Grading Old Judges (or not?)

[trdcrdkid]

The recent threads about the value of cards graded Authentic vs. 10/1 has prompted me to write about something that's been on my mind -- namely, the way the grading companies evaluate Old Judges and similar 19th-century cards, and what value, if any, a graded Old Judge's number grade has. I know some of this has been discussed here recently, for example in that "What would your ideal third-party grading company be like" thread, and last year in this thread (started by Leon) about grading Old Judges:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=191265

As numerous people noted in that thread, the standards that TPGs use for Old Judges leave a lot to be desired, and the technical grade that a card gets from a grading company often has little to do with its desirability for most collectors. For example, I'm a raw card guy, but after collecting about 45 raw Old Judges, I recently got my first graded ones on eBay. One of them was this card, with a beautiful front but that AUTH grade undoubtedly scaring away some potential buyers:



Unlike with some cards, it wasn't immediately apparent why this card got an AUTH. It didn't look trimmed, unlike another AUTH-graded card I got from the same seller that definitely is trimmed (but which still has good eye appeal). I thought maybe it was rebacked, but several other cards from the same seller were graded SGC AUTH with a (REBACKED) notation, and this card didn't have that notation. (However, I realize that SGC only started using the REBACKED notation a couple of years ago, and this card might have been graded before then.) Unfortunately, the listing didn't include a picture of the back, and while I could have written to the seller asking for one, I decided to just bid on it and take my chances, and I ended up winning the card for a relative song.

When I got the card, I compared it to other Old Judges of the same style in my collection, and it sure looked the same size, not trimmed. Here is what the back looked like:



This card was obviously glued in an album, and when it was taken out it suffered some paper loss, but the bottom two-thirds of the back looks fine. As near as I can tell, it's that paper loss that caused SGC to grade it AUTH. In any case, that AUTH grade allowed me to get this great-looking card for a fraction of what I otherwise would have had to pay for it, and that's fine with me.

The issue of paper loss or glue on the backs of blank-backed sets like OJs is one that I know has come up repeatedly in discussions of grading standards. Writing on the back, common with OJs, is a similar issue. I think we've all seen Old Judges that have a great-looking front, but are graded 1 or 2 because of back damage; yet I don't really care very much about the backs of Old Judges, and I get the impression that the same is true of many (most?) Old Judge collectors. I guess glue or paper loss on the back (and to a lesser extent writing) would make a card somewhat less desirable than an otherwise identical card with a pristine back, but not nearly to the extent the the grading companies' practices would imply (i.e. downgrading an otherwise 5 card to a 1).

Another issue that arises with Old Judges is identifying trimmed cards. There is quite a bit of variation in the exact size of individual Old Judge cards, much more than in later sets (including T206), based on what I've seen. Not only are many of the 1887 cards significantly shorter than most of the 1888 and 1889 cards, but odd/rough cuts are pretty common. I've seen some Old Judges that are graded AUTH, apparently because they look trimmed, though they don't necessarily look trimmed to me. There could very well be other issues with these cards that I'm not noticing, but it remains the case that identifying trimmed Old Judges isn't always as straightforward as it is for later sets, and I'm not sure exactly how the grading companies handle that.

Of course, the biggest problem in grading Old Judges, and the one that dominated the thread I linked to above, is photo quality. We've all seen Old Judges that have sharp corners, no creases, and a high technical grade, but a faded photo. I would much rather have a card with a great photo but a low technical grade due to back damage (as in the card pictured above) or even a pinhole (and I have a few like that too). Photo quality and contrast are among the most important features I consider when evaluating an Old Judge and deciding whether to buy it or bid on it, and it seems that the same is true of most other Old Judge collectors, to judge by the prices I see and other anecdotal evidence.

So, all you Old Judge collectors: how much attention, if any, do you pay to the grade on a graded Old Judge? Would you avoid a card graded AUTH? Would you pay more for an SGC 50 card with a faded photo, or for a card with a great, sharp photo but a grade of SGC 10 or AUTH? I know that some of the most advanced Old Judge collectors here primarily collect raw cards, as I do, but for them the other issues I raised above are still relevant: to what extent, if any, do you care about back damage on OJs, and how important is photo quality relative to other factors in evaluating a card? Based on that long "Just OJs" thread last year in which people posted their favorite Old Judges, photo quality is one of the most important factors for most people, because most of the cards in that thread had fantastic photos.

All this is related to the question of how the grading companies could do a better job of assigning grades to Old Judges. That was covered pretty thoroughly Leon's thread from last year, but I'm sure people still have things to say about it.

[wonkaticket]

I may over simplify it. However for me all I care about is the image when it comes to OJ's and other 19th photographic cards.




I'm sure there are cards you take what you can get but I think strong image cards will always be valuable regardless of the technical grade. I could be wrong as I'm far from an OJ expert.

Cheers,

John

[trdcrdkid]

John -- those are all gorgeous cards. I assume that the Bishop, Weidman, and Hines must have back damage to get those technical grades? The fronts look indistinguishable from the others in terms of photo quality and corners.

[oldjudge]

I hate to answer such a long question with such a short answer, but I don't grade cards for my collection. It isn't so much that I think the grading system for Old Judges is seriously flawed (it is, but that's not my primary reason), it's that I have a lot of cards and grading them all would be a waste of money and it would be too bulky. Having said that, to sell cards you need to have them graded. Therefore, if I had some Old Judges to sell I would probably grade them. To maximize the price I would probably choose PSA. Again, this has nothing to do with the quality of the grading or the holders (I think SGC is better on both counts). It's just that for some reason PSA cards realize more.

[oldjudge]

John--Those cards are amazing. Thanks for posting them.

[wonkaticket]

David some have a spot of paper loss some have a bit of period writing or a mild wrinkle or something.

Here's a few beauties. I'm sure Jay will remember the now SGC 10's below. They came from a great historical collection, twice if you count Jay's collection which I do.

Spots of paper loss on the reverse.



Again, I'll take a great image over a grade most anytime when it comes to these cards.

[RCMcKenzie]

Great cards, y'all. I would always rather a card that I'd want to bid on be dog-eared in a top-loader or in an AUT or 1 holder..

[barrysloate]

John displayed some beautiful cards, and as he and Jay said, serious OJ collectors care almost entirely about how strong and clear the image is. Sure, any collector would prefer that there is no back damage, that can never be an asset, but the photo makes the card. Even sillier is a card with a nearly faded image that gets a 6 or a 7 because it has square corners and little wear. It goes against all common sense, but the TPG's are stubborn and will only grade an OJ based on its technical flaws. Eye appeal does not factor in. If you like encapsulated cards, send them in and just ignore the label.

[Joshchisox08]

IDK how much you spent on that Authentic but I would be glad it scared people away. I'd love to get a Dick Buckley because we share the same last name and just to have an old judge period would be kind of cool.

[trdcrdkid]

Jay -- you're one of the main people I was thinking of who primarily (exclusively?) collects Old Judges raw. I don't have nearly as many of them as you do, but my 50 Old Judges and several hundred T cards are all raw, and like you, I would only ever get any of them graded if I were planning to sell them. With Old Judges in particular I like to be able to examine a raw card closely. I'm thinking of cracking that Johnston out of its holder in order to get a closer look and maybe a better idea why it got graded AUTH.

You all are confirming what I already basically knew, but it's nice to get that confirmation, and to see all these beautiful cards with low grades.

[jcmtiger]

I would rather have raw OJ cards, but 90% of my OJ's are graded. Most of these collections will be sold some day so they probably will be graded for more resale value. That's why mine are graded. Damaged backs bother me little, but not enough to stop me from buying if I need that card.

Joe

[Fred]

For the most part I ignore back damage on OJs.

Wow Wonk, those are incredible. That's definitely what to look for in an OJ. I've seen a pretty big drop in pices in the run of the mill OJs with lighter images. The price drop makes sense.

I think people are coming to the same conclusion - you get more enjoyment out of looking at an OJ where the image is crisp. A clear image kind of brings the players to life (yeah, Fred needs to stop drinking so early in the morning...).

[tiger8mush]

I'm of the minority that like the fact the label grade is technical and doesn't account for aesthetics. You can judge eye appeal for yourself.