mark" on the front and provided a scan of the back which was clean. Your point is exactly the issue I'm interested in; should a big defect like that de facto drop the card, or should it be averaged with the fact the rest of the card is strong?

Phil - pick a side!! What's better for the hobby as a whole?

Al - So should it be dropped to fair or get a 40?

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I personally don't like qualifiers. It's like those guys that say "If it wasn't for the giant crease across the front of the card, the card would be MINT."

The grade is what the grade is, IMO. I don't mind making allowances for eye appeal, but I don't like the idea of disregarding a major flaw like writing or a miscut.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

I thought Lou had a mole. Guess I'm wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Well, personally I would grade the card differently depending upon whether the ink spot came from the original printing or whether the previous owner added the ink spot.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Steve - lots of dimples, but none in the middle of his forehead.

Peter - How would you ever know? Or do you only evaluate cards if you know their whole providence?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Matt,

Of course it's difficult to tell...but that's the grader's job. If I could not tell the difference, I would return the card ungraded.

If it was from the printing process, there would be a relatively minor deduction. If it was subsequently done by the customer, then a major deduction.

Peter c.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Peter - so let's say ti happened later in life, as seems to be the case with the example above. How would you grade it:
a) drop it to it's lowest common denominator
b) take the overall average of the card
c) take the rest of the card without the mark and qualify it?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

You can always use GAI, they give half grades such as 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 etc.
P.S. Providence is a town in Rhode Island, I think you meant to say "provenance."

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Matt,

Having an explicit qualifier would be the most honest way to deal with it or the card should be returned ungraded.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Bob - thanks for the correction. How does a half grade help you here when you're between Fair and Excellent?

[Archive]

Posted By: David R

Maybe a little O/T but not much. How about tobacco stains on Polar Bear t206s or Honest Tobacco t205s? I have seen some that seem to have tiny pieces of tobacco stuck to the card? I wouldn't remove them for fear of taking some paper off but does anyone know whether they are treated like paper loss or ink markings by the grading companies? Is there any allowance for this given that these cards came packaged with the tobacco? Should there be?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

SGC simply made a mistake in that they didn't recognize the very rare "Ash Wednesday" variation.