SGC, way to keep it consistent!

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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