SGC, way to keep it consistent!

[orly57]

I know this horse has been beaten to death, but I posted a side by side of these cards in another thread, and some guys have pm'd me to post the backs too. I didn't want to hijack a thread that had nothing to do with this topic. Here are 2 T3 Cobbs. They are separated by a half-grade. A HALF $&@& GRADE!!!! The left is a 1.5 and the right is a 1. If I were the CEO of SGC, I would find a way to correct these disperate results at all costs. It is so ridiculous.

[drmondobueno]

Paper loss on the obverse gets you a 20 all day.

[JustinD]

Yes, The left has a lot of paper loss. It should not be higher than a 1.5.

The important thing is the sale price and I will bet it is vastly different.

[Scocs]

The paper loss is on the reverse, not obverse.

Is there any paper loss on the front of the left card? If not, I would gladly own it!

[orly57]

I know, I know, paper loss made the t3 a 1.5. But why is this a 2 when there is paper loss, and it is ON THE FRONT OF THE CARD? So paper loss on the front is less egregious than paper loss on the back in a totally innocuous spot?

[orly57]

Originally Posted by drmondobueno

Paper loss on the obverse gets you a 20 all day.

Keith, I know that, but what I am pointing out is that perhaps they should reconsider that rote practice.

[BeanTown]

So, if I understand grading correctly, if the card has paper loss, a chunk missing, pin holes, or color added then it really doesn't matter what the rest of the card looks like. Heck, maybe we can say both PSA and SGC got the 1936 Joe DiMaggio WW card graded correctly.

[BeanTown]

I will add that many people still buy the card and not the holder which we saw in the REA auction when this beauty went for 33k. Description said color was added but I don't see it. Plus, if the color can be cleaned then maybe a PSA 7 is in order?

I think the T3 Cobb will do really well in the HA auction to as it's a great eye appeal. Collectors are more forgiving with back damage.

[orly57]

I think you hit it on the head JC. 2% of the cardboard makes up 100% of the grade when it comes to paper loss or pinholes. The other 98% could be GORGEOUS, but it is still put in the same category as cards that look like they were run over by a truck. As someone pointed out, the nice card will always sell for more, but it is horribly capped in the long run by the low grade. Grading companies should strive for consistency. When cards this different are even in the same stratosphere, you have a problem with your grading parameters.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by orly57

The left is a 1.5 and the right is a 1. If I were the CEO of SGC, I would find a way to correct these disperate results at all costs. It is so ridiculous.

Out of curiosity, what do you think that the cards should have been graded?

[orly57]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Out of curiosity, what do you think that the cards should have been graded?

I am proposing a paradigm shift. I am not saying they were improperly graded according to the grading standards. I am saying grading standards are flawed and should be revamped. Somewhere along the line, grading companies need to consider overall appearance and presentation if they are going to be the measuring stick of our hobby.

[pherbener]

This stuff kills me. I guess this is over graded then.

M116 Cy Young by Paul Herbener, on Flickr

M116 Cy Young by Paul Herbener, on Flickr

[orly57]

God no. It is gorgeous.

[pherbener]

There's a speck of paper loss on the back or I think it's a 7. Again though, with the tiny paper loss why a 2 and not a 1.5?

[glynparson]

Is not nor should it be the same as eye appeal. People need to grasp this concept. And indeed buy the card not the holder. This leads to prices not being based solely on the number on the holder which to me is a good thing. The fact is the hobby has decided not all flaws are created equal and these standards have been established over a long period of time.

[drmondobueno]

Originally Posted by orly57

Keith, I know that, but what I am pointing out is that perhaps they should reconsider that rote practice.

Oh yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. To me the T3 is no less than a VGEX, similar to a mild corner ding. Can't tell you how many super nice T206 I have owned for cheap because of a spot (some I could not see without a glass). Wonder how PSA would grade this guy.

This is the one grading trait I personally find inconsistent with other grading practices at SGC. Don't see this changing anytime at all. This is one reason why I have moved away from graded cards.

[Leon]

All very true. We see this over and over and it is the way it is. It is probably the correct way if really debated. Unless you are playing registry tic tac toe then the grade should be secondary to the card.

Originally Posted by glynparson

Is not nor should it be the same as eye appeal. People need to grasp this concept. And indeed buy the card not the holder. This leads to prices not being based solely on the number on the holder which to me is a good thing. The fact is the hobby has decided not all flaws are created equal and these standards have been established over a long period of time.

[ullmandds]

Whether we all agree on this board that a "paradigm shift" is "necessary" in the tpg world...not saying we do...but even if we did. It AINT GONNA HAPPEN!!!!!

As Aerosmith sang...DREAM ON!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Out of curiosity, what do you think that the cards should have been graded?

Originally Posted by orly57

I am not saying they were improperly graded according to the grading standards.

Umm, that's exactly what the sarcastic title of your thread infers. What do you want SGC to do?

Originally Posted by orly57

Somewhere along the line, grading companies need to consider overall appearance and presentation if they are going to be the measuring stick of our hobby.

No, they don't. It is not up to the grading company to determine the eye appeal of a card. It's their job to grade the card. The buyer can determine the eye appeal of a card.

Originally Posted by glynparson

Is not nor should it be the same as eye appeal. People need to grasp this concept. And indeed buy the card not the holder. This leads to prices not being based solely on the number on the holder which to me is a good thing. The fact is the hobby has decided not all flaws are created equal and these standards have been established over a long period of time.

+1 Glyn

Edited to add the following question: Do you think PSA or any other reputable grading company would have graded the 2 T3 Cobbs any differently?

[packs]

I say keep the grades low all day. I picked this card up for a ridiculous discount all because some people can't live without the half percent of the card that's missing:

[bnorth]

In my personal experience SGC will grade a card as high as a SGC 40/3 VG with paper loss. I had a Babe Ruth that was otherwise easily NrMint get a VG grade because of a speck of paper loss on the right border the size of a pin head.

I will complain that i mailed off 119 cards to SGC to get graded 58 days ago and still are not done.

[KMayUSA6060]

As previously stated, eye appeal and technical grading are two completely different categories. Buy the card, not the grade, unless you're doing a set registry.

Side note: I don't really care about SGC inconsistencies, as long as they have the beautiful slab with the black interior. It's the sole reason I go with them for Pre-War. Again, eye appeal.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by glynparson

Is not nor should it be the same as eye appeal. People need to grasp this concept. And indeed buy the card not the holder. This leads to prices not being based solely on the number on the holder which to me is a good thing. The fact is the hobby has decided not all flaws are created equal and these standards have been established over a long period of time.

+1

Personally this is a non issue as we are comparing to a 1. A 1 is unequivocally the most vast category in existence. As long as it's a real card and 90% there it will get a 1, it basically means it's real and unaltered.

If this was a comparison between a 1.5 and 2 it could be a more salient topic for discussion.

[Pat R]

This Pastorius was previously in a PSA 2 holder. There is no paper loss but there is a paper pull on the back.
Pasorius%20hindu.jpgPastorius%20Back b.jpg
Pastorius%20Back.jpg

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Anyone have any tips to removing ink? I have a Robinson I want to keep for my collection. Can you soak mid 50's topps cards? No malicious intentions guys, just trying to improve my collection without paying up for big cards.