My proposal

[drcy]

My proposal on this issue is that group of experts develop techniques and the use of scientific technology that can examine cards and judge if they have been altered. There are very sophisticated techniques used in other areas (art, antique artifacts) but not used in the sports hobby.

I envision the examination being done on expensive cards. At some point, enough expansive cards will have been examined that the onus will be on those who choose not to have theirs examined.

Documentation of provenance will be required.

I would prefer it not to be another $$-making business, as that obviously corrupts things, but more of an academic, non-profit entity. But that's lesser of an issue, as the development and use of the technology is what is important. And if grading companies wish to adopt the techniques that is fine.

As someone mentioned, it would be more of a scientific study giving reports, rather than a 'purple sticker' opinion service.

If you want more background on scientific methods used in different areas, see the following book.

[philliesphan]

Given that many high dollar cards require a $500 or $1,000 fee for the grade and review, I think a fundamental question is why this is not being done already.

Alas

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by philliesphan

Given that many high dollar cards require a $500 or $1,000 fee for the grade and review, I think a fundamental question is why this is not being done already.

Alas

+1

[Throttlesteer]

I anticipate someone eventually developing a software application (possibly even mobile) that could accurately assess cards' condition and possible alterations. Why isn't it being done now? People buy slabs, stickers, and flips.

Eventually, a TPG will implement software to grade cards. Not only will it remove the subjectivity (and potential liability), but it will also cut labor costs. However, they'll keep the application a tightly-guarded, proprietary secret, even though it will probably be using the same technology as the consumer mobile app.

Yes, I'm most likely full of crap. But you never know.

[Rich Falvo]

I don't think you can ever remove the subjectivity completely, though. I can understand having technology measure a card and maybe even detect certain alterations, but isn't there always subjectivity in deciding the difference between a 2 or 3 or between a 5 or 6? Is that something that can be programmed?

[PowderedH2O]

My question is often what is the difference between a 5 and a 9. I have 2 or 3 times sent in items I was 100 percent sure would grade high only to receive a 5 because of a crease so small that it could not be seen with a magnifying glass. Meanwhile, a card could have significant flaws and receive a 6 or 7. Who made up that rule? Also, the "1". I have some PSA 1's that are legitimately decent cards to look at. Yet, a card that goes through the washing machine also gets a 1. I don't understand this. Never have.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Rich Falvo

I don't think you can ever remove the subjectivity completely, though. I can understand having technology measure a card and maybe even detect certain alterations, but isn't there always subjectivity in deciding the difference between a 2 or 3 or between a 5 or 6? Is that something that can be programmed?

Yes. Even scientific results require human (preferably expert) judgement in interpreting it.

I'm talking about identifying altered cards, not grading, though. Grading has standards but also subjectivity.

[terjung]

As others have said, the subjectivity will always be a part of it. We all want 100% certainty, but try getting any expert to say that. I've been told that the only thing that a doctor will say on the stand with that degree of certainty is whether someone is alive or dead.

As a testifying expert witness, the standard that is applied is "within a reasonable degree of certainty" ... which is just fancy talk for "more likely than not." Basically, the expert is at least 51% sure. That is the standard here in civil courts. I suspect that level of certainty would not be thrilling for the objectivity sought by this type of investigation. That said, I like the idea.

[Leon]

For whatever the outlying reason is, the real answer to head scratching questions is often, money. It wouldn't surprise me if technology wasn't already bought out by the current TPG's to keep it from being used.

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

I anticipate someone eventually developing a software application (possibly even mobile) that could accurately assess cards' condition and possible alterations. Why isn't it being done now? People buy slabs, stickers, and flips.

Eventually, a TPG will implement software to grade cards. Not only will it remove the subjectivity (and potential liability), but it will also cut labor costs. However, they'll keep the application a tightly-guarded, proprietary secret, even though it will probably be using the same technology as the consumer mobile app.

Yes, I'm most likely full of crap. But you never know.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Leon

For whatever the outlying reason is, the real answer to head scratching questions is often, money. It wouldn't surprise me if technology wasn't already bought out by the current TPG's to keep it from being used.

Wouldn't surprise me either... Such technology would make it tougher to grant favorable grades to preferred entities. They need to retain that human element, in order to subversively keep their key customers fat and happy.

Just add one more piece to the puzzle of TPG corruption.

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by drcy

My proposal on this issue is that group of experts develop techniques and the use of scientific technology that can examine cards and judge if they have been altered. There are very sophisticated techniques used in other areas (art, antique artifacts) but not used in the sports hobby.

I envision the examination being done on expensive cards. At some point, enough expansive cards will have been examined that the onus will be on those who choose not to have theirs examined.

Documentation of provenance will be required.

I would prefer it not to be another $$-making business, as that obviously corrupts things, but more of an academic, non-profit entity. But that's lesser of an issue, as the development and use of the technology is what is important. And if grading companies wish to adopt the techniques that is fine.

As someone mentioned, it would be more of a scientific study giving reports, rather than a 'purple sticker' opinion service.

If you want more background on scientific methods used in different areas, see the following book.

You make good points David - I had an art background before my law background and have always respected your opinions on that end. I get where you're coming from and support it. I want to say there should be a human element to this but PSA sucks. Bring on the bots.

[TimCarrollArt]

I'm sure it's been mentioned somewhere before, but how realistic would it be for a company to leave off the grades and give only facts from the examination? Example: "card measures exactly 2.48" x 3.5"; centering 52/48 L/R, 54/46 T/B; print defect near top left corner; 7/8 inch crease on left arm; chipping on back right edge".

No adjectives necessary. No "looks better than a 3" listings. A reputable, 3rd party, semi-scientific examination that lays out exactly what a card is - good or bad.

It would be up to the buyers to take a closer look, interpret that information, and make a judgement call on the card's value.

[packs]

Does technology really need to be brought into this? No one will ever convince me that the alterations aren't clear if you're actually looking for them. The issue seems to be with the name on the submission form more than anything else.

[Throttlesteer]

Originally Posted by TimCarrollArt

I'm sure it's been mentioned somewhere before, but how realistic would it be for a company to leave off the grades and give only facts from the examination? Example: "card measures exactly 2.48" x 3.5"; centering 52/48 L/R, 54/46 T/B; print defect near top left corner; 7/8 inch crease on left arm; chipping on back right edge".

No adjectives necessary. No "looks better than a 3" listings. A reputable, 3rd party, semi-scientific examination that lays out exactly what a card is - good or bad.

It would be up to the buyers to take a closer look, interpret that information, and make a judgement call on the card's value.

This has me thinking about a grading system similar to GIA for diamonds. Instead of having a single numeric grade, each attribute would be rated on its own scale. Sure, it adds complexity. But it would somewhat normalize lopsided characteristics that end up creating a lot of confusion with single numeric grades.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

This has me thinking about a grading system similar to GIA for diamonds. Instead of having a single numeric grade, each attribute would be rated on its own scale. Sure, it adds complexity. But it would somewhat normalize lopsided characteristics that end up creating a lot of confusion with single numeric grades.

A great idea, IMO...

It takes away the subjectivity currently plaguing PSA and the TPGs. It also might actually help to reduce favorable grades granted to certain submitters.

In order for any new grading service to endure, it will have to present significant differences from PSA. Any new entry who simply emulates PSA's grading system is destined for failure.

There needs to be a fact-based alternative that offers a true difference from PSA and eliminates the subjective aspect. If it ever became the predominant TPG, such a system would severely reduce the "earnings" of Card Doctors, and would serve as a huge deterrent. Hope it someday comes about.

[Throttlesteer]

If someone wants to bankroll it, I can assemble a business plan. Bringing transparency to the card's attributes would also allow people to choose those that are personally important to them (e.g. centering, corners, etc..) Instead of a blanket VG 3, you could have a similar system for rating inclusions. Creases and wrinkles could be rated like gemstone inclusions. You could also account for things like diamond cuts or large borders. Just typing as I think.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by TimCarrollArt

I'm sure it's been mentioned somewhere before, but how realistic would it be for a company to leave off the grades and give only facts from the examination? Example: "card measures exactly 2.48" x 3.5"; centering 52/48 L/R, 54/46 T/B; print defect near top left corner; 7/8 inch crease on left arm; chipping on back right edge".

No adjectives necessary. No "looks better than a 3" listings. A reputable, 3rd party, semi-scientific examination that lays out exactly what a card is - good or bad.

It would be up to the buyers to take a closer look, interpret that information, and make a judgement call on the card's value.

I agree. I don't need a third party to weigh in on eye appeal. I want a service to review for forgeries and alterations. Relying on the naked eye alone isn't helpful either. I can do that myself.

I also think a service should be comfortable with punting on items. If a card's dimensions are a little short, it might be within the margin of error, but it could also be trimmed. If you aren't 100% certain that it is unaltered, don't authenticate it and issue a refund on the grading fees.