authentic grade, new look

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

I really don't see how any self-respecting grading company can knowingly embrace the encapsulation of altered cards. First, there would be an image problem. I certainly wouldn't want to run a grading company known for slabbing altered material. And I don't think it would matter if they also graded unaltered cards -- the perception would exist among some hobbyists that the grading company either condoned or promoted card doctoring by encapsulating altered material. So too, I can see how this might open up the floodgates for legal action. Putting an altered card in a holder would be extremely foolish. Can you even imagine the disclaimer that a grading company would have to possess to undertake such an action?

Sure, one could argue that it has already been done with CGC and comic books, but I think that's altogether a different case. Grading standards for comics largely evolved from the restoration process. Grading standards for baseball cards was a response to restoration procedures. The former was a measured inclusion. The latter was a measured and necessary response. To submit both collectibles to similar grading standards is to ignore their differing hobby evolution.

Next, I believe the demand among serious vintage collectors for "Altered - 1" cards would be extremely limited. Just think about it. What collector would want to have hoards of crap that has been "through the mill?" The closest comparison would be to cards encapsulated by PRO. Only instead of a 1 to 10 grade, the only qualifying number would be a one. To that extent, why wouldn't someone just send his or her card to PRO instead? Certainly, anything with a PRO 7, 8, 9 or 10 on it would sell for more than an SGC "Altered - 1." Why should a legitimate grading company embarrass themselves in such a manner? Wouldn't the encapsulation of altered cards unwittingly provide a foothold for ignominious grading companies to claim their cut cards are really trimmed treasures?

Third, the uniformity of "Altered - 1" or "Authentic" would be extremely misleading. Cards that had extensive repapering or were severely altered would bear the same classification as those that only had slight "modifications." Again, adopting such a grading policy would seem to encourage outrageous claims from some sellers and could potentially lead customers to be extremely dissatisfied with what they receive. After all, with some of the images that sellers use on eBay, who would be able to tell the difference between two encapsulated "altered - 1" 1914 Cracker Jack Joe Jacksons -- one of which was extensively repapered, recolored and restored, and one that had some slight bleaching near one of the corners? With a definitive 1 to 10 scale for unaltered cards, customers know what they're getting. With an "altered - 1" or "authentic" label, you're relying on the proper judgment of a bunch of baseball card contortionists.

To me, grading altered cards, in any form, is an extreme form of adding an illogically subjective qualification. Grading services should be paid to grade unaltered cards, not qualify those that are altered. Sure, I can see some positives to such a policy, but the disadvantages FAR outweigh any benefits.