REA Auction T206 Plank Grades (?)

[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.

[teetwoohsix]

Here is a card I bought raw off of ebay awhile back.To me,I thought it had great eye appeal,and was sure it would get a V/G 40,,,,it's hard to see from my crappy photo,but I suspect it was only given a 30 because of a few very slight surface wrinkles that you can hardly see even when looking at it in your hand under a bright light.I could not see these wrinkles in the scan when I bid on the card,they are so slight.I don't even know if they would be called a surface wrinkle-it's the only term I can come up with.

My point is,even though I wanted a better grade,based off of eye appeal,SGC gave it a correct grade based off of technical flaws.It is what it is,right?

[E93]

Originally Posted by 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.

The appeal of the whole card needs to be considered. Problems on the back should be less weighty than a problem on the front, but it is still part of the card.
JimB

[glchen]

Originally Posted by E93

The appeal of the whole card needs to be considered. Problems on the back should be less weighty than a problem on the front, but it is still part of the card.
JimB

This is going to get close to Beckett then with grades on corners, edges, backs, etc.

[wonkaticket]

I agree with Jim on this the fact that the overall appearance isn’t weighed more into the grading system is silly to me. It’s not hard to consider things like color, clarity, registration etc. Heck they do this with precious gems…

I’ve spent the better part of my collecting looking for just the right cards. I will always pass on the higher grade for the lower grade if the card looks better. At the end of the day it is the card you are buying not the holder for me at least. Most all of my collection cards have the visual appearance of at least 2 grades higher when they can be obtained.

A few that look better than their assigned grades..IMO..you may disagree.






I can’t understand why someone would pay a hefty premium for a 7, 8, and 9 when they can have a better looking 4-5. In fact I think auction houses need to a better job calling out collections that have amazing eye appeal. In many ways it’s harder to say put together a T206 set where each card is amazing in every aspect not just the technical aspects of corners and centering.

I also think there should be a small premium or value to buying a collection or set that has the visual appeal of more $$ cards..but that is just my two cents.

Cheers,

John

[M's_Fan]

I agree that eye appeal should be a part of the grade scale. I know its subjective but you could break it down by category (colors, image quality, etc) that would help. People say its subjective and it is, but in most situations eye appeal is one of the most obvious things about a card. It's like what a judge once said about pornography- "I know it when I see it."

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

In fact I think auction houses need to a better job calling out collections that have amazing eye appeal.

John

In my opinion, sellers and auction houses ALWAYS think there cards have tremendous eye appeal. In fact I've noticed that when a seller starts blabbing about eye appeal, the card in fact does not have eye appeal, and the seller is trying to hype up the card. So I usually shrug off flowery descriptions of cards.

However, what about sellers pointing out that the grade of the card they are selling actually isn't deserved? I've actually only seen this once, in the recent REA, a very nice Ruth Goudey #144 was described by REA as being overgraded! I couldn't believe the honesty, a refreshing thing in this hobby!

REA: We grade this card more conservatively than PSA at approximately Vg-Ex, due to the approximately 80/20 left-to-right centering, a little too much corner wear, a small surface indentation above Ruth's right shoulder, and a light stain on the left border.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Most all of my collection cards have the visual appearance of at least 2 grades higher when they can be obtained.

I can’t understand why someone would pay a hefty premium for a 7, 8, and 9 when they can have a better looking 4-5.

I also think there should be a small premium or value to buying a collection or set that has the visual appeal of more $$ cards..but that is just my two cents.

I agree with virtually everything Wonka said. In fact, the statement that "Most all of my collection cards have the visual appearance of at least 2 grades higher" just means that his cards look really crisp, but suffer from hard to see technical flaws. If you use the numbering system alone to collect cards, you will wind up "paying a hefty premium for a 7, 8 and 9 when they can have a better looking 4-5."

But, if you use the numbering system as it was designed, to help you find the flaws in cards that are not so easily seen, then you will not be disappointed. Buy the card, not the holder -- and use the numbers as an aid.

My understanding is that color and registration are added into the equation by the grading companies, but it is on the margins in the higher grades only. And I am fine with that approach because those are easily perceptible "flaws".

[JK]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

I agree with Jim on this the fact that the overall appearance isn’t weighed more into the grading system is silly to me. It’s not hard to consider things like color, clarity, registration etc. Heck they do this with precious gems…

I’ve spent the better part of my collecting looking for just the right cards. I will always pass on the higher grade for the lower grade if the card looks better. At the end of the day it is the card you are buying not the holder for me at least. Most all of my collection cards have the visual appearance of at least 2 grades higher when they can be obtained.

I can’t understand why someone would pay a hefty premium for a 7, 8, and 9 when they can have a better looking 4-5. In fact I think auction houses need to a better job calling out collections that have amazing eye appeal. In many ways it’s harder to say put together a T206 set where each card is amazing in every aspect not just the technical aspects of corners and centering.

I also think there should be a small premium or value to buying a collection or set that has the visual appeal of more $$ cards..but that is just my two cents.

Cheers,

John

John - Like you, I have spent a lot of time trying to find cards that look better than their grade. I still agree with T206 that grading needs to remain objective. If not, by whose standards do we consider when adding the subjective element? Yours and mine or collectors like Bruce and Jim C? Moreover, if the grading companies actually did assign a greater value to the visual look of a card, good luck finding all those beautiful 2s, 3s, and 4s (and the reasonable prices that accompany them).

Here are a few of my favorites: