Thoughts About A Grading Proposal

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Have you been reading my posts? I have stated the same thing several times before.

Andy, I make absolutely no claim that this is an original idea, but it just occurred to me.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Next you'll be saying the Monster thread was your idea too.

Peter, do tell, whose idea was it?

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Andy, I make absolutely no claim that this is an original idea, but it just occurred to me.

I know you didn't. I am just glad that someone else has finally said the same thing I have been promoting for a while.

[Jantz]

In my opinion Frank, it wouldn't change a single aspect for collectors.

They will all draw the line in the sand the same when it comes to their personal preference. What they are willing to accept compared to what they are not willing to accept.

[pokerplyr80]

An interesting idea, but I don't see it happening, unless enough people want it and a new grading company launches with this new philosophy.

I think they closest you'll come is the current qualified PSA grades. They do half of what you're asking for in that the numerical grade refers to post production and if it's a PD, OC, or MC the qualifier is for the factory issue.

I do wish that all companies would add the subgrades, if for nothing else than clarity on why a card received a certain grade. I would also like to see another category added for focus/registration.

[steve B]

Not a bad idea, but as others have said, a hard one to get going unless it's through an entirely new company.

And that has its own set of complications, including peoples perceptions of how a grading company should operate. Like how we all want the grading done by people who know something if not a lot about the cards so they can avoid errors in identification. BUT many also want people who have no involvement in the hobby besides grading. That's a hard enough combination to find that I think you'd have to train the people from the ground up basically giving a non-hobbyist a serious course in the details and the technical aspects of the cards.

I don't think technology is the answer, although it should be possible to automate some stuff like centering.

When grading first began, I was solidly against it for almost the same reasons stated here. To me the production issues should be entirely separated from the state of preservation. (A miscut card exactly as it came off the cutter can be mint ) But that's not what people overall have wanted.

I do think the grading process needs to be overhauled, I've said before there's no reason other than dealers desire to move a card quickly and perhaps some desire by insurance companies to limit exposure that the more expensive card should be turned around faster than a cheap one. The opposite should be true, a mid 1980's common should be graded very quickly and be less experienced people with a bit of oversight as training, while a far less common card should get a more detailed review by at least a couple people with far more knowledge. In reality, the very knowledgeable people can be very fast at least on the authentic/not authentic/altered aspects. The stamp expertiser at the international show in 2006 confirmed my thoughts about two different ones within maybe 2-3 minutes, while my thoughts had taken maybe 15-20 minutes for one and a lot longer for the other (The one I was "quick" on was real and took him under 20 seconds, the other was altered and took him longer to explain than to know exactly what it was. )

Steve B