![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I know PWCC has attempted to add eye appeal in its ratings. The fact that PSA and SGC are leaving eye appeal ratings to auction houses is a problem. There needs to be a better way to grade cards. Let’s take the example of Old Judge where many were pasted in albums. The card could be sharp with deep photographic quality. Any slight missing paper on the blank back makes it a 1. A faded card with great corners and clean back can get a 7. How is this system helping collectors and buyers? There needs a reevaluation of what makes a card grade. Basically we need grading companies to prevent fakes and alterations. But we also want some objective way to equate cards so the same grade means the same quality and value.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A technical grading question... | JollyElm | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 8 | 10-07-2018 12:50 PM |
I appeal to your desire for eye appeal with 3 appealing cards | frankbmd | T206 cards B/S/T | 5 | 01-31-2017 09:00 PM |
Growing appeal of...eye appeal? | GregMitch34 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 17 | 06-13-2015 12:36 AM |
Eye Appeal -vs- Technical Grade | ls7plus | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 30 | 05-16-2011 10:06 PM |
Technical Difficulties - Sorry. | hugginsandscott | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 01-26-2011 03:17 PM |