REA Auction T206 Plank Grades (?)

[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.

[teetwoohsix]

I don't always understand the way PSA grades cards.Here is a PSA graded T206 Kleinow Boston graded VG 3 (sorry again for the crappy photos).As you can see,it has a slight crease across the chest area,also visible from the back side.And,note the staining on the back also.I am happy with the card itself,but am confused on how PSA grades.I think SGC would've only given this card a 30 (2).

[Matt]

Originally Posted by M's_Fan

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.

The point of the extreme example I suggested above was to give the opposite extreme of the scale. From your comments, you seem to believe that color and registration are equally as quantifiable as if the card does or does not have a crease. I believe that's where the disagreement comes about. I'm open to your suggestion, I'd just ask you to write the grade description that takes into account color and registration to show how it is quantifiable e.g. http://www.sgccard.com/grading_scale.htm. Or, perhaps you are envisioning something like PSAs half point scale where it's just a VG card with super nice color and registration, so it gets a 3.5? I could hear that.

[Orions father]

I present this similar card. I am more of an SGC person, but this recent purchase let me down. (Yes it was a case of buying the grade, not the card. The ebay images were not up yet and I wanted it. That is my lame excuse.)

[teetwoohsix]

I like your Kleinow David-and it's got a Tolstoi back to boot!! I am not a fan of creases,even if they are light.I don't mind them as much if it's on a corner,but when it's across half of the card,I'm not a fan.

When I bought the Kleinow,maybe because the crease was across the body,I didn't notice it.And was used to SGC grading-and yes,I relied too much on the grade.I have bought SGC cards with no scan of the card,just sort of relying on the grade,and wanting the card,and was usually not suprised at what I got.I feel with PSA,you have to totally inspect the card-because a V/G 3 can have decent sized creases and fairly heavy staining.

Lesson learned to buy the card,and not the holder

Clayton

[ScottFandango]

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

[FUBAR]

Personally i think the Kleinow is slightly over graded. I would be disappointed if i purchased a 40, without a picture and that came. I have seen nicer 30's....

[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