One of these days.....Old Judges graded differently

[Jeffrompa]

I agree that there should be a seperate marker for photo quality . Even if it isnt part of the full grade .

[oldjudge]

It's priced appropriately even if it is somewhat undergraded

[kcohen]

We've had this discussion before. When it comes to N172s, the TPGs are merely paper graders, not card graders.

[sreader3]

I'm not sure it would matter for the card in Leon's original post but I would like to see TPGs offer a "front only" grading option for OJs since many collectors of that set don't seem to care too much about back damage. This would be similar to the current "autograph only" grading option for autographed cards. The TPGs could by definition make photo quality an important component of the OJ "front only" grade.

This could be a particularly nice way for SGC, which already seems to be the preferred TPG service for OJs, to differentiate their service from PSA.

[drcy]

Grading has it's limits, subjectivity and is inexact. One limit is it is a grader of physical condition, but not an arbiter of aesthetic appeal. I agree the graders often seem to sometime ignore whether the Old Judge images are developed detailed or undeveloped, which clearly is an essential aspect (and some would say part of the physical condition) of the cards. Old Judges are little photographs, and image quality, focus, development and overall aesthetics is an inherent aspect of photographs. Whether or not those things fall under the category of physical condition to be graded is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think how well developed is the image (too light, too dark, etc) is part of physical condition, but don't think focus or aesthetic quality is. Some artistic and sports images, including images of movement, are intentionally out of focus. If a photographic image has faded due to light exposure, I would certainly count that as a physical defect.

[Jacker_ Cracks]

Originally Posted by drcy

Grading has it's limits and is inexact. One limit is it isn't an arbiter of aesthetic appeal. Also, a cookie cutter grading system will never fit every type of card.

+1 Completely agree with you.

[mrvster]

and ojs(im also a closet oj fan)

photo quality should be a category and weighted heavier on ojs.....

[drcy]

I can add that, when I'm describing photos, I describe the physical condition plus describe the image quality. Two parts to the description. I can describe a photo as "Near Mint grade but the image is out of focus" or "Physically grades Very Good due to edge damage and paper loss, but the image is mint crystal clear." For better or worse, that's how I do it. I don't see how giving an single average of the two grades (physical condition + aesthetic quality of image divided by two) would do anyone any good.

For cabinet cards, press photos and the like, I'll post pictures, describe the physical defects (corner wear, paper loss wrinkles, etc) and the quality of the image (focus, clarity, etc) and not give a number grade. The collector can weight the different aspects and calculate a personal number grade whichever he wants.

[Exhibitman]

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sreader3

I'm not sure it would matter for the card in Leon's original post but I would like to see TPGs offer a "front only" grading option for OJs since many collectors of that set don't seem to care too much about back damage. This would be similar to the current "autograph only" grading option for autographed cards. The TPGs could by definition make photo quality an important component of the OJ "front only" grade.

This could be a particularly nice way for SGC, which already seems to be the preferred TPG service for OJs, to differentiate their service from PSA.

Scot- I love this idea.

Jim B- I think it is graded correctly under the current system. That is sort of the problem.

Jay M. - I agree...priced close to where it should be given the superior photo quality.

Here is another that has a Nrmt+ type photo. Maybe some day one of the TPG companies will take the lead in this area and do something different?......

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1887-Old-Jud...item2c87efa032



.

[sreader3]

Thanks Leon. Maybe one of you guys who has SGC's ear can suggest it.

I have a half-dozen or so OJs that I would submit for front-only grading.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Thanks Leon. Maybe one of you guys who has SGC's ear can suggest it.

I have a half-dozen or so OJs that I would submit for front-only grading.

I will be seeing and chatting with them at the National. Maybe I can persuade them (but don't hold your breath ) ....it really is a good suggestion.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Leon

I will be seeing and chatting with them at the National. Maybe I can persuade them (but don't hold your breath ) ....it really is a good suggestion.

I had this same discussion with them about five years ago, and they assured me they would be addressing the issue. Assuming they did address it, I guess they decided to leave things just the way they are. It's bad enough that a gem photo gets a low grade because of a little paper loss, I suppose one can just ignore the grade. But when a card with a nearly invisible photo gets a 6 or a 7 because it has sharp corners, that is simply inexcusable.