Grading Older Cards

[SyrNy1960]

I never understood grades of older cards. I've seen some that looked really nice for their age (early 1900's), but the grade seemed low to me. Are they graded with the same grading system for later year and current cards? I just don't think you can use one grading system for all cards. You have to consider the age and all the years it had to survive until today. Just curious from those collectors who collector early cards. Thanks!

[irv]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

I never understood grades of older cards. I've seen some that looked really nice for their age (early 1900's), but the grade seemed low to me. Are they graded with the same grading system for later year and current cards? I just don't think you can use one grading system for all cards. You have to consider the age and all the years it had to survive until today. Just curious from those collectors who collector early cards. Thanks!

I was the same as you, thought older ones might be graded different, but from my short time on here, and what I have found in my research, it seems they are all graded the same.

I have noticed, and you will to, if you search e-bay, A/H's, and the like, the grading system is a lot more strict nowadays than it use to be imo.

I have seen some older graded cards receive a 4 or better but then you see a newer card graded lower that is in way better condition/shape.

If I was smart, I would have had mine graded years ago as I am now afraid that most of mine will receive a 2 or 3, if I am lucky, whereas if I had them done years ago, most would have received a 5 to 7, imo.

[Fred]

I think the whole idea is to grade all cards the same, regardless of what era they are from. Grading consistently will contribute to low populations of the better condition older/vintage cards, as it should be.

What this does is create the market we are seeing where people feel they have to have the best and will pay dearly for it. In many cases this seems to have increased the value of the lesser condition cards because of the money people will spend on the harder to find better condition cards. Maybe I'm off here.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Fred

In many cases this seems to have increased the value of the lesser condition cards because of the money people will spend on the harder to find better condition cards. Maybe I'm off here.

Not off at all. Classic example: 1952 Topps #1 Andy Pafko.

[SyrNy1960]

Thanks! I just don't get it. For cards in the early 1900's to survive so long, you just have to grade them differently. I've seen some 2 and 3's that really looked nice, and I couldn't figure out why they weren't a 5 or 6.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Fred

I think the whole idea is to grade all cards the same, regardless of what era they are from. Grading consistently will contribute to low populations of the better condition older/vintage cards, as it should be.

What this does is create the market we are seeing where people feel they have to have the best and will pay dearly for it. In many cases this seems to have increased the value of the lesser condition cards because of the money people will spend on the harder to find better condition cards. Maybe I'm off here.

I agree.

Originally Posted by 3arod13

Thanks! I just don't get it. For cards in the early 1900's to survive so long, you just have to grade them differently. I've seen some 2 and 3's that really looked nice, and I couldn't figure out why they weren't a 5 or 6.

When you search and find older cards that are in fact in mint shape, you realize they have to grade lesser cards accordingly.

Look up mint Mantles, Clements, etc etc etc. Some of those cards, surprisingly, look like they just came out of the wrapper.

[glynparson]

People confuse eye appeal and technical grade. I do not think they should be graded differently other than factoring in cutting and printing technologies for the era. Eye appeal does effect pricing though and is a reason some cards sell for more than others even in the same technical grade.

[drcy]

There is a wide variety in the Fair to Poor range for early cards. Ranging from genuinely poor to nice looking but worn. I've been surprised at the nice eye appeal of some cards graded 1 or 2.

[KCRfan1]

In other words, buy the card not the holder.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

Thanks! I just don't get it. For cards in the early 1900's to survive so long, you just have to grade them differently. I've seen some 2 and 3's that really looked nice, and I couldn't figure out why they weren't a 5 or 6.

When you say "I've seen", do you mean that you had the cards in hand, with a loupe, or on a computer screen?

Some grading companies will give a nice looking card a lower grade if the submitter requests no qualifiers. So instead of grading a card a 5 with a MK (mark) qualifier, the card will get a grade of a 3.

Other grading companies don't issue qualifiers when grading and place a lower grade accordingly, so this also may be why you see a nice card with a low grade.