REA Auction T206 Plank Grades (?)

[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.

[Abravefan11]

I politely disagree -

Eye appeal should not be part of the grading process. It's subjective and would further muddy already murky waters.

Wonka beautiful cards regardless of what the number says on the flip.

[M's_Fan]

It is subjective, but we all agree that eye appeal is one of the most important aspects of a card, if not the most important, right?

Well how can you grade a card but ignore the most important aspect of judging a card? For decades before grading, we all used eye appeal as our #1 criteria, or at least #2 or #3, but now all of a sudden the grading criteria are written in stone like commandments, and we've left out the most important criterion? It seems silly.

I will admit that the effect is mitigated by the fact that buyers know when a card has eye appeal and will bid accordingly. But this fact does not show the success of the current system, it merely shows the importance of eye appeal despite the defective grading system.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by M's_Fan

It is subjective, but we all agree that eye appeal is one of the most important aspects of a card, if not the most important, right?

Well how can you grade a card but ignore the most important aspect of judging a card?

Your logic is flawed - the player on the card is also one of the most important aspects of evaluating a card (for most issues, THE most important aspect) yet that factors not into the grading system either. It depends what grading is meant to do - at one extreme you can say you want grading to be used to specify the desirability of the card - that would take into consideration eye appeal, the player on the card, scarcity, as well as the technical aspects. At the other extreme, you can say that grading is to put a number on the objective technical aspects of the card and that's it.

The way the system is, grading tends towards the latter, because that is what is most concrete. TPG only provides one piece of information we use when evaluating a card. In concert with the player on the card, the eye appeal, the scarcity and some other factors, we then make our own subjective determinations.

[M's_Fan]

Originally Posted by Matt

Your logic is flawed - the player on the card is also one of the most important aspects of evaluating a card (for most issues, THE most important aspect) yet that factors not into the grading system either. It depends what grading is meant to do - at one extreme you can say you want grading to be used to specify the desirability of the card - that would take into consideration eye appeal, the player on the card, scarcity, as well as the technical aspects. At the other extreme, you can say that grading is to put a number on the objective technical aspects of the card and that's it.

The way the system is, grading tends towards the latter, because that is what is most concrete. TPG only provides one piece of information we use when evaluating a card. In concert with the player on the card, the eye appeal, the scarcity and some other factors, we then make our own subjective determinations.

I thought this was obvious, but I guess not. I'm talking about evaluating the card's CONDITION. Not the player, scarcity of card, or other non-condition related aspects.

As someone said, they grade diamonds based on color, but color and registration/focus don't enter into a card's grade until way high on the grading scale.

The result is a grading scale that is obsessed with corners, creases, and stains, but ignores other objective factors that have a heavy influence on the card's condition. The result is you have these awful looking 5's, 6's that are way out of registration, but a sharply focused and sharp cornered card with just a hint of a stain on the back is a 2? That's stupid.

Those of us in the eye appeal camp, for lack of a better word, DO NOT want to unleash a grader to grade a card however he wants based on a touchy-feely "eye appeal" standard. That would be totally subjective and wouldn't please anyone. That's not what we want.

We DO want the grading companies to give more weight to OBJECTIVE factors like registration/focus and color. These are objective factors that a card grading service should give more weight.

In this world, Wonka's 2's would be graded higher than the 4 or 5 that is way out of focus but is stain free.

[ScottFandango]

PSA CLEARLY STATES that they use eye appeal in their grading....

[Abravefan11]

Grading is technical and takes specific conditions into consideration. Creases, wrinkles, paper loss etc.

There are visual things that I don't find appealing that may not bother someone else. That makes it extremely subjective as I stated before.

What is visually appealing should be left up to the buyer.

[teetwoohsix]

Everyone has made some excellent points.I can't add much more to what has been said,I just wanted to say:

John,you have an amazing collection of T206's!!! I love them all, but the EPDG Mathewson is jaw-dropping!!!!!!! Thanks for showing those,,and by the looks of the scans,,all do appear to look better than the given grade.Awesome cards!!!

Sincerely,Clayton

[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".

[Kawika]

Eye Poppers, John!

[wonkaticket]

Thanks for the nice words guys.

Paul made some good points in his last post; in fact everyone has had some pretty good points.

It still drives me a bit bonkers to see out of focus 8's and 9's yes technically they may have perfect corners and centering but if the image is flawed that should really downgrade. In fact if they downgrade so aggressively for a stain on the reverse they should do the same for the front being out of focus etc.

Maybe they should add a new qualifier like OR “Off Registration” or something?

Here’s a few more that I think look better than the assigned grade.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Here’s a few more that I think look better than the assigned grade.

How on earth are these 2s?

[wonkaticket]

All of them have a small stain or area of discoloration on the reverse from either scrapbooks or tobacco...no residue or paper loss.



Also if anyone has a full set of 2's that look like this I'll trade out right..

[Bridwell]

Great cards, John!!!

Sometimes putting a card in a holder does it an injustice. I've seen PSA inexplicably downgrade some really nice cards. Sometimes, its a tiny wrinkle or a spot of paper loss on the back. Sometimes its a hint of glue residue on the back. I've cracked out about 20 PSA cards and re-submitted to PSA as raw cards. The grades went up about 1/2 the time! Sometimes you just get a PSA grader having a bad day or in a bad mood!

Ron R

[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:

[wonkaticket]

Wow Josh!! Super cards, those are just amazing.

[teetwoohsix]

I agree,those are some beautiful E93's!!! Thanks for showing those!! Also,another excellent group of T206's John!! Appreciate you showing those also-thanks guys.

Sincerely,Clayton