Ineptness of Authenticators/Graders

[steve B]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Arrgh, don’t get me started on that Scarlet A. I am whining about SGC in the basketball forum now.

And when I asked as to why it got that grade. The answer I got was the graders do not keep any of their notes for determining grades. To me, that sucks. Why would a company not keep those type of records. With all the virtual technologies that exist today, those notes are nothing more than bits on a storage array. And with cloud service, a company does not even have to keep any of that on site. And it is stored and maintained forever.

Blah

Butthurt in Colorado

B. T.

As for a grading standard, I look to coins, it is pretty much cut and dry as to a coin and how it gets graded. Don’t see why card graders cannot come up with a standard like coins.

I read an article by a major coin dealer a few years ago about how grading standards had slid over the years even through the TPGs.
Where a grade used to NEED to have a full clear "liberty" it became acceptable to call it that grade if it was merely legible. Then maybe a missing letter or two was close enough.

Third party grading is pretty new in stamps, and still in the controversial phase. Slabbing stamps has pretty much failed. But they will include a grade on the certificate. Most won't if the stamp has any flaws, so it's mostly based on centering. I expect that will eventually change.

[Snowman]

Yep, it's gotten pretty bad. A lot of perfectly good cards that have not been altered in any way are now getting Authentic slabs. 6s are now 4s, 8s are now 6s. Is what it is.

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

Originally Posted by steve B

I read an article by a major coin dealer a few years ago about how grading standards had slid over the years even through the TPGs.

I think the opposite is happening with cards - grades are slipping down and graders are becoming more strict. A few of us refer to this as GRADE CREEP - the sliding of the scale toward a more strict interpretation and, thus, a lower grade.

i personally believe they focus more on technicalities than ever, and less on eye-appeal. Eye appeal was always an aspect in the first 20 years of card grading, and older cards produced with more archaic technology were graded ever so slightly less strict. Not anymore... they (SGC, PSA, and even CSG) are grading everything like its a 2022 pack pulled, sharp edged card.

[Brian Van Horn]

.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Dead-Ball-Hitter

I think the opposite is happening with cards - grades are slipping down and graders are becoming more strict. A few of us refer to this as GRADE CREEP - the sliding of the scale toward a more strict interpretation and, thus, a lower grade.

i personally believe they focus more on technicalities than ever, and less on eye-appeal. Eye appeal was always an aspect in the first 20 years of card grading, and older cards produced with more archaic technology were graded ever so slightly less strict. Not anymore... they (SGC, PSA, and even CSG) are grading everything like its a 2022 pack pulled, sharp edged card.

And yet, we all want consistent standards. The corners and edges that are Vg on a tobacco card are really bad on a modern card.

The real problem is that change, once we've had a couple decades of grading older stuff traditionally, making the standards fit every set is a problem.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

And yet, we all want consistent standards. The corners and edges that are Vg on a tobacco card are really bad on a modern card.

The real problem is that change, once we've had a couple decades of grading older stuff traditionally, making the standards fit every set is a problem.

Why should it be a problem? Why can't you still have consistent standards, but different accepted sets of standards for different eras, based on the technology, methods, precision, and materials used to produce cards in those different eras? Say Pre-War (through 1941) is one era, Post-War Vintage (1942-1980) is another era, and Modern (1981-today) is the most recent era. Or break it up into whatever eras everyone ultimately gets together to agree on.

But there's the problem, getting everyone in the hobby together to agree on something, and then force the TPGs somehow to do what we all want. And because we can't seem to ever get together to agree on anything, the TPGs decide what they want to do and tell us all how it's going to be, instead of the other way around, like it should be.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by BobC

Why should it be a problem? Why can't you still have consistent standards, but different accepted sets of standards for different eras, based on the technology, methods, precision, and materials used to produce cards in those different eras? Say Pre-War (through 1941) is one era, Post-War Vintage (1942-1980) is another era, and Modern (1981-today) is the most recent era. Or break it up into whatever eras everyone ultimately gets together to agree on.

But there's the problem, getting everyone in the hobby together to agree on something, and then force the TPGs somehow to do what we all want. And because we can't seem to ever get together to agree on anything, the TPGs decide what they want to do and tell us all how it's going to be, instead of the other way around, like it should be.

Seems so straightforward and therefore so easy but then the part of getting everyone to agree. LOL. If the assessors of our cards could simply agree two days in a row within a given co, it would be a victory.

I know that CSG and PSA are relying more heavily on AI to assess cards (or at least to pre-screen them) and pretty sure that SGC has their own form of AI, maybe not used as consistently. As that becomes more the norm or is relied on more often, the results of grading will continue to dismay. The AI is simply not up to the task of assessing vintage accurately. Once it points out a flaw, which may or may not be accurate, it is game over.

[Snowman]

It would be interesting to see the results of how collectors as a group would want to value the various aspects of a card's overall grade. I know this gets talked about ad nauseum, but I would pay more for a perfectly centered 4 than I would for an off-centered 8 for pretty much any vintage card, as long as there are no creases or registration issues. I think most collectors are like me in that regard. Many of us couldn't care less about the corners.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It would be interesting to see the results of how collectors are a group would want to value the various aspects of a card's overall grade. I know this gets trapped about ad nauseum, but I would pay more for a perfectly centered 4 than I would for an off centered 8 for pretty much any vintage card, as long as there are no creases or registration issues. I think most collectors are like me in that regard. Many of us couldn't care less about the corners.

I'm 100% with you. Centering is a big, big deal for me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Seems so straightforward and therefore so easy but then the part of getting everyone to agree. LOL. If the assessors of our cards could simply agree two days in a row within a given co, it would be a victory.

I know that CSG and PSA are relying more heavily on AI to assess cards (or at least to pre-screen them) and pretty sure that SGC has their own form of AI, maybe not used as consistently. As that becomes more the norm or is relied on more often, the results of grading will continue to dismay. The AI is simply not up to the task of assessing vintage accurately. Once it points out a flaw, which may or may not be accurate, it is game over.

Chase,

We'll never get everyone to agree, so there will always be problems. Oh well, we'll just have to live with it. LOL

Now as for AI making it hard/impossible to grade cards from different eras by different standards, I don't see a problem. You can still have AI go through and grade all cards from whenever based on a single set of factors and standards, but then depending on what era or set a card was from, you maybe use a different grading curve in determining a specific card's final grade then.

Think of it this way. A 75 year-old grandfather, and his 21 year-old grandson both go to the same doctor for their annual physicals, and he/she pronounces them both in almost perfect (NM) health. But is the 75 year-old grandfather even anywhere close to being in as good overall health and condition as the 21 year-old? Hell no, he's 75 years old for cripessakes!!!

But compared to other 75 year-olds, he's in fantastic (NM) shape. Does that make sense?

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by BobC

Chase,

.................

Think of it this way. A 75 year-old grandfather, and his 21 year-old grandson both go to the same doctor for their annual physicals, and he/she pronounces them both in almost perfect (NM) health. But is the 75 year-old grandfather even anywhere close to being in as good overall health and condition as the 21 year-old? Hell no, he's 75 years old for cripessakes!!!

But compared to other 75 year-olds, he's in fantastic (NM) shape. Does that make sense?

Bob, I'll be be 75 in 5 months. I'm glad to know that getting myself a NM evaluation is still possible.

Just don't recommend slabbing me.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by BobC

Chase,

We'll never get everyone to agree, so there will always be problems. Oh well, we'll just have to live with it. LOL

Now as for AI making it hard/impossible to grade cards from different eras by different standards, I don't see a problem. You can still have AI go through and grade all cards from whenever based on a single set of factors and standards, but then depending on what era or set a card was from, you maybe use a different grading curve in determining a specific card's final grade then.

Think of it this way. A 75 year-old grandfather, and his 21 year-old grandson both go to the same doctor for their annual physicals, and he/she pronounces them both in almost perfect (NM) health. But is the 75 year-old grandfather even anywhere close to being in as good overall health and condition as the 21 year-old? Hell no, he's 75 years old for cripessakes!!!

But compared to other 75 year-olds, he's in fantastic (NM) shape. Does that make sense?

Hey Bob,

I get your point. There was actually a very good thread on here which two forum members participated in who work in the tech field and both stated how far away AI is from being able to grade accurately.

In line with what you are saying, it has been my hunch that there is still a great deal of modern getting graded right now which could be influencing how vintage is seen. When you are looking at pack fresh cards all day long and deciding between a 9 and a 10 and then someone sends in a high end 58 Topps card it might be a 6 comparatively.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by steve B

And yet, we all want consistent standards. The corners and edges that are Vg on a tobacco card are really bad on a modern card.

The real problem is that change, once we've had a couple decades of grading older stuff traditionally, making the standards fit every set is a problem.

Steve,
This is really what baffles me! "Back in the day" grading seemed to be more "what is reasonable" than what it has gradually morphed into. A grade never used to take into account whether or not there was a fingerprint or dust on the surface. And centering overruled slightly fuzzed corners on a 50+ year old card.