1914 Mathewson in Memory Lane

[joshuanip]

Sorry if I am off topic, but purchased the '14 CJ Walter Johnson in that auction. Just came back to buying cards again. Does the staining really impact the card value? Doesn't matter for me. Going to be put away and probably out of the hobby circulation until I give it to my son. But curious.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by joshuanip

Sorry if I am off topic, but purchased the '14 CJ Walter Johnson in that auction. Just came back to buying cards again. Does the staining really impact the card value? Doesn't matter for me. Going to be put away and probably out of the hobby circulation until I give it to my son. But curious.

The staining doesn't bother me or most collectors unless it's really distracting. 1914 CJ's touched the cracker jack in the box and thus most are stained. It's expected.

[3-2-count]

It was a beautiful example.

Congratulations.

[Bicem]

David's CJ Matty is incredible.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by calvindog

The staining doesn't bother me or most collectors unless it's really distracting. 1914 CJ's touched the cracker jack in the box and thus most are stained. It's expected.

I concur. In fact I prefer a CJ to have some caramel staining, ideally away from the image's focal point. Sort of a badge of honor, authenticity, character, if you will. Especially the 15s.

And that Matty 2.5 is to die for.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I concur. In fact I prefer a CJ to have some caramel staining, ideally away from the image's focal point. Sort of a badge of honor, authenticity, character, if you will. Especially the 15s.

And that Matty 2.5 is to die for.

When CJs look too clean I suspect bleaching. I don't mind a bit of staining.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Slightly off-topic, but this card demonstrates, to me at least, a ridiculous aspect of the standard grading system. Or maybe I just don't understand it--always a possibility! If your system goes from one to ten, presumably the differences between each grade should be about the same, no? Otherwise, why give them numbers where the difference is exactly the same between each grade? Give them names instead, like it used to be. Anyway, back to my point: This example of a beautiful card gets the same grade as a card that had been tossed into a puddle of diesel fuel, run over by a tank, then eaten and disgorged by a camel before being submitted to PSA. On the other end of the scale, you would need an electron microscope to tell the difference between a 9 and a 10. Somebody please explain this to me.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Slightly off-topic, but this card demonstrates, to me at least, a ridiculous aspect of the standard grading system. Or maybe I just don't understand it--always a possibility! If your system goes from one to ten, presumably the differences between each grade should be about the same, no? Otherwise, why give them numbers where the difference is exactly the same between each grade? Give them names instead, like it used to be. Anyway, back to my point: This example of a beautiful card gets the same grade as a card that had been tossed into a puddle of diesel fuel, run over by a tank, then eaten and disgorged by a camel before being submitted to PSA. On the other end of the scale, you would need an electron microscope to tell the difference between a 9 and a 10. Somebody please explain this to me.

Hank,

You just hung a lantern on what has always struck me as the "fatal flaw" in the grading game. It's why I take their grades with a grain of salt, and why above all, we collectors are the ultimate judges of what's best to our eyes.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Slightly off-topic, but this card demonstrates, to me at least, a ridiculous aspect of the standard grading system. Or maybe I just don't understand it--always a possibility! If your system goes from one to ten, presumably the differences between each grade should be about the same, no? Otherwise, why give them numbers where the difference is exactly the same between each grade? Give them names instead, like it used to be. Anyway, back to my point: This example of a beautiful card gets the same grade as a card that had been tossed into a puddle of diesel fuel, run over by a tank, then eaten and disgorged by a camel before being submitted to PSA. On the other end of the scale, you would need an electron microscope to tell the difference between a 9 and a 10. Somebody please explain this to me.

Not sure we want graders making their assessments that would include subjective eye appeal as part of the final grade. Grading is already inherently flawed even with specific technical guidelines that are supposed to be followed at each grade level. I think that is where the grader's responsibilities stop and the end user's begin. This Jax was my card and it is graded 100% accurately, technically, due to severe damage to the reverse. This card will always sell for a premium over an example which has been given the same grade due to corner wear, creases and staining, etc.