Grading system idea..

[CrackaJackKid]

Since a lot of prewar cards get assigned the lonely number “1” and as we all know there can be a vast determination by what qualifies for a 1 by both PSA/SGC. What do you guys think if someone implemented a “.5”? I personally think it would help determine values on lower end examples.

[griffon512]

only if half the card is missing...

[swarmee]

Not necessary.

[CrackaJackKid]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Not necessary.

Seriously?? I completely disagree.

[Cozumeleno]

Interesting thought, but isn't that what A is for?

[swarmee]

I think that a Poor can be valued by eye appeal. Seems that thousands of people do it daily. Not sure why it's so confusing.
Here's a really nice PSA 1 1956 Mantle. Looks like an EX-MT 6 except for the pinhole at the top center. Value? I'd say equal to a PSA 2.5.

Would AUTH also need a half grade?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by swarmee

I think that a Poor can be valued by eye appeal. Seems that thousands of people do it daily. Not sure why it's so confusing.
Here's a really nice PSA 1 1956 Mantle. Looks like an EX-MT 6 except for the pinhole at the top center. Value? I'd say equal to a PSA 2.5.

Would AUTH also need a half grade?

I'd pay the going rate of "poor" prices for that card. And I'd probably be waiting in line as well.

[lowpopper]

I have thought the same thing for years. Some 1s look great and some
look like roadkill. A Pinhole (PH) qualifier would be a nice addition too. Why
should a NM-MT card with a pinhole get the same grade as a beater with a
pinhole? I would prefer an 8 (PH) over a 1/1.5

[lowpopper]

My post was not in reference to swarmee's Mantle.

You got there right before I did

[CrackaJackKid]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

I have thought the same thing for years. Some 1s look great and some
look like roadkill. A Pinhole (PH) qualifier would be a nice addition too. Why
should a NM-MT card with a pinhole get the same grade as a beater with a
pinhole? I would prefer an 8 (PH) over a 1/1.5

Agreed. A super nice example with a pinhole should get a qualifier. If I could upload big pictures I would post examples of the lower end examples I was pertaining to.

[Thecafewha]

I don’t prefer my cards to have holes in them so I’m ok with them getting a “1”. * How large can a hole be before it’s not a pinhole? What if the thumb tack left any indentation marks? What if paper torn on reverse? Too many variables to consider for a damaged card.

*I do have many cards in my collection that have pinholes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Throttlesteer]

I just hope "Hole" doesn't become a qualifier. I would hate to see what the flip would show with an Authentic card and a Hole qualifier

[luciobar1980]

We really don't need a .5 IMO. I mean where does it end? Then many .5s will look drastically different, etc. Leave the 1, the rest is in the eye of the beholder.

I could see a PH Pinhole designation though as a really nice example of a card with a small pinhole is wayyy preffered (for me) over a beat up 1. PH Qualifier, easy peasy.

[CrackaJackKid]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

We really don't need a .5 IMO. I mean where does it end? Then many .5s will look drastically different, etc. Leave the 1, the rest is in the eye of the beholder.

I could see a PH Pinhole designation though as a really nice example of a card with a small pinhole is wayyy preffered (for me) over a beat up 1. PH Qualifier, easy peasy.

You’d think I was trying to completely alter the entire grading scale by merely suggesting a .5. And what do you mean where does it end? Why do you insist it has to branch off from there?

[lowpopper]

Has Beckett ever give out a 0.5? They give 0.5 on subgrades.
would quad 0.5 subgrades yield a 0.5 or would they just not
grade it? I need the answer...It’s gonna bug me until I find out.


And yes, a pinhole (PH) would need a clear definition. If the card
has any indentations from a thumb tack it would not qualify IMO.


And to get super abstract, the “hole” question for an Authentic
is a good one. What’s the biggest hole we could put in a card
and still get it slabbed authentic. Fun contest coming soon. Lol

[steve B]

This would be a contender, but I'm not paying for it to sit somewhere for a year to find out.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

I just hope "Hole" doesn't become a qualifier. I would hate to see what the flip would show with an Authentic card and a Hole qualifier

I literally laughed out loud...well done, sir.

[gregr2]

My Wojo, nice looking card, small pinhole makes it grade a 1.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Leon]

It's not really needed but wouldn't harm anything. The lower grade cards have a lot more subjectivity to their aesthetics so a .5 could be lower end poor . Call it "VP or Very Poor?"

Originally Posted by CrackaJackKid

Since a lot of prewar cards get assigned the lonely number “1” and as we all know there can be a vast determination by what qualifies for a 1 by both PSA/SGC. What do you guys think if someone implemented a “.5”? I personally think it would help determine values on lower end examples.