Grading Technical vs. Overall Appeal

[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.

[Casey2296]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Couldn't disagree more. Grading is about the condition of the card, not the price. The open market determines the price. If a 2 sells for more than a 5 it just means the collector values it more. Not that it is higher grade. The parameters can't keep changing through time based on the market. If it did then yesterday's 5 that was based on condition wouldn't be the same a today's 5 that is based on eye appeal. The end user needs to actually look at the card and determine for themselves if they like the appeal better than another card. It's not up the grader to tell me what card looks better, just which one is in better physical condition based on their standard of grading. That way they are all comparable. You have to buy the card, not the holder. So leave it up to me which one I think is better and tell me what flaws the cardboard has.

It's been said before that if a card came out of a pack with poor registration then that doesn't bring the grade down. It's how it left the factory. So it can still be mint and be out of focus. Do I like that 8 better than the lesser condition but clearer registration 5, maybe not. But some registry guy who is into the number might. I'm about the cards, not the number grade.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

Couldn't disagree more. Grading is about the condition of the card, not the price. The open market determines the price. If a 2 sells for more than a 5 it just means the collector values it more. Not that it is higher grade. The parameters can't keep changing through time based on the market. If it did then yesterday's 5 that was based on condition wouldn't be the same a today's 5 that is based on eye appeal. The end user needs to actually look at the card and determine for themselves if they like the appeal better than another card. It's not up the grader to tell me what card looks better, just which one is in better physical condition based on their standard of grading. That way they are all comparable. You have to buy the card, not the holder. So leave it up to me which one I think is better and tell me what flaws the cardboard has.

It's been said before that if a card came out of a pack with poor registration then that doesn't bring the grade down. It's how it left the factory. So it can still be mint and be out of focus. Do I like that 8 better than the lesser condition but clearer registration 5, maybe not. But some registry guy who is into the number might. I'm about the cards, not the number grade.

The part highlighted in bold is a nonsensical double-standard....

Grossly off-centered cards also "left the factory" that way. Why penalize off-center, but not out of focus or poorly registered cards? At least when it's off-center you can still clearly see the image. With off-register cards, you can't see anything but fuzzy images.

Again.... who made up these random and idiotic rules? It's not like "The Ten Commandments" written by God, and having stood for centuries. TPG has been around for about 2 1/2 decades, and the time has come to clean it up.

I am actually hoping that one of the new TPG entries blows up the whole thing, and offers up a better grading system which actually makes sense and rewards cards with better aesthetics. They may not capture the current registry fanatics, but they could carve out a very nice niche for true collectors.

[Leon]

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]

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!

[packs]

Another fair one: