Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Once again, I am completely mystified by the grades on these. Beautiful front and back, particularly given their rarity, whatever justification one will come up with for the ridiculously low grades only renders the grading system employed a joke in my estimation. There has to be a better way, one that actually makes sense.

There's staining and paper loss all over the place on the backs. The fronts look amazing but the grades look perfectly appropriate to me given the backs.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Tabe

There's staining and paper loss all over the place on the backs. The fronts look amazing but the grades look perfectly appropriate to me given the backs.

OK, so we have maybe 5% loss/residue and some staining on the worst backs, and eye-popping fronts--you know, the important side by a factor of what, 10 or 100 in relation to the backs? If that justifies 1.5s all around for these extreme rarities that are basically never seen in ANY condition, I rest my case. I will go to my grave believing that is a flawed grading system, one that everyone accepts now, but that really doesn't make much sense in the real world. They would all be at least 3s or 4s if I were king of the forest. That would leave a ton of room for any surfacing in much better shape, while not lumping them in with ones driven over by tanks in the mud on the downside. Not trying to pick any fights here, and I totally get where we are. Of course, I should just let it go, but someone many years ago pulled this absurd system out of their butts and decreed it to be so, and it will never seem logical to me.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

OK, so we have maybe 5% loss/residue and some staining on the worst backs, and eye-popping fronts--you know, the important side by a factor of what, 10 or 100 in relation to the backs? If that justifies 1.5s all around for these extreme rarities that are basically never seen in ANY condition, I rest my case. I will go to my grave believing that is a flawed grading system, one that everyone accepts now, but that really doesn't make much sense in the real world. They would all be at least 3s or 4s if I were king of the forest. That would leave a ton of room for any surfacing in much better shape, while not lumping them in with ones driven over by tanks in the mud on the downside. Not trying to pick any fights here, and I totally get where we are. Of course, I should just let it go, but someone many years ago pulled this absurd system out of their butts and decreed it to be so, and it will never seem logical to me.

On some level, I agree with you. The fronts on these cards pretty much all look spectacular and they SEEM like they should get 3s and 4s.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

OK, so we have maybe 5% loss/residue and some staining on the worst backs, and eye-popping fronts--you know, the important side by a factor of what, 10 or 100 in relation to the backs? If that justifies 1.5s all around for these extreme rarities that are basically never seen in ANY condition, I rest my case. I will go to my grave believing that is a flawed grading system, one that everyone accepts now, but that really doesn't make much sense in the real world. They would all be at least 3s or 4s if I were king of the forest. That would leave a ton of room for any surfacing in much better shape, while not lumping them in with ones driven over by tanks in the mud on the downside. Not trying to pick any fights here, and I totally get where we are. Of course, I should just let it go, but someone many years ago pulled this absurd system out of their butts and decreed it to be so, and it will never seem logical to me.

Respectfully, I've got to disagree with you Hank. The whole idea of grading (in my mind) is that a grade is assigned to a whole card that survived in a certain type of condition.

A '57 Bel Air with an immaculate body and a destroyed interior is not in showroom condition, just because she looks pretty on the outside. Following your logic, a skinned card should grade high because the front looks great while the rear side is completely missing.

The inside of a fence is just as important to the security of a property as the outside. Its all a complete package in my mind. If the backs on these cards have paper loss, then they are graded properly as-is. What if the front had paper loss and the backs were immaculate?

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

Respectfully, I've got to disagree with you Hank. The whole idea of grading (in my mind) is that a grade is assigned to a whole card that survived in a certain type of condition. Following your logic, a skinned card should grade high because the front looks great while the rear side is completely missing. What if the front had paper loss and the backs were immaculate?

To my thinking, your examples reinforce my point, Jim. If the Heritage cards are 1.5s, where's the room below them for skinned backs or extreme paper loss to the fronts? No matter how horrible condition a card is in, you have only a half grade to move down from those in the auction, which everybody agrees are super-duper wowza. I just don't see the logic in that. But you guys have beaten me down, I'm going to accept what is and leave it at that.

[Exhibitman]

Screw the flips; I want the WaJo!

[GasHouseGang]

I had never seen the backs of these cards before. Here's one of the cards in the auction and you can see the back damage that resulted in the low technical grade.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I had never seen the backs of these cards before. Here's one of the cards in the auction and you can see the back damage that resulted in the low technical grade.

Not much damage at all, presents very well.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

To my thinking, your examples reinforce my point, Jim. If the Heritage cards are 1.5s, where's the room below them for skinned backs or extreme paper loss to the fronts? No matter how horrible condition a card is in, you have only a half grade to move down from those in the auction, which everybody agrees are super-duper wowza. I just don't see the logic in that. But you guys have beaten me down, I'm going to accept what is and leave it at that.

I would imagine that with increased paper loss, we’d be looking at 1’s or A’s.