I wish we had a better grading scale for low-end pre-war cards

[itjclarke]

I totally agree that there is a crazy variance in card quality at the lower end of the grading scale, which is nowhere nearly as extreme at the top end. I don't think TPGs should necessarily add grades at the bottom, but do think something can be done. This actually seems like a place where qualifiers could come in handy. I know many/most don't like qualifiers, and I am not really a huge fan either. However given they exist and aren't going anywhere, it seems odd that PSA will single out traits like OC, ST, PD, etc as being the only reason a given card wouldn't receive a higher grade, but will not do so for other single flaws like rear paper loss, or glue stains. I've seen a lot of 6-8 scale looking cards posted here (the T206 Wajo hands at chest and Tinker portrait come to mind) that are in 1.5-2 holders based on tiny paper loss, but look far far far better.

If I were selling (though I'm usually not), I think I'd rather have a card graded as an 8 PL, as opposed to a straight 1.5. This would immediately signify to a prospective buyer that there are no other major flaws (hidden creases, pencil or eraser marks, etc) downgrading the card... and if they can get beyond that tiny patch of rear paper loss, they'll happily own a gem (I feel the same about many of my OC cards).

I fully understand and agree with "buying the card, not the holder", and that a card's eye appeal, not its numerical grade should drive its value, however not all buyers see past the grade. In that, I'd be for further differentiating these otherwise immaculate low grade cards from the normal run of the mill beater 1s and 2s, and bettering my chances at receiving a deserved premium.