Back damage--and grading craziness

[Leon]

One of the more discouraging issues concerning grading is that there seems to be the same weight put on minor paper loss on a blank back as there is paper loss on an important part of the front of a card. I am not sure there is a solution that is fair. Grading by different graders, even at the same company, is very subjective by (human) nature.

[packs]

For the purposes of grading I think paper loss in all forms should result in the lowest grade, either a 1 or a 1.5 at the most.

Even though it seems crazy a blank backed card with paper loss is killed the same way any other card is, I think collecting as a whole should be moving away from number grades anyway.

I say only two grade should be given to all cards: Authentic and Altered. Then let bidders decide what makes a card valuable. It will cease to be a number and begin to be eye appeal, which is all cards should be valued on anyway. Altered cards will still be labeled as such and everyone I think benefits, especially when you consider how much card doctoring is going on now.

[glynparson]

I could not disagree more. I feel cards value within a grade should be determined by eye appeal. But pretending a card with striking colors and beauty but a major flaw should be valued at more than an uncirculated example with slightly muted colors is laughable. The hobby has never been that way and never should. Value though for a lower technical grade graded card can and sometimes does outsell a higher grade lower eye appeal as it should. But all flaws are relevant to me. Relying strictly on eye appeal is akin to relying strictly on the number grade. Value should be determined by all factors of the card. Under that criteria a pin hole would be almost irrelevant to value if it were tough to see. I find that logic highly flawed.

[packs]

I don't think it's laughable. How many Old Judges with faded images grade out at a 7 or 8? A LOT. Would you rather have them or a pristine image with some album removal damage? Under my proposition both types would be graded the same: Authentic, and you can decide what they're worth independently of a number.

My main point is that grading should move away from a number game and toward collector driven interest, which I would argue has a lot to do with eye appeal. Right now cards sell because of their grade. Whether or not they deserve that grade is an argument Board members get into all the time. So what's laughable about eliminating that mine field and moving towards collector interest in the card itself?

[GregMitch34]

Appreciate replies but remember that this started with focus strictly on backs...

Yes, paper loss on backs--sometimes, but not always--gets treated like on front. But stains? A lot more leeway if just on backs. It seems minor staining on back on a nice card will still allow a "4" easily. If same small stain on front--no way. And so on.

[Republicaninmass]

What about the 'pin hole' 1? I think it is good because it is an undectable flaw, at least in scan or at first glance