Pricing of qualified grading

[Jobu]

I don't think MC has much value to collects as it is pretty easy to see if something isn't well centered.

The MK designation has some value though as the qualifier helps you not miss it (unless you are ParisianJohn ). An erased mark, if detected, also gets the MK from PSA, which is handy. Though I assume they miss a lot of erasures.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Jobu

I don't think MC has much value to collects as it is pretty easy to see if something isn't well centered.



The MK designation has some value though as the qualifier helps you not miss it (unless you are ParisianJohn ). An erased mark, if detected, also gets the MK from PSA, which is handy. Though I assume they miss a lot of erasures.

I agree with all this, and a big problem with MC is half the time it's on the back, which 90% of collectors wouldn't care about, except for the qualified grade.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[mq711]

I like the concept of qualifiers but only for factory defects. The card is the exact condition it was made in, but according to aTPG it is determined to be outside a certain arbitrary standard , thus has this qualifier. I think it provides a lot of information on the condition of the actual card. I wish they would add a qualifier for a rough cut, nothing worst than a straight 8 that looks like a 69 Deckle edge. Also if a card has been marked or stained or doesn’t meet a size standard, it shouldn’t receive a numerical grade, only an A and the reason and let the buyer determine the value.

[icurnmedic]

Originally Posted by mq711

Also if a card has been stained it shouldn’t receive a numerical grade, only an A and the reason and let the buyer determine the value.

Would disagree with this particular point, simply because CJ,s and T cards would rarely receive a numerical if stains were an automatic “A”

OTW spot on.

[hcv123]

In agreement with some previous posts and a couple of points to add:

1) I think each card needs to be evaluated based on its visual merits as Darren so greatly illustrated.
2) I think the value of qualified cards as you go down the grading chain in general goes down as a percentage of the unqualified card. Take for example the 1951 Bowman Mantle 8oc that sold for almost 70K in Heritage last night - that was about an 85% discount to an unqualified 8 which had really nice eye appeal. 6's have been in the $37K-$40K range. When we are talking very low populations, like many 9oc's and some 8oc's, I don't think the "2-grade price drop" necessarily applies.
3) Not all qualifiers are equal. to me an M/C is the worst as it visually detracts the most from the card. Some "MK's" are worse than others. St's are sometimes near impossible to see (other times - glaring). there are varying degrees of o/c's.

While certainly the market has spoken and it makes a lot of sense that qualified cards should be valued less than unqualified cards, but similar to how "not all 8's are created equal", I think it should be thought of as a price range that varies with the eye appeal and supply of the card.