Grading Technical vs. Overall Appeal

conor912 · #1 03-14-2021, 09:56 AM

I agree that you have some great points, as I have always collected eye appeal over technical grade. That said, i think grading companies have enough problems with subjectivity as it is. Letting them weight a grade for eye appeal sounds like a logistical nightmare.

MattyC · #2 03-14-2021, 10:02 AM

PSA has long given the most weight to corners, and not nearly enough respect to image focus or centering. Perhaps because their biggest submitters can most easily sharpen a corner

But Delrey you nail it and preach on� the collector�s eyes are what matter most and guys should always buy what is the prettiest card to them, not what some �professional grader� who knows less about cards says is best.

Delray Vintage · #3 03-14-2021, 10:16 AM

I know PWCC has attempted to add eye appeal in its ratings. The fact that PSA and SGC are leaving eye appeal ratings to auction houses is a problem. There needs to be a better way to grade cards. Let�s take the example of Old Judge where many were pasted in albums. The card could be sharp with deep photographic quality. Any slight missing paper on the blank back makes it a 1. A faded card with great corners and clean back can get a 7. How is this system helping collectors and buyers? There needs a reevaluation of what makes a card grade. Basically we need grading companies to prevent fakes and alterations. But we also want some objective way to equate cards so the same grade means the same quality and value.

Casey2296 · #4 03-14-2021, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

I know PWCC has attempted to add eye appeal in its ratings. The fact that PSA and SGC are leaving eye appeal ratings to auction houses is a problem. There needs to be a better way to grade cards. Let�s take the example of Old Judge where many were pasted in albums. The card could be sharp with deep photographic quality. Any slight missing paper on the blank back makes it a 1. A faded card with great corners and clean back can get a 7. How is this system helping collectors and buyers? There needs a reevaluation of what makes a card grade. Basically we need grading companies to prevent fakes and alterations. But we also want some objective way to equate cards so the same grade means the same quality and value.

I've never relied on a grading company or auction house to tell me what appeals to me.

hcv123 · #5 03-14-2021, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

I know PWCC has attempted to add eye appeal in its ratings. The fact that PSA and SGC are leaving eye appeal ratings to auction houses is a problem. There needs to be a better way to grade cards. Let�s take the example of Old Judge where many were pasted in albums. The card could be sharp with deep photographic quality. Any slight missing paper on the blank back makes it a 1. A faded card with great corners and clean back can get a 7. How is this system helping collectors and buyers? There needs a reevaluation of what makes a card grade. Basically we need grading companies to prevent fakes and alterations. But we also want some objective way to equate cards so the same grade means the same quality and value.

YES - grading companies either need to unequivocally weed out fakes and alterations OR stop claiming that they do!

No - there will never be a truly objective standard as discussed in this thread "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" different elements of a cards condition are differently important to different people.

pokerplyr80 · #6 03-14-2021, 11:25 AM

I agree with you on most of the points you made, except for that the same card in a specific grade should be worth a certain price. The last thing we need is even more subjectivity in grading.

Grading companies are supposed to be able to spot an altered or fake card, and assign cards a numerical grade based on established and publish standards. They have had difficulty doing that so far.

Some of us prefer to pay a premium for a centered 4 with nice color, registration, etc. Or a PSA 1 that looks like a 6 or 7 but has a small pin hole or back damage. Others may not. But this is not a flaw that needs to be corrected. It allows for different ways to enjoy the hobby.

CobbSpikedMe · #7 03-14-2021, 12:59 PM

I don't agree that grading companies are supposed to line up grades based on secondary market value for the collector. They are supposed to authenticate and grade based on certain stated parameters. The collector then actually looks at the card and decides for themselves if they like the appearance, centering, registration, etc. and sets the market price with their bids. Some sets/cards have issues with centering, some with registration, but not all cards are the same. OJs can be high grade and look terrible where you can't even see the image, while a Jim Brown RC (I know, football and not prewar) can be low grade but command a higher price if it's centered because it's a tough card to find centered. The eye appeal should be left to the collector while technicalities can be the job of the grader.

Delray Vintage · #8 03-14-2021, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I don't agree that grading companies are supposed to line up grades based on secondary market value for the collector. They are supposed to authenticate and grade based on certain stated parameters. The collector then actually looks at the card and decides for themselves if they like the appearance, centering, registration, etc. and sets the market price with their bids. Some sets/cards have issues with centering, some with registration, but not all cards are the same. OJs can be high grade and look terrible where you can't even see the image, while a Jim Brown RC (I know, football and not prewar) can be low grade but command a higher price if it's centered because it's a tough card to find centered. The eye appeal should be left to the collector while technicalities can be the job of the grader.

I agree mostly, but the whole grading industry was based on making prices more standard. That is why we have the PSA SMR which always shows what is supposed to be a higher value for each grade. While we all know in reality the price is in the eye of the beholder the stated parameters should reflect how collectors evaluate cards rather than technical corner wear. If we pay more for centering and less interested in corner wear the grading companies should adjust those parameters.

CobbSpikedMe · #9 03-14-2021, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

I agree mostly, but the whole grading industry was based on making prices more standard. That is why we have the PSA SMR which always shows what is supposed to be a higher value for each grade. While we all know in reality the price is in the eye of the beholder the stated parameters should reflect how collectors evaluate cards rather than technical corner wear. If we pay more for centering and less interested in corner wear the grading companies should adjust those parameters.

I'm not sure the grading industry was based on making prices standard. They are supposed to grade the technical condition of the carboard and authenticate the card. The values are different for each card in any given grade for different collectors and I don't think there is a way to assign a grade based on value. They would have to constantly be changing the parameters based on market and then the grades become useless from one period to another.

Aquarian Sports Cards · #10 03-14-2021, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delray Vintage

I agree mostly, but the whole grading industry was based on making prices more standard. That is why we have the PSA SMR which always shows what is supposed to be a higher value for each grade. While we all know in reality the price is in the eye of the beholder the stated parameters should reflect how collectors evaluate cards rather than technical corner wear. If we pay more for centering and less interested in corner wear the grading companies should adjust those parameters.

I disagree the grading industry was based on making GRADING more standard, not prices.

perezfan · #11 03-14-2021, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I don't agree that grading companies are supposed to line up grades based on secondary market value for the collector. They are supposed to authenticate and grade based on certain stated parameters. The collector then actually looks at the card and decides for themselves if they like the appearance, centering, registration, etc. and sets the market price with their bids. Some sets/cards have issues with centering, some with registration, but not all cards are the same. OJs can be high grade and look terrible where you can't even see the image, while a Jim Brown RC (I know, football and not prewar) can be low grade but command a higher price if it's centered because it's a tough card to find centered. The eye appeal should be left to the collector while technicalities can be the job of the grader.

Disagree. Eye appeal should be factored into the grade. The current model is broken and senseless. Who decided upon the current parameters, anyway? When many 2s look better than 6s, it indicates there is a problem.

Back in the 90s (when grading was in its infancy), I was at SCP's brick and mortar store in Laguna Niguel. They had two 1933 Goudey Gehrigs. One was a beautiful raw example, and one was a PSA 5. The raw card was superior on every visual measure.... better centering, crisp/clear image vs. blurry/out of register, better corners, better color, etc. Looking at the PSA5 made me dizzy and the baby blue background was more grey than blue. Every single attribute that makes that card great was superior in the raw example.

Both cards were priced the same, so it was a no-brainer to purchase the raw one. When I looked closer at the raw card, I noticed a tiny and discrete speck of paper loss that was barely noticeable without magnification.

So fast-forward to today... the ugly off-centered PSA 5 would command more money than the far more beautiful raw example, just because someone at PSA deemed that paper loss in one miniscule spot is more of a detractor than the entire card being faded and out of focus.

Who wrote these idiotic rules, and why are they embraced as the norm? I know that the sheep-like mentality is to fully embrace someone else's numbering system. But who in the hell ever determined that it was right in the first place? Not to mention the obscene and nonsensical variance in pricing that follows (due strictly to a randomly assigned number on a flip).

I love this thread, and kudos to the OP for starting it. I agree with him 100%

Delray Vintage · #12 03-14-2021, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perezfan

Disagree. Eye appeal should be factored into the grade. The current model is broken and senseless. Who decided upon the current parameters, anyway? When many 2s look better than 6s, it indicates there is a problem.

Back in the 90s (when grading was in its infancy), I was at SCP's brick and mortar store in Laguna Niguel. They had two 1933 Goudey Gehrigs. One was a beautiful raw example, and one was a PSA 5. The raw card was superior on every visual measure.... better centering, crisp/clear image vs. blurry/out of register, better corners, better color, etc. Looking at the PSA5 made me dizzy and the baby blue background was more grey than blue. Every single attribute that makes that card great was superior in the raw example.

Both cards were priced the same, so it was a no-brainer to purchase the raw one. When I looked closer at the raw card, I noticed a tiny and discrete speck of paper loss that was barely noticeable without magnification.

So fast-forward to today... the ugly off-centered PSA 5 would command more money than the far more beautiful raw example, just because someone at PSA deemed that paper loss in one miniscule spot is more of a detractor than the entire card being faded and out of focus.

Who wrote these idiotic rules, and why are they embraced as the norm? I know that the sheep-like mentality is to fully embrace someone else's numbering system. But who in the hell ever determined that it was right in the first place? Not to mention the obscene and nonsensical variance in pricing that follows (due strictly to a randomly assigned number on a flip).

I love this thread, and kudos to the OP for starting it. I agree with him 100%

I am happy someone agrees with me. Grading is supposed to mean something in relation to pricing. When the market is saying eye appeal means as much or more than crisp corners grading companies need to rethink the weight they give to corners, minute paper loss and other things they weight over eye appeal. To have a higher grade be less desired makes no sense. The grade is supposed to mean something to the average collector not be some arcane process to evaluate corners under a magnifying glass. Sorry grading is broken when a PSA 2 sells for more than a 5.

Leon · #13 03-14-2021, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I don't agree that grading companies are supposed to line up grades based on secondary market value for the collector. They are supposed to authenticate and grade based on certain stated parameters. The collector then actually looks at the card and decides for themselves if they like the appearance, centering, registration, etc. and sets the market price with their bids. Some sets/cards have issues with centering, some with registration, but not all cards are the same. OJs can be high grade and look terrible where you can't even see the image, while a Jim Brown RC (I know, football and not prewar) can be low grade but command a higher price if it's centered because it's a tough card to find centered. The eye appeal should be left to the collector while technicalities can be the job of the grader.

I agree and that is why some lower grade cards can go for more than a card several grades higher. Eye appeal seems to be more relevant outside the registry, which is where many of us are.

perezfan · #14 03-14-2021, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

I agree and that is why some lower grade cards can go for more than a card several grades higher. Eye appeal seems to be more relevant outside the registry, which is where many of us are.

I would crack out that Red Cobb in a heartbeat. Such an injustice to see the word "Fair" on the holder. Just stupid, and it detracts from the entire presentation of the great card. And the crinkled baggie is a horrible solution to holding it in place. The otherwise beautiful aesthetics of the card were destroyed by PSA.

Crack it out of the toxic slab and let it breathe!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A technical grading question...	JollyElm	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	8	10-07-2018 01:50 PM
I appeal to your desire for eye appeal with 3 appealing cards	frankbmd	T206 cards B/S/T	5	01-31-2017 10:00 PM
Growing appeal of...eye appeal?	GregMitch34	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	17	06-13-2015 01:36 AM
Eye Appeal -vs- Technical Grade	ls7plus	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	30	05-16-2011 11:06 PM
Technical Difficulties - Sorry.	hugginsandscott	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	01-26-2011 04:17 PM