Fading / Image Quality Matters

[tcalca24]

I love the history and nostalgia of old 19th century cards. I am a collector of St. Louis Pre War Cards. Both Cardinals and Browns. I am always amazed how the quality of the picture isn't factored into the grade. Wouldn't you rather have a relatively sharp 3 than a 6 that is faded but good corners? This is a case where I would and is common when dealing with N Cards. Thoughts?

[scooter729]

It definitely factors into the selling prices these days, regardless of the grade. Buyers of OJ's know they want the image quality over the assigned grade on these.

[Jobu]

I only have a few OJs but I agree with the OP 100%. Give me the 3 over the 6 every day of the week. I don't even mind the card being a lot rougher if the image is nice - and Keefe doesn't even sniff the quality of the Carroll.

[SetBuilder]

Sadly, some of the very faded cards today will someday be invisible. They'll be just a piece of cardboard with a blank front.

[ksfarmboy]

Yes to me image quality is everything. Doesn’t do me any good if I’m buying a certain player and can’t even make out the face. If you really wanted to grade these there should be two. One for the condition of the card and one for the clarity of the image.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I do better with clear Ones with back damage than I do with faint 4's. That being said there is debate as to whether the images are actually faded or if they developed that way since mass production of photography was more art than science.

[trdcrdkid]

I posted about the TPG grading standards for Old Judges a few years ago, and sharpness of image was one of the main factors I discussed (the other one being back damage). See that thread here:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=203387

My OJ collection has more than doubled in size since I wrote that, and more and more I've focused on cards with sharp images and nice contrast, regardless of other flaws they may have. For most collectors I know, a graded OJ's technical grade from PSA or SGC has very little to do with its desirability. It's not completely irrelevant, but it's much less relevant than image quality. We had some good discussion about this in the thread linked above, and I've also discussed it with Jay Miller. At the 2015 National, I believe it was, Jay said that he had talked to somebody from SGC who agreed that the grading standards for Old Judges are totally screwed up, but nothing has been done about it since then, as far as I know.

[chlankf]

Completely agree. I have quite a few OJs that are trimmed, some severely, with great images. I haven't found upgrades to them with better images.

[trdcrdkid]

For example, here is an OJ I recently got that I'm sure would get an AUTH if I sent it in to be graded. The back is kind of a mess, and it's partially skinned at the bottom. Yet look at that image! I love it, and I certainly wouldn't trade this card for some SGC 50 card with a faded image but sharp corners.

[oldjudge]

I wholeheartedly agree with what has been said. An Old Judge is simply an albumen photo glued to a blank back piece of cardboard which protects the fragile image. The most important quality of a photograph is its’ clarity.
David-what a beautiful image. Congratulations on the pick up!

[RCMcKenzie]

I managed these, the seller had better ones that I lost. The picture is the story.

[RCMcKenzie]

These came in the mail today. Here are better scans. Nice to see OJ's are still being found in the wild...