What is Your Opinion About Grading?

[barrysloate]

As Leon just posted, the way Old Judges are handled by all the grading companies is a travesty, and it's bothered me for a long time that none of them are willing to listen to collectors. A couple of years ago Leon and I made a trade and I sent him an OJ portrait card. I forget which player, but I'm hoping he saved a scan and can post it. It's the poster boy for what's wrong with the system. This card had a gem photo, 10 out of 10 quality, with virtually square corners and no surface wear whatsoever. It was a visual gem. But it had a spot of paper loss and was graded Poor! And I've seen OJ's with photos that have faded to nothing more than a blur, but because they have square corners and no paper loss, are graded EX-MT! That suggests that the sole criteria for assessing those cards was the amount of paper loss. The photo quality wasn't even a small factor, it was a zero factor.

Collectors of Old Judges hate this grading scale and refuse to accept it. There is no question a card should lose points for paper loss, because a similar example without paper loss will always be more desirable. But the heavy handed way these are handled really show a lack of understanding the issue, and the way the set is collected. And even worse, there is no acknowledgment by the graders that this issue needs to be addressed.

Leon, I hope you saved a scan.

P.S.- I know Kevin Cummings already addressed this early in this thread, but I thought I would chime in too.

[teetwoohsix]

I agree with you Barry,about the OJ's.Although I do not collect them, I see what you mean.It does seem that the TPG's are all over the place when they grade these,and this is an area they have to fix.

I have read many times that OJ collectors could care less about the grade,and this is why. Maybe the TPG's that care to read this board can take what collectors are saying and try to correct the problems.

Clayton

[barrysloate]

Clayton- I know they read the board. Let's see if any dialogue ensues. I would love to have them post and begin a discussion with collectors.

[Exhibitman]

I think it's just dandy to have but needs some improved practices on the part of certain providers.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

As Leon just posted, the way Old Judges are handled by all the grading companies is a travesty, and it's bothered me for a long time that none of them are willing to listen to collectors. A couple of years ago Leon and I made a trade and I sent him an OJ portrait card. I forget which player, but I'm hoping he saved a scan and can post it. It's the poster boy for what's wrong with the system. This card had a gem photo, 10 out of 10 quality, with virtually square corners and no surface wear whatsoever. It was a visual gem. But it had a spot of paper loss and was graded Poor! And I've seen OJ's with photos that have faded to nothing more than a blur, but because they have square corners and no paper loss, are graded EX-MT! That suggests that the sole criteria for assessing those cards was the amount of paper loss. The photo quality wasn't even a small factor, it was a zero factor.

Collectors of Old Judges hate this grading scale and refuse to accept it. There is no question a card should lose points for paper loss, because a similar example without paper loss will always be more desirable. But the heavy handed way these are handled really show a lack of understanding the issue, and the way the set is collected. And even worse, there is no acknowledgment by the graders that this issue needs to be addressed.

Leon, I hope you saved a scan.

P.S.- I know Kevin Cummings already addressed this early in this thread, but I thought I would chime in too.

I'm really glad this is being brought to light... and it isn't only with OJs. I have seen Goudeys side-by-side, where the out of register/unfocused image receives a significantly higher grade than a perfectly registered one. Perhaps the corners were a miniscule amount sharper, but nothing most people would even notice without a loupe (or care about). The unfocused cards were so blurry that it made you dizzy to look at them, yet they were graded (and priced) higher than their much nice counterparts. I was left wondering who would ever opt for that?

This (and the seemingly random nature of different grade criteria being applied by different graders) has turned me off to the entire process. If they could re-think and fix this (or simply slab cards as "authentic") I would be much more apt to use their services.