Should Grading Companies Give Leeway...

[mannequin1]

I'm sure this has likely been discussed before, but should grading companies, (especially PSA) give slight leeway to pre 1980/vintage cards and not grade them to the standards of 1990s to present cards?

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I'm sure this has likely been discussed before, but should grading companies, (especially PSA) give slight leeway to pre 1980/vintage cards and not grade them to the standards of 1990s to present cards?

In select cases, they already do. For example, an O-Pee-Chee Gretzky rookie can have a rough cut edge without that component adversely impacting the grade.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Eric72

In select cases, they already do. For example, an O-Pee-Chee Gretzky rookie can have a rough cut edge without that component adversely impacting the grade.

I agree. I think most of the experienced graders probably grade pre-war a little differently. They should. How can you compare a 1924 card to 2024 card?
.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I'm sure this has likely been discussed before, but should grading companies, (especially PSA) give slight leeway to pre 1980/vintage cards and not grade them to the standards of 1990s to present cards?

No! Absolutely not! Over the years I've heard far too many shysters say "Well it's mint for its age."

[Smarti5051]

I definitely think the standard should have been different. For a 2019 card, 95% of the cards fall into the PSA 8-10 range. So, a grader needs to split hairs to find something to distinguish an 8 from a 9 or 10.

By contrast, less than 5% of pre-war cards fall into the PSA 8-10 range. As a result, most cards are bunched into the PSA 1-4 range. Worse, a couple creases and soft corners quickly has those cards filling up the ranks of the dreaded "PSA 1" label, which offers no insight into its condition relative to other cards with the same grade, since there is an insanely WIDE gap between the best and worst PSA 1 cards for any issue.

With that said, I don't know how you can revamp the standard at this point. Most of the higher value cards are already in holders and there is a market expectation for what the grade represents. Becoming far more lenient now on older cards would drastically reduce the value of cards graded when standards were stricter and lead to a new wave of regrading cards, making the population reports even less accurate.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

No! Absolutely not! Over the years I've heard far too many shysters say "Well it's mint for its age."

These Colgan's Violet and Mint Chips cards haven't been mint for ages, but this shyster considers them mint (round gum cards) for their age.

I do believe that the relatively 'dull' prewar cards we collect should not be judged in the same fashion as modern shiny cards (ones that reflect light to the extent of potentially causing retinal damage).

Brian

[gregndodgers]

The simple fact is that vintage sports cards (pre-1980) were produced at a time when quality standards were much lower than they are for the cards produced today. The same is true for many other things in life like buildings, automobiles, etc. The paper, ink, printing, and cutting methods used for vintage sports cards is inferior to that used in modern cards. Hence, a card right out of the pack, which is supposed to be "mint" because it came straight from the factory, usually had poor centering, ink spots or print lines, and was easily damaged due to inferior paper quality. In many cases, it has nothing to do with the passage of time and poor handling / protection of the cards.

For these reasons, vintage sports cards should not be subjected to the same standards that modern cards have. Processes change and improve, and grading should consider that.

[ALBB]

Id put those chips at EX MT

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

No! Absolutely not! Over the years I've heard far too many shysters say "Well it's mint for its age."

I feel the same exact way. Having different standards just makes for more confusion and overall silliness to an already extremely silly process.

[mannequin1]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

I definitely think the standard should have been different. For a 2019 card, 95% of the cards fall into the PSA 8-10 range. So, a grader needs to split hairs to find something to distinguish an 8 from a 9 or 10.

By contrast, less than 5% of pre-war cards fall into the PSA 8-10 range. As a result, most cards are bunched into the PSA 1-4 range. Worse, a couple creases and soft corners quickly has those cards filling up the ranks of the dreaded "PSA 1" label, which offers no insight into its condition relative to other cards with the same grade, since there is an insanely WIDE gap between the best and worst PSA 1 cards for any issue.

With that said, I don't know how you can revamp the standard at this point. Most of the higher value cards are already in holders and there is a market expectation for what the grade represents. Becoming far more lenient now on older cards would drastically reduce the value of cards graded when standards were stricter and lead to a new wave of regrading cards, making the population reports even less accurate.

I started this thread because dealers are complaining that PSA has gotten much tougher in the last several years and that vintage cards are now grading 1-2 grades lower than when they first started. They either overgraded back then, or undergrade now. Things need to be graded in the middleground to be accurate.

[Andrew1975]

Grading consistency is bad enough, without having to account for "leeway". PSA and SGC have definitions of each grade. They should attempt to stick to them... If a card is a 2, by definition, why should it matter if the card was made in 1910 or 2010? What about cards from the 30s, 40s, 50s... give them some leeway, but not quite as much?

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Andrew1975

Grading consistency is bad enough, without having to account for "leeway". PSA and SGC have definitions of each grade. They should attempt to stick to them... If a card is a 2, by definition, why should it matter if the card was made in 1910 or 2010?

I agree.