Card grading bias?

[jerrys]

http://bcc.anaclubs.org/johnson.htm

[t206hound]

Why are there "white strips" and no back images? Hard to compare in my opinion.

[glynparson]

All seem to be graded fine. Johnson does look a little less worn, corners seem a little less rounded.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Why are there "white strips" and no back images? Hard to compare in my opinion.

Because that is where the AH logo is......

[1880nonsports]

about your question? Hard to opine without a little more clarity - I assume you are asking if the WoJo should have gotten a grade equal to the others if it wasn't a big name card and at the same time you are again trying to point out your distain or discomfort with SGC? To be fair I think the grading companies usually have the benefit of seeing the backs as well as the fronts but to me the grading of the cards shown all seems to be within normal tollerence - the disparity between WoJo and the others seems minimal to my untrained eye. Sometimes it's like a called strike or ball in baseball. The home plate umpire makes the call based on their objective interpretation of a set of rules. This human element is contrary to the application of static scientific measures to determine "condition".
A better example to highlight such a question will be uncovered when following the link I've included. Please look at the second scan that includes Anson - glad that would never happen at PSA.
Maybe a better question would be is there a bias linked to who it is that's submitting the cards rather than the cards themselves? Or, what is the actual skill set of the 22 year old who graded the card?
BTW Jerry - there's a postcard auction coming up in which I spied one of those non-baseball Rose PC's buried in a large lot - LMK if you have interest...... Anyone with a link to the threads in which these things were discussed?

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=32100

I went to sleep around 4 am so after 4 hours sleep this post might make even less sense than usual. I always feel compelled to defend my grader of choice (no, I didn't wake up to do so). I will admit that I am kind of upset lately with SGC - as to me they have shown signs of not making proper business decisions with regard to the grades, the holders, the flips. It's how I roll I guess.....

[Econteachert205]

all cards look about same grade to me. This however is no way near a large enough sample size to conclude bias.

[bobbvc]

Looks to me as if they factored in how good the player was.

[jerrys]

My posted statement: all backs are clean and equal. If they were not I would has taken the time to assemble and scan them also.

Eric - Glyn
Your opinion is that the Johnson card is one grade higher than any of the rest? Johnson has less wear than Ganley?

Henry
Simply judge from the image provided.
You may have a favorite grader; I don't. I judge each graded card on its' own merit. We are not debating your favorite ball team we are discussing business. Professional grading is a business. Integrity, honesty, consistency, reliability, fairness, etc., without favoritism business. Making a product with false value is not good business.
IMO the one grade higher is not warranted.
Bias = submitter.
You do realize that at the same grade the Johnson card is worth at about 20 times more than any of the other cards and with one extra grade point about 30 times. That difference is a few thousand dollars.
Someday we will have computer grading that will be free of any influences or "errors".

Dennis
The image is twice the size of the postcard!! Larger than given anywhere.

Bob
Exactly, and the better player - the higher card value.