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

[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.