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

[HercDriver]

Maybe the scale should go to 11...

[T206Collector]

I've said this a few times, but it bears repeating. Grading is a pyramid. At the top, you have the 10s. 10 means perfection and thus all 10s will be identical. As you go down the pyramid, grades are set for a variety of reasons -- 9s almost all look the same, but 3s, 2s and 1s have a huge number of potential flaws, including paper loss on reverse, creasing, corner wear, etc. What makes a card an SGC 30 could be a variety of factors that tell you nothing about the eye appeal of the card without looking at it.

Professional grading is not designed to reflect eye appeal. It is designed to point out flaws, often hard to see or hidden, in a piece of card board. When you see a clean-looking SGC 30, you actually know there are a lot of hard to see flaws. When you see a badgered up SGC 30, what you see is what you get. But not all SGC 30s will look alike -- in fact, at that level of the "pyramid" you will have a lot of different looking cards.

This becomes problematic when sellers try to sell a PSA 2 for what a previous PSA 2 sold for. Without comparing both cards, going by the number alone gets you nowhere because what you don't know about the previous card is whether the damage was similar or whether the eye-appeal was comparable. Sometimes you can get a pretty good deal on a nice looking 2 when a seller is willing to use a previous ugly 2 as a comparable. This is why they say, "Buy the card, not the holder."

[Harford20]

I agree with T206 Collector. The sales of "equivalent" graded cards is far from accurate. You often see that a card "went for a premium because of xxxxxxx" (whether that is centering, eye-appeal, corners, etc.). That "pyramid", and the high number of low-end graded cards just opens up too much variation to actually have equivalent cards getting the same grades, and vice versa.

As a note, as I guess I am a bit harsh, I would have been very happy to get the grades on your cards. I would have expected a 30/2 on the Cicotte, but would have expected 10/1 on the remaining 3.

[wolf441]

Willis - WGC 11.2
Cobb - WGC 13.8
Cicotte - WGC 28.6
Clarke - WGC 21.4

Thats "Woelfel Grading Company". I accept Paypal!

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by wolf441

Willis - WGC 11.2
Cobb - WGC 13.8
Cicotte - WGC 28.6
Clarke - WGC 21.4

Thats "Woelfel Grading Company". I accept Paypal!

Outrageous!!!

Cicotte is a 28.4 at best.

[The Nasty Nati]

I often feel the biggest discrepancy in grades are in the 2 and 3 range. Countless times I've seen 2's that should have been 3's and vice versa. Whenever I cross grade I always have the best luck in pumping up a grade when it's a 2 to a 3.

But agreed the lower grades are always very very subjective. Where is once it's in the 5 and up range I tend to agree with the grade (give or take).

[Runscott]

…moved to other related thread.

[Bocabirdman]

In my opinion, since grading is subject to human frailty, the existing level of accuracy is open for discussion. When PSA added the .5 and SGC went to the 35,45,55, it really only gave another level for debate.

Imagine, if you will, a line across the page. the leftmost point of the line is undeniably pure Crayola Blue The further you follow it across the page, it slowly morph towards green until at the rightmost it is pure, undeniable green. If every member of the board picked a point on the line when it was no longer blue, how many different points would be chosen. Color comprehension, predisposed opinions and varying levels of color blindness all would enter into the decision making process, intentionally or not. How can a sliding numerical scale with multiple variables be any more accurate?

[Luke]

Originally Posted by wolf441

Willis - WGC 11.2
Cobb - WGC 13.8
Cicotte - WGC 28.6
Clarke - WGC 21.4

Thats "Woelfel Grading Company". I accept Paypal!

I know you're joking, but I actually like your grades a lot. I was expecting Cobb and Willis to be 1s, Clarke to be a 20 or 30, and Cicotte to be a 35 or Auth (wierd cut).

I really like Paul's response. Makes a lot of sense. Also, I'm not saying that SGC (or PSA) is doing a poor job. I just think the way we assign condition grades to 100 year-old baseball could use some work.

If you look at the Willis and Cicotte side-by-side in the same 20 holder, I think its really hard to say that our current system gives us enough room for differentiation at the bottom. Willis is beat to hell, and Cicotte is pretty nice.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

I know you're joking, but I actually like your grades a lot. I was expecting Cobb and Willis to be 1s, Clarke to be a 20 or 30, and Cicotte to be a 35 or Auth (wierd cut).

I really like Paul's response. Makes a lot of sense. Also, I'm not saying that SGC (or PSA) is doing a poor job. I just think the way we assign condition grades to 100 year-old baseball could use some work.

If you look at the Willis and Cicotte side-by-side in the same 20 holder, I think its really hard to say that our current system gives us enough room for differentiation at the bottom. Willis is beat to hell, and Cicotte is pretty nice.

I'm not a graded card expert by any means, but I have no idea why Cicotte would not be a 30. It is a GOOD card by SCG or Beckett grading standards. Do TPGs have a different definition of "GOOD"?

As others have pointed out, side-by-side, no problem grabbing the Cicotte (everything else being equal, ie stars vs commons, etc) if the price is based on grade alone.