REA Auction T206 Plank Grades (?)

[E93]

The two cards were accurately graded per SGC's standards. I agree with you that eye-appeal should be a greater factor. Just my opinion. If grading does not reflect the desirability of a card's physical characteristics to a large degree, I think it is missing the point. That said, bidders certainly did and there was quite a price disparity between the two. But it was not a mistake by PSA. THey were graded back-to-back on the same submission.
JimB

[glchen]

I think part of the reason is qualifiers which SGC does not have. If the card has a light pencil mark on the reverse, it won't get above a certain grade regardless of eye appeal. Same thing if the card has light paper loss, glue, pinhole, etc. If a card has any of these defects, it won't reach above a certain grade regardless of eye appeal. Another thing is creasing. I recently purchased a raw 33 Goudey Burleigh Grimes. In the top loader, you cannot see any creases. However, once you take it out of the top loader, you can see the crease. Put it back in, you can have to look really hard at an angle to see the crease again. So with creases like this, even if they only affect eye appeal slightly, can drop the grade significantly.

[T206Collector]

...for subjective things like "eye appeal" entirely misses the point.

Grading is only designed to objectively point out hidden flaws in a card. Indeed, grading was invented to add objectivity to an otherwise entirely subjective grading standard.

Again, all 1s will look different -- some will be great looking cards and some will be real beaters. All 10s will look the same.

Edited to add: Grading is MOST important for the nicer SGC 30. The fact that people bid so highly on it shows that eye appeal was important, but, in my opinion, also shows that some people were willing to ignore the technical grade and the flaws that were not apparent in the scans or catalog images.

[egbeachley]

One card was a 1.51 and the other was a 2.49. Both round to 2.

Or I guess they could be considered 1.01 and 1.99. This way one card could be considered almost twice as good as the other.

[E93]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

...for subjective things like "eye appeal" entirely misses the point.

Grading is only designed to objectively point out hidden flaws in a card. Indeed, grading was invented to add objectivity to an otherwise entirely subjective grading standard.

Again, all 1s will look different -- some will be great looking cards and some will be real beaters. All 10s will look the same.

Edited to add: Grading is MOST important for the nicer SGC 30. The fact that people bid so highly on it shows that eye appeal was important, but, in my opinion, also shows that some people were willing to ignore the technical grade and the flaws that were not apparent in the scans or catalog images.

I guess we disagree. People pay more for higher grades in general because they have more appeal. When the standards grading companies use do not reflect the appeal of specific cards, people ignore opinion of the grading company and bid according to the appeal of the card. Case in point: 2 Planks.

"Grading is only designed to objectively point out hidden flaws in a card. "

If this were true, the grading scale would not need to be hierarchical with greater value ascribed to higher grades.
JimB

[Leon]

Originally Posted by E93

If this were true, the grading scale would not need to be hierarchical with greater value ascribed to higher grades.
JimB

Obviously higher grades don't always bring more money . Look what happened to Pup's T205 Johnson in an SGC84 holder. It's a great card but, for an 84, had a few visual issues...mainly the slant cut. That eye appeal kept the card to under 6k. I talked to a few people about it and they didn't go higher because of the visual appeal. The buyer bought the card and not the holder. That was the right thing to do but also cost some money vis a vis the holder it was in. And had that been a spectacular looking 7 it would have gone for right at 10k. Just my opinion. regards

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by E93

I guess we disagree. People pay more for higher grades in general because they have more appeal. When the standards grading companies use do not reflect the appeal of specific cards, people ignore opinion of the grading company and bid according to the appeal of the card. Case in point: 2 Planks.

"Grading is only designed to objectively point out hidden flaws in a card. "

If this were true, the grading scale would not need to be hierarchical with greater value ascribed to higher grades.
JimB

I'm not sure we have a disagreement, as much as a misunderstanding. What people want to pay for certain cards is subjective. Where a grading company puts a card on a scale of heavy flaws to no flaws is designed to be objective, based on the accepted industry standards of what it means for a card to be VG or higher.

We almost never get into these disputes over cards graded higher than VG, because the difference in objective flaws between a 4 and a 10 are generally minor and easy to decipher. Where these discussions hit pay dirt is where you have a Minty looking 1 and a chewed up 1. How can they both be 1s?! Well, the point isn't that they're both 1s, the point is that the Minty looking 1 has some major flaw that you had better slow down to check out.

[Steve D]

I agree with T206Collector, about "eye appeal" being subjective and that therefore, it should not be a factor in third-party grading.

It really goes back to the old saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure". To collectors like Jim Crandell and Bruce Dorskind, anything below a PSA 8 doesn't have "eye appeal". That is perfectly fine. There are many collectors like them who only collect the highest graded cards.

To many other collectors, a card with "lovingly rounded" corners has tremendous "eye appeal", as that card exudes the fact that it was loved and cared for by a young collector who idolized the player depicted on the card.

Third-party grading must remain "objective" in order to remain viable. It can not look at subjective factors like "eye appeal".

Steve

[T206Collector]

Another way of looking at it is that we can all agree that a card with a strong, visible crease belongs no higher than a 3.

We can also agree that a card with some amount of paper loss on the back belongs no higher than a 3.

Both cards could technically be 3s, but look totally different. In fact, the front of one would have better eye appeal. But that doesn't mean there's something wrong with either grade.