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

[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.