PSA Hates Me....and I'm not too fond in return

[t206hound]

From the back scan of the Old Mill, I can make out at least four distinct creases/wrinkles. I can't imagine a card with more than one very faint crease getting a 3. That said, the 1 is a pretty harsh grade based on the visual presentation. I'm definitely surprised it didn't get bumped up at least half a grade.

Originally Posted by JP

Either way, creases considered, it's a 3 to me.

[barrysloate]

To me it is counterintuitive to not consider eye appeal in a grade. After all, shouldn't a card's grade have something to do with what it looks like?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

To me it is counterintuitive to not consider eye appeal in a grade. After all, shouldn't a card's grade have something to do with what it looks like?

Didn't we just discuss this like 2 weeks ago? Does "something to do with what it looks like" mean "everything about what it looks like" It depends on the purpose of the grading system...yadda yadda yadda

[chaddurbin]

[barrysloate]

Matt- we always speak about grading. It's a board obsession.

I think eye appeal should be a component of grading. Technical flaws are important but once they are determined, why not bump a card for nice eye appeal, or penalize it if it looks ratty? Just a not so original thought.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Matt- we always speak about grading. It's a board obsession.

I think eye appeal should be a component of grading. Technical flaws are important but once they are determined, why not bump a card for nice eye appeal, or penalize it if it looks ratty? Just a not so original thought.

We're not seeing eye to eye today. Oh well. Without rehashing last week's discussion, objectivity is paramount. Eye appeal is subjective and relative.

[JP]

Something to consider...if my second card was also an Old Mill instead of a Sweet Cap, and it also came back a 1, there is no question that the first would outsell the second by a large margin. So if eye appeal is important to card enthusiasts, how can it not be worth more to graders?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

To me it is counterintuitive to not consider eye appeal in a grade. After all, shouldn't a card's grade have something to do with what it looks like?

How many times have we seen the description, "presents much better than the technical grade"?

[t206hound]

After reading PSAs standard, I find it hard to believe the card didn't receive a two (again, unless it was something beyond the creasing that yielded the one) which allows for multiple creases.

VG 3: Very Good.
A PSA VG 3 card reveals some rounding of the corners, though not extreme. Some surface wear will be apparent, along with possible light scuffing or light scratches. Focus may be somewhat off-register and edges may exhibit noticeable wear. Much, but not all, of the card's original gloss will be lost. Borders may be somewhat yellowed and/or discolored. A crease may be visible. Printing defects are possible. Slight stain may show on obverse and wax staining on reverse may be more prominent. Centering must be 90/10 or better on the front and back.

GOOD 2: Good.
A PSA Good 2 card's corners show accelerated rounding and surface wear is starting to become obvious. A good card may have scratching, scuffing, light staining, or chipping of enamel on obverse. There may be several creases. Original gloss may be completely absent. Card may show considerable discoloration. Centering must be 90/10 or better on the front and back.

PR 1: Poor.
A PSA Poor 1 will exhibit many of the same qualities of a PSA Fair 1.5 but the defects may have advanced to such a serious stage that the eye-appeal of the card has nearly vanished in its entirety. A Poor card may be missing one or two small pieces, exhibit major creasing that nearly breaks through all the layers of cardboard or it may contain extreme discoloration or dirtiness throughout that may make it difficult to identify the issue or content of the card on either the front or back. A card of this nature may also show noticeable warping or another type of destructive defect.

Originally Posted by t206hound

From the back scan of the Old Mill, I can make out at least four distinct creases/wrinkles. I can't imagine a card with more than one very faint crease getting a 3. That said, the 1 is a pretty harsh grade based on the visual presentation. I'm definitely surprised it didn't get bumped up at least half a grade.

[bobbyw8469]

When I first got into the graded card game, this is one of the ones I sent in. PSA gave it a '1' due to one sole crease across the front. I thought it looked WAY better than the bottom of the rung. However, I have learned to accept that any card with a "major" flaw, will more than likely get the '1' slot....

[barrysloate]

Eye appeal is subjective, no question about it. But so is grading. Why not look at the total picture? Seems reasonable to me.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Eye appeal is subjective, no question about it. But so is grading. Why not look at the total picture? Seems reasonable to me.

I once had 200 T206 cards graded by SGC in one submission. Getting them all back was awesome. And sifting through them was a great experience. I lined them all up by grade. And to tell you the truth, I now think I have a pretty good eye for what SGC grades what, at least with respect to T206 cards. Now I am very, very rarely surprised by SGCs grading.

To me, if grading really was subjective, it would be unpredictable. I think SGC is quite predictable.

[Bridwell]

Hi JP,

Based on PSA's own grading standards, the Old Mill should have received a PSA 2. The inconsistency is what drives us crazy sometimes.

Ron

[barrysloate]

SGC is pretty consistent. That's why I use them almost exclusively.