Grading Technical vs. Overall Appeal

[Delray Vintage]

I have noticed that prices for lower grade but better eye appeal are getting higher. In fact a better centered card sometimes out prices a card graded two grades higher. Does card grading need to change and give more weight to overall appearance? The idea of giving a numerical grade was to make it easy to compare cards and establish price points. In fact, this is not the reality. Would a badly centered but technically not OC be more desirable than a perfectly centered card graded lower because of a corner being slightly less sharp? If grading is supposed to equalize card assessments and value, something is off in the grading world.

Overall eye appeal should be part of the grade. I know that sometimes makes grading more subjective. But we all view cards with our visual senses and not whether a corner is 90% sharp versus 85% sharp.

[Belfast1933]

You bring up some good points, on both sides of the issue

As a collector back into the hobby in the last 2-3 years, the best advice I got as I discovered that grading was such a “thing” was to buy the card, not the grade

That advice has really served me well - in a way, the grading technicalities vs the eye appeal as a collector had provided me with pretty good bargains over the last 3 years -

[notfast]

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

I have noticed that prices for lower grade but better eye appeal are getting higher. In fact a better centered card sometimes out prices a card graded two grades higher. Does card grading need to change and give more weight to overall appearance? The idea of giving a numerical grade was to make it easy to compare cards and establish price points. In fact, this is not the reality. Would a badly centered but technically not OC be more desirable than a perfectly centered card graded lower because of a corner being slightly less sharp? If grading is supposed to equalize card assessments and value, something is off in the grading world.

Overall eye appeal should be part of the grade. I know that sometimes makes grading more subjective. But we all view cards with our visual senses and not whether a corner is 90% sharp versus 85% sharp.

This entire post basically shows why vintage can be collected differently by everyone.

I love the fact that I can look at a PSA 2 t206 and think it’s amazing because its centered with good registration even though it’s got a corner rounded off. The next guy might think the card is trash because of that corner and go for a sharper PSA 4 that is OC...something I wouldn’t look at twice.

That’s the beauty of vintage IMO.

I have noticed SERIOUS price differences in 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson and 52 Mantle’s solely based on centering. I’m on board with it to be honest as centering is huge for me.

[Delray Vintage]

That seems to be a problem in the grading world. If grades were supposed to make cards a tradeable commodity then that has failed as a goal. You are right that with Mantle centering trumps corners by a lot. Grades seem to be correlated to price in most cases but less so with iconic cards where appearance is more important than sharpness of corners.

[Casey2296]

I have centering OCD so I will always buy centering over grade. To my eyes a card has to have balance, registration, color, and honest edges. At this point "sharp" corners and thin borders on a pre-war card in a PSA holder is a red flag for me.

[conor912]

I agree that you have some great points, as I have always collected eye appeal over technical grade. That said, i think grading companies have enough problems with subjectivity as it is. Letting them weight a grade for eye appeal sounds like a logistical nightmare.

[MattyC]

PSA has long given the most weight to corners, and not nearly enough respect to image focus or centering. Perhaps because their biggest submitters can most easily sharpen a corner

But Delrey you nail it and preach on— the collector’s eyes are what matter most and guys should always buy what is the prettiest card to them, not what some “professional grader” who knows less about cards says is best.

[Delray Vintage]

I know PWCC has attempted to add eye appeal in its ratings. The fact that PSA and SGC are leaving eye appeal ratings to auction houses is a problem. There needs to be a better way to grade cards. Let’s take the example of Old Judge where many were pasted in albums. The card could be sharp with deep photographic quality. Any slight missing paper on the blank back makes it a 1. A faded card with great corners and clean back can get a 7. How is this system helping collectors and buyers? There needs a reevaluation of what makes a card grade. Basically we need grading companies to prevent fakes and alterations. But we also want some objective way to equate cards so the same grade means the same quality and value.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

I know PWCC has attempted to add eye appeal in its ratings. The fact that PSA and SGC are leaving eye appeal ratings to auction houses is a problem. There needs to be a better way to grade cards. Let’s take the example of Old Judge where many were pasted in albums. The card could be sharp with deep photographic quality. Any slight missing paper on the blank back makes it a 1. A faded card with great corners and clean back can get a 7. How is this system helping collectors and buyers? There needs a reevaluation of what makes a card grade. Basically we need grading companies to prevent fakes and alterations. But we also want some objective way to equate cards so the same grade means the same quality and value.

I've never relied on a grading company or auction house to tell me what appeals to me.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

I know PWCC has attempted to add eye appeal in its ratings. The fact that PSA and SGC are leaving eye appeal ratings to auction houses is a problem. There needs to be a better way to grade cards. Let’s take the example of Old Judge where many were pasted in albums. The card could be sharp with deep photographic quality. Any slight missing paper on the blank back makes it a 1. A faded card with great corners and clean back can get a 7. How is this system helping collectors and buyers? There needs a reevaluation of what makes a card grade. Basically we need grading companies to prevent fakes and alterations. But we also want some objective way to equate cards so the same grade means the same quality and value.

YES - grading companies either need to unequivocally weed out fakes and alterations OR stop claiming that they do!

No - there will never be a truly objective standard as discussed in this thread "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" different elements of a cards condition are differently important to different people.

[pokerplyr80]

I agree with you on most of the points you made, except for that the same card in a specific grade should be worth a certain price. The last thing we need is even more subjectivity in grading.

Grading companies are supposed to be able to spot an altered or fake card, and assign cards a numerical grade based on established and publish standards. They have had difficulty doing that so far.

Some of us prefer to pay a premium for a centered 4 with nice color, registration, etc. Or a PSA 1 that looks like a 6 or 7 but has a small pin hole or back damage. Others may not. But this is not a flaw that needs to be corrected. It allows for different ways to enjoy the hobby.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I don't agree that grading companies are supposed to line up grades based on secondary market value for the collector. They are supposed to authenticate and grade based on certain stated parameters. The collector then actually looks at the card and decides for themselves if they like the appearance, centering, registration, etc. and sets the market price with their bids. Some sets/cards have issues with centering, some with registration, but not all cards are the same. OJs can be high grade and look terrible where you can't even see the image, while a Jim Brown RC (I know, football and not prewar) can be low grade but command a higher price if it's centered because it's a tough card to find centered. The eye appeal should be left to the collector while technicalities can be the job of the grader.

[Delray Vintage]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I don't agree that grading companies are supposed to line up grades based on secondary market value for the collector. They are supposed to authenticate and grade based on certain stated parameters. The collector then actually looks at the card and decides for themselves if they like the appearance, centering, registration, etc. and sets the market price with their bids. Some sets/cards have issues with centering, some with registration, but not all cards are the same. OJs can be high grade and look terrible where you can't even see the image, while a Jim Brown RC (I know, football and not prewar) can be low grade but command a higher price if it's centered because it's a tough card to find centered. The eye appeal should be left to the collector while technicalities can be the job of the grader.

I agree mostly, but the whole grading industry was based on making prices more standard. That is why we have the PSA SMR which always shows what is supposed to be a higher value for each grade. While we all know in reality the price is in the eye of the beholder the stated parameters should reflect how collectors evaluate cards rather than technical corner wear. If we pay more for centering and less interested in corner wear the grading companies should adjust those parameters.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

I agree mostly, but the whole grading industry was based on making prices more standard. That is why we have the PSA SMR which always shows what is supposed to be a higher value for each grade. While we all know in reality the price is in the eye of the beholder the stated parameters should reflect how collectors evaluate cards rather than technical corner wear. If we pay more for centering and less interested in corner wear the grading companies should adjust those parameters.

I'm not sure the grading industry was based on making prices standard. They are supposed to grade the technical condition of the carboard and authenticate the card. The values are different for each card in any given grade for different collectors and I don't think there is a way to assign a grade based on value. They would have to constantly be changing the parameters based on market and then the grades become useless from one period to another.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

I agree mostly, but the whole grading industry was based on making prices more standard. That is why we have the PSA SMR which always shows what is supposed to be a higher value for each grade. While we all know in reality the price is in the eye of the beholder the stated parameters should reflect how collectors evaluate cards rather than technical corner wear. If we pay more for centering and less interested in corner wear the grading companies should adjust those parameters.

I disagree the grading industry was based on making GRADING more standard, not prices.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I don't agree that grading companies are supposed to line up grades based on secondary market value for the collector. They are supposed to authenticate and grade based on certain stated parameters. The collector then actually looks at the card and decides for themselves if they like the appearance, centering, registration, etc. and sets the market price with their bids. Some sets/cards have issues with centering, some with registration, but not all cards are the same. OJs can be high grade and look terrible where you can't even see the image, while a Jim Brown RC (I know, football and not prewar) can be low grade but command a higher price if it's centered because it's a tough card to find centered. The eye appeal should be left to the collector while technicalities can be the job of the grader.

Disagree. Eye appeal should be factored into the grade. The current model is broken and senseless. Who decided upon the current parameters, anyway? When many 2s look better than 6s, it indicates there is a problem.

Back in the 90s (when grading was in its infancy), I was at SCP's brick and mortar store in Laguna Niguel. They had two 1933 Goudey Gehrigs. One was a beautiful raw example, and one was a PSA 5. The raw card was superior on every visual measure.... better centering, crisp/clear image vs. blurry/out of register, better corners, better color, etc. Looking at the PSA5 made me dizzy and the baby blue background was more grey than blue. Every single attribute that makes that card great was superior in the raw example.

Both cards were priced the same, so it was a no-brainer to purchase the raw one. When I looked closer at the raw card, I noticed a tiny and discrete speck of paper loss that was barely noticeable without magnification.

So fast-forward to today... the ugly off-centered PSA 5 would command more money than the far more beautiful raw example, just because someone at PSA deemed that paper loss in one miniscule spot is more of a detractor than the entire card being faded and out of focus.

Who wrote these idiotic rules, and why are they embraced as the norm? I know that the sheep-like mentality is to fully embrace someone else's numbering system. But who in the hell ever determined that it was right in the first place? Not to mention the obscene and nonsensical variance in pricing that follows (due strictly to a randomly assigned number on a flip).

I love this thread, and kudos to the OP for starting it. I agree with him 100%

[Leon]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I don't agree that grading companies are supposed to line up grades based on secondary market value for the collector. They are supposed to authenticate and grade based on certain stated parameters. The collector then actually looks at the card and decides for themselves if they like the appearance, centering, registration, etc. and sets the market price with their bids. Some sets/cards have issues with centering, some with registration, but not all cards are the same. OJs can be high grade and look terrible where you can't even see the image, while a Jim Brown RC (I know, football and not prewar) can be low grade but command a higher price if it's centered because it's a tough card to find centered. The eye appeal should be left to the collector while technicalities can be the job of the grader.

I agree and that is why some lower grade cards can go for more than a card several grades higher. Eye appeal seems to be more relevant outside the registry, which is where many of us are.

[Delray Vintage]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Disagree. Eye appeal should be factored into the grade. The current model is broken and senseless. Who decided upon the current parameters, anyway? When many 2s look better than 6s, it indicates there is a problem.

Back in the 90s (when grading was in its infancy), I was at SCP's brick and mortar store in Laguna Niguel. They had two 1933 Goudey Gehrigs. One was a beautiful raw example, and one was a PSA 5. The raw card was superior on every visual measure.... better centering, crisp/clear image vs. blurry/out of register, better corners, better color, etc. Looking at the PSA5 made me dizzy and the baby blue background was more grey than blue. Every single attribute that makes that card great was superior in the raw example.

Both cards were priced the same, so it was a no-brainer to purchase the raw one. When I looked closer at the raw card, I noticed a tiny and discrete speck of paper loss that was barely noticeable without magnification.

So fast-forward to today... the ugly off-centered PSA 5 would command more money than the far more beautiful raw example, just because someone at PSA deemed that paper loss in one miniscule spot is more of a detractor than the entire card being faded and out of focus.

Who wrote these idiotic rules, and why are they embraced as the norm? I know that the sheep-like mentality is to fully embrace someone else's numbering system. But who in the hell ever determined that it was right in the first place? Not to mention the obscene and nonsensical variance in pricing that follows (due strictly to a randomly assigned number on a flip).

I love this thread, and kudos to the OP for starting it. I agree with him 100%

I am happy someone agrees with me. Grading is supposed to mean something in relation to pricing. When the market is saying eye appeal means as much or more than crisp corners grading companies need to rethink the weight they give to corners, minute paper loss and other things they weight over eye appeal. To have a higher grade be less desired makes no sense. The grade is supposed to mean something to the average collector not be some arcane process to evaluate corners under a magnifying glass. Sorry grading is broken when a PSA 2 sells for more than a 5.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Couldn't disagree more. Grading is about the condition of the card, not the price. The open market determines the price. If a 2 sells for more than a 5 it just means the collector values it more. Not that it is higher grade. The parameters can't keep changing through time based on the market. If it did then yesterday's 5 that was based on condition wouldn't be the same a today's 5 that is based on eye appeal. The end user needs to actually look at the card and determine for themselves if they like the appeal better than another card. It's not up the grader to tell me what card looks better, just which one is in better physical condition based on their standard of grading. That way they are all comparable. You have to buy the card, not the holder. So leave it up to me which one I think is better and tell me what flaws the cardboard has.

It's been said before that if a card came out of a pack with poor registration then that doesn't bring the grade down. It's how it left the factory. So it can still be mint and be out of focus. Do I like that 8 better than the lesser condition but clearer registration 5, maybe not. But some registry guy who is into the number might. I'm about the cards, not the number grade.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Leon

I agree and that is why some lower grade cards can go for more than a card several grades higher. Eye appeal seems to be more relevant outside the registry, which is where many of us are.

I would crack out that Red Cobb in a heartbeat. Such an injustice to see the word "Fair" on the holder. Just stupid, and it detracts from the entire presentation of the great card. And the crinkled baggie is a horrible solution to holding it in place. The otherwise beautiful aesthetics of the card were destroyed by PSA.

Crack it out of the toxic slab and let it breathe!

[packs]

Another fair one:

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

Couldn't disagree more. Grading is about the condition of the card, not the price. The open market determines the price. If a 2 sells for more than a 5 it just means the collector values it more. Not that it is higher grade. The parameters can't keep changing through time based on the market. If it did then yesterday's 5 that was based on condition wouldn't be the same a today's 5 that is based on eye appeal. The end user needs to actually look at the card and determine for themselves if they like the appeal better than another card. It's not up the grader to tell me what card looks better, just which one is in better physical condition based on their standard of grading. That way they are all comparable. You have to buy the card, not the holder. So leave it up to me which one I think is better and tell me what flaws the cardboard has.

It's been said before that if a card came out of a pack with poor registration then that doesn't bring the grade down. It's how it left the factory. So it can still be mint and be out of focus. Do I like that 8 better than the lesser condition but clearer registration 5, maybe not. But some registry guy who is into the number might. I'm about the cards, not the number grade.

The part highlighted in bold is a nonsensical double-standard....

Grossly off-centered cards also "left the factory" that way. Why penalize off-center, but not out of focus or poorly registered cards? At least when it's off-center you can still clearly see the image. With off-register cards, you can't see anything but fuzzy images.

Again.... who made up these random and idiotic rules? It's not like "The Ten Commandments" written by God, and having stood for centuries. TPG has been around for about 2 1/2 decades, and the time has come to clean it up.

I am actually hoping that one of the new TPG entries blows up the whole thing, and offers up a better grading system which actually makes sense and rewards cards with better aesthetics. They may not capture the current registry fanatics, but they could carve out a very nice niche for true collectors.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by perezfan

The part highlighted in bold is a nonsensical double-standard....

Grossly off-centered cards also "left the factory" that way. Why penalize off-center, but not out of focus or poorly registered cards? At least when it's off-center you can still clearly see the image. With off-register cards, you can't see anything but fuzzy images.

Again.... who made up these random and idiotic rules? It's not like "The Ten Commandments" written by God, and having stood for centuries. TPG has been around for about 2 1/2 decades, and the time has come to clean it up.

I am actually hoping that one of the new TPG entries blows up the whole thing, and offers up a better grading system which actually makes sense and rewards cards with better aesthetics. They may not capture the current registry fanatics, but they could carve out a very nice niche for true collectors.

Again, I can see if the card is off center myself. Then in that case it would sell for less than a similarly graded card that was centered.

With so many cards already graded using those random and idiotic rules, changing the rules now makes all the previously graded cards obsolete and they would all have to be regraded based on the new standards. Why can we just look at the card and decide for ourselves what we are willing to pay for it?

Edited to add: I'm not a graded card guy just for the record, I just like the discussion we are having. And, I am a "true collector", whatever that means.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

Again, I can see if the card is off center myself. Then in that case it would sell for less than a similarly graded card that was centered.

With so many cards already graded using those random and idiotic rules, changing the rules now makes all the previously graded cards obsolete and they would all have to be regraded based on the new standards. Why can we just look at the card and decide for ourselves what we are willing to pay for it?

Edited to add: I'm not a graded card guy just for the record, I just like the discussion we are having. And, I am a "true collector", whatever that means.

Yup, it's a good discussion and I respect your opinion....just a healthy disagreement. You will win the argument since history and money are both on your side, so I know that I fight a losing battle...

That said, regarding the part in bold...

1. I think you meant to say "why can't we just look at the card..."

2. My answer is that we can (and do). But doesn't that pretty much render the entire concept of grading to be obsolete and/or useless? I think that most collectors (if we were to start over from scratch) would prefer a grading system that accurately reflects the true condition and appeal of the card. Otherwise, what's the point?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

Edited to add: I'm not a graded card guy just for the record, I just like the discussion we are having. And, I am a "true collector", whatever that means.

Sorry... there are all types of collectors, and no right or wrong when it comes to peoples' preferences.

What I meant by "true collector" is someone who collects the card for what it is. Not a number collector that lives/dies by a machine-generated slab. I guess I should've said "traditional" collector instead of "true" collector.... I apologize!

[JollyElm]

One man's cardboard is another man's poison.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

I have noticed that prices for lower grade but better eye appeal are getting higher. In fact a better centered card sometimes out prices a card graded two grades higher. Does card grading need to change and give more weight to overall appearance? The idea of giving a numerical grade was to make it easy to compare cards and establish price points. In fact, this is not the reality. Would a badly centered but technically not OC be more desirable than a perfectly centered card graded lower because of a corner being slightly less sharp? If grading is supposed to equalize card assessments and value, something is off in the grading world.

Overall eye appeal should be part of the grade. I know that sometimes makes grading more subjective. But we all view cards with our visual senses and not whether a corner is 90% sharp versus 85% sharp.

What adds another wrinkle is that major inconsistencies exist over time with TPG's as yesterday's 7's are today's 5's etc. Combined with older graded cards getting re-holdered in new slabs, it's become even more important as a collector to scrutinize the card before the grade.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Yup, it's a good discussion and I respect your opinion....just a healthy disagreement. You will win the argument since history and money are both on your side, so I know that I fight a losing battle...

That said, regarding the part in bold...

1. I think you meant to say "why can't we just look at the card..."

2. My answer is that we can (and do). But doesn't that pretty much render the entire concept of grading to be obsolete and/or useless? I think that most collectors (if we were to start over from scratch) would prefer a grading system that accurately reflects the true condition and appeal of the card. Otherwise, what's the point?

1. Correct, I meant can't instead of can.
2. Not going to argue on this point. I think we can both agree that grading is a sh!itshow these days no matter how you look at it. I just didn't agree originally with the idea that grading was meant to make prices standard. Or something like that. I just really think we as collectors set the market based on how we feel a card is graded when we look at it, not based on the number. Although these days the number seems to mean quite a bit to the investors.

Originally Posted by perezfan

Sorry... there are all types of collectors, and no right or wrong when it comes to peoples' preferences.

What I meant by "true collector" is someone who collects the card for what it is. Not a number collector that lives/dies by a machine-generated slab. I guess I should've said "traditional" collector instead of "true" collector.... I apologize!

No worries, I knew what you meant, just wanted say I think I am a "traditional" collector like you meant.

[Casey2296]

I love buying cards with overwhelming eye appeal that are punished by the graders for one reason or another. It gives me a chance to afford a card that I would otherwise be priced out of like a Red or Green Cobb, etc. While the "buy the number" guys are concentrating on the grade I can find some nice deals on the lower graded examples that fit my parameters. Making a run tonight at a particular card graded "2" due to 2 soft corners but has the eye appeal of a "4". We'll see how it works out.

[Delray Vintage]

While it is true we collectors ultimately set the prices paid, grading is or was supposed to be a way of helping to set a value. That is why PSA has its price guide by grade and is successful because they have made grading an expensive card necessary to sell it. The idea of grading is to give collectors a way to compare the net rating of a card and be able to gauge value based on the grade.

The idea that collectors paying more for a lower grade is a problem for grading companies. If SMR is to be believed then the grade highly determines a price. So if many collectors would choose to pay more for a well centered Mantle 4 over a 70/30 centered Mantle 6 then what is the purpose of the grade? It says to me that PSA and SGC are under valuing centering and other aesthetics compared to how defined are the corners.

I understand all the folks here who say the grade is just an assessment of certain parameters and we choose what we like. However if those parameters are seen as less important by collectors it is time to reassess those parameters.

[Exhibitman]

Eye appeal should be the most important element of it for a collector. Who wants a FUGLY card with a silly slab # on it just because it has the slab# on it? Makes no sense to me...



Yeah, that tiny spec of paper loss on the back justifies that grade.

[3-2-count]

Agree that the Psa baggie is horrid on Leon's Red Cobby, but disagree that it should be cracked out due to the 1.5 grade affecting the cards presentation.

In my opinion it makes the card just that much more special being that its unique. Leave it as is Leon, I love it. Great card......

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

While it is true we collectors ultimately set the prices paid, grading is or was supposed to be a way of helping to set a value. That is why PSA has its price guide by grade and is successful because they have made grading an expensive card necessary to sell it. The idea of grading is to give collectors a way to compare the net rating of a card and be able to gauge value based on the grade.

The idea that collectors paying more for a lower grade is a problem for grading companies. If SMR is to be believed then the grade highly determines a price. So if many collectors would choose to pay more for a well centered Mantle 4 over a 70/30 centered Mantle 6 then what is the purpose of the grade? It says to me that PSA and SGC are under valuing centering and other aesthetics compared to how defined are the corners.

I understand all the folks here who say the grade is just an assessment of certain parameters and we choose what we like. However if those parameters are seen as less important by collectors it is time to reassess those parameters.

The SMR is useless as a price guide and has been a joke for years. Sales history and ended auction prices are what you should use. And even then you need to evaluate the actual card sold to determine if was a really nice example or not. Don't just look at the grade and think they are all the same.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

The SMR is useless as a price guide and has been a joke for years. Sales history and ended auction prices are what you should use. And even then you need to evaluate the actual card sold to determine if was a really nice example or not. Don't just look at the grade and think they are all the same.

Also need to evaluate the seller and decide whether card was shilled or not.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

Agree that the Psa baggie is horrid on Leon's Red Cobby, but disagree that it should be cracked out due to the 1.5 grade affecting the cards presentation.

In my opinion it makes the card just that much more special being that its unique. Leave it as is Leon, I love it. Great card......

It's cards like this that make me wonder why people pay so much to get someone else's opinion about the condition of a card. Any explanation you can give as to why this is a 1.5?

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by jayshum

It's cards like this that make me wonder why people pay so much to get someone else's opinion about the condition of a card. Any explanation you can give as to why this is a 1.5?

Yeah, that one's a head scratcher for sure.

[68Hawk]

Looks to me like there is a half moon chip out of the paper at 3 oclock.

If so, got no problem with the grade.
People can still choose to pay '3' grade money for that card if they want a stunner and not a flip.
Card will re-sell again down the line to someone else who similarly values the eye candy at above 'standard' for the grade.

[3-2-count]

Sure guys. The background story on the 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson rookie card which I purchased here on N54 from another well respected board member is that it originates from the collection of an elderly Iowa farmer who with the help of a couple wonderful collectors assisted him on having his childhood 1948 Leaf cards graded which were new to the hobby end of last year.

Other than some light corner wear and a faint factory print mark seen across Jackie's hat which is very common for this card, it has some areas on the front where it looks like something long ago touched its surface that I would say now resembles a dry sappy type of material. Who knows maybe at one time another card from the farmers collection was stacked on top of Jackie which may have had something on it. It will remain a mystery

Hard to pick it up as you can see from the scan and you have to either tilt the card in the right light or view it under a loupe to really catch it. Either way its a spectacular example which I'm damn proud to own.

I'm looking at the card as we speak and I'm not seeing any half moon paper loss at 3oclock that Daniel states. Must just be the scan.

[68Hawk]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

Sure guys. The background story on the 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson rookie card which I purchased here on N54 from another well respected board member is that it originates from the collection of an elderly Iowa farmer who with the help of a couple wonderful collectors assisted him on having his childhood 1948 Leaf cards graded which were new to the hobby end of last year.

Other than some light corner wear and a faint factory print mark seen across Jackie's hat which is very common for this card, it has some areas on the front where it looks like something long ago touched its surface that I would say now resembles a dry sappy type of material. Who knows maybe at one time another card from the farmers collection was stacked on top of Jackie which may have had something on it. It will remain a mystery

Hard to pick it up as you can see from the scan and you have to either tilt the card in the right light or view it under a loupe to really catch it. Either way its a spectacular example which I'm damn proud to own.

I'm looking at the card as we speak and I'm not seeing any half moon paper loss at 3oclock that Daniel states. Must just be the scan.

Ripper card Tony!
You will enjoy that baby for as long as you keep her, it's everything you want in an honest 1948 issued Leaf. Just beautiful.

[3-2-count]

Thank you Daniel.

Much appreciated.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by 68Hawk

Ripper card Tony!
You will enjoy that baby for as long as you keep her, it's everything you want in an honest 1948 issued Leaf. Just beautiful.

Agreed! I would so much rather own a full-bordered example like that (with great provenance, that you KNOW is all-original) than a high-number graded example with sharp edges and snow white borders. I would never trust any highly graded 48 Leaf (baseball or football) these days.

Beauty!

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

Sure guys. The background story on the 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson rookie card which I purchased here on N54 from another well respected board member is that it originates from the collection of an elderly Iowa farmer who with the help of a couple wonderful collectors assisted him on having his childhood 1948 Leaf cards graded which were new to the hobby end of last year.

Other than some light corner wear and a faint factory print mark seen across Jackie's hat which is very common for this card, it has some areas on the front where it looks like something long ago touched its surface that I would say now resembles a dry sappy type of material. Who knows maybe at one time another card from the farmers collection was stacked on top of Jackie which may have had something on it. It will remain a mystery

Hard to pick it up as you can see from the scan and you have to either tilt the card in the right light or view it under a loupe to really catch it. Either way its a spectacular example which I'm damn proud to own.

I'm looking at the card as we speak and I'm not seeing any half moon paper loss at 3oclock that Daniel states. Must just be the scan.

Great story about a beautiful looking card.

[3-2-count]

Mark & Jay - thank you guys......

[rats60]

There is a lot of complaining about grading in this thread, but the problem is that "eye appeal" is subjective. Some people want a perfectly centered card and don't care if it had rounded corners. To me that is not eye appeal. I want a card with sharp corners and am willing to accept a little off center to get it. I want a card to be in the condition it left the factory, not one that has been abused.

A card was recently sold that several on here praised as having great eye appeal even for a low grade. It had at least 3 places on the front of the card with pieces missing. Again that is not eye appeal to me. That is something that would drive me crazy.

A TPG's job is to give their independent opinion of what the grade of a card is. It is up to the buyer to decide if they agree or not and if not pass on the card. I have noticed that they are giving more weight to centering as the collectors have put more weight on it. Sometimes cards with eye appeal can sell for a premium, but often they don't. Look no further than the 2 Jordan RC that sold for 738k. One was clearly off centered but it sold for the same price as the centered one.

[Gorditadogg]

Some cards come out of the pack better than others. As a kid trading cards in the 60s we knew how hard it was to find a centered and focused card of your favorite star. Those cards were premiums to us then, they were like insert cards- you only got one every 3 or 4 packs.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[conor912]

I always wanted a TPG that would just authenticate, check for altering, and slab only....no grade - you wouldn’t even need a flip. I can assess my own grade just fine. One of the main reasons I collect raw is that tue flip is so damn distracting to my eye.

[packs]

I'm generally in line with the TPG standard system but the one area I think grading is useless is when it comes to Old Judge cards. This particular issue isn't like the others. When it comes to OJs it's the image that's typically the most important attribute. I don't find standard grading useful.

[Directly]

I purchased this card for its appeal versus the low grade---

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by conor912

I always wanted a TPG that would just authenticate, check for altering, and slab only....no grade - you wouldn’t even need a flip. I can assess my own grade just fine. One of the main reasons I collect raw is that tue flip is so damn distracting to my eye.

I wish this was how it was done. Imagine if the whole market was left up to the collector's eye to decide. Sticker collectors and Registry cats would probably lose their minds LOL.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I wish this was how it was done. Imagine if the whole market was left up to the collector's eye to decide. Sticker collectors and Registry cats would probably lose their minds LOL.

Amen... This would be utopia. The owner of the card should have the say.

I cannot believe it's evolved (or devolved, depending on your perspective) to what we have now. They can't even detect obvious alteration, continue to take submissions from well known card doctors, put numerically graded "maraca" cards in holders that don't come close to fitting... And they are telling us what are cards should grade?

No thanks!