One of the things that's wrong with the current grading system

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

I agree with Fred and his assessment. One of the things that drives me crazy but which I have learned to live with is SGC's grading of otherwise ex to exmt cards which have ink writing on the backs (the backs are blank) and come back 10s or once in a while 20s. The cards are so hard to find and SGC's holders for them are superb so I keep sending them in. Mark Macrae once told me that nearly 80% of 1911 Zeenuts have writing on the backs (from tiny ink numbers which some collectors used to catalogue them to collectors writing their names on the back). It would be nice to have the cards graded SGC60 with a qualifier like MK instead of SGC 10 or 20.
I also like to collect caramel cards in SGC 20 or 30 which are blazers but have a tiny bit of paper loss on the back. I note from a recent thread that some collectors would rather have multiple creases or doggy corners than any back paper loss and I say to each his own. I own a green E98 Walsh which is almost identical to the highest graded one ever which belongs to Scott Mosley (also green)but it is a 10 because of paper loss. This particular card has more than tiny paper loss but I keep it because the front is so nice. So I agree that, yes, there is a world of difference between an SGC 10 which looks like it passed through someone's alimentary canal and a beauty with back paper loss...