Grading discussion- Revolutionizing :) the hobby...

[Anthony S.]

Leon,

If the system ain't broke, don't fix it.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

Leon,

If the system ain't broke, don't fix it.

Nuf Ced

[barrysloate]

Allow me to pose a hypothetical situation:

Suppose a collector submits an Old Judge for grading. The characteristics of the card are it has a superb photo, nearly perfect, but has some paper loss to the back. The grading company checks it for alterations, and ultimately encapsulates it. But instead of giving it a numerical grade, it prints a label which reads: "Gem quality photo, paper loss to reverse." No number grade is assigned. I now have two questions for the board:

1) Does anyone have a problem with only this descriptive grade?
2) Can anyone come up with a numerical grade that better expresses the qualities of the card?

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Allow me to pose a hypothetical situation:

... But instead of giving it a numerical grade, it prints a label which reads: "Gem quality photo, paper loss to reverse." No number grade is assigned. ...

I love that idea, and believe it should be done for all cards, not just OJs. Beckett was a step better than just a single grade when it broke down the grade to four subgrades of corners, edges, surface, and centering, but it did away with that idea a few years ago and only continues subgrades for modern cards.

A description is a lot more helpful IMO than a simple overall number.

"EX/NM corners, strong original photo, hairline surface crease at top left, 50/50 centering" is better than "VG" grade, but of course that will cost the TPGs more time, which = more $$$$

[benjulmag]

Interesting discussion. Thank you Leon for initiating it.

In deciding what factors to consider when grading blank-backed photographic cards, one should first ask what is the purpose of third-party grading. The answer to that question will determine what factors should be considered in assigning a grade to a blank-backed photographic card.

In my view, the purpose of third-party grading is to provide an objective assessment of how the market will value the card. The higher the value the market will put on the card, the higher should be the grade. Based on this purpose to third party grading, it seems irrational then to ignore factors the market will take into account in assigning value and to give great weight to factors the market cares little about. Perhaps the single most important factor the market takes into account in valuing a photographic card is photo quality. Who wouldn't prefer a photo with good definition and contrast to one that is light and blurry? So photo contrast certainly should be scrutinized as strongly as sharpness of corners, and points awarded to cards with exceptionally outstanding images, and taken away from those cards with poor photo quality. As to back damage, while not irrelevant, it is not nearly as important as photo quality because being blank-backed, there is no information or content being impacted. So whatever defects a card's verso might have, I do not feel it should have a material impact on the grade. I just don't believe the market will penalize too greatly a blank-backed card with a glue stain on the verso.

The end result is that when all relevant factors are considered and given proper weight, a card will receive a grade that will reflect its value in the market. 8's will go for more than 7's. We will not have what exists now when a 4 could sell for more than a 7. That is ludicrous, and the fact that that situation exists cannot present a more compelling argument that grading companies need to reassess the factors they consider when grading blank-backed photographic cards.

[Rickyy]

Count me in among those that are flummoxed when the photo quality is there but the grade is downgraded when the back has damage even though their is no image...I have an OJ that has a faded photo on the front with clean back that grades higher than an Exhibit card with clean image but a paper loss on the back...a friend who is a non collector looked at them and asked me why one the grades were lower on the better looking one...I couldn't adequately explain...

[buymycards]

I think the main purpose of TPG's should be to verify authenticity and alterations. For 19th century cards only 2 grades should be necessary -
"Authentic" and "Authentic Altered" with a brief description of the alterations. As far as the other qualities of the card, we can judge for ourselves by looking at the card or the scan.

Rick

[Al C.risafulli]

I think that there are people who criticize a TPG for not being as good as they are at grading, but then suggest the TPG write a novel summarizing the card's condition is perplexing to me.

There will always be errors in grading, we will see them regularly, just as there are always errors in any sort of assembly line-type process. The difference between the two, of course, is that when Panasonic makes a bad TV, you bring it back to the store and they give you a new one, then send the defective one back to Panasonic. In the card hobby, someone gets a bad card, they post a scan of it on a message board, there's a thread about it, 15 people take a copy of it and store it in their images file, and bring it back out every time there's a new thread on the topic. Then the card goes on eBay and gets circulated around the hobby again and again and again.

To me, I'm perfectly happy with the 1-10 (or 10-100) scale, understanding that I use those numbers as a guide. When I go to the liquor store, they say that some beer magazine rated one beer an 88 and another a 92, and it turns out that I prefer the 88 because I like hoppy beer better than malty beer. I'm not ready to put the beer magazine out of business over it.

That said, here's what I think about the back damage and photo issue:

With respect to back damage, I want it reflected in the grade, even in a blank-backed card. It's part of the card. If I buy a blank-backed card and it's graded a 5, and I get it and there's a speck of paper loss on the back, I am angry. The back of a card is part of a card, and I want the card judged in its entirety.

With respect to photography, I do not understand how a faded OJ that causes severe eyestrain if you want to see whether or not the player has a mustache can grade a 5. If I have a 1965 Topps Rod Kanehl, and the registration is out of focus, that's a print defect that's reflected in the grade. An 1887 Connie Mack should, in my opinion, be similarly judged.

-Al

[barrysloate]

Al- fair analysis, but I'd like to rebut one of your points. You may not care whether a beer rates an 88 or a 92, because you will choose the one you prefer regardless. And they are both likely to cost about the same, give or take a dollar, so that doesn't matter either. No harm, no foul.

But in the world of baseball cards an 88 might sell for $1000, and a 92 might sell for $3000. So getting it exactly right is far more important. Nobody expects a grading company to be perfect every time, but we do have the right to demand a very high level of accuracy based on the great differences in a card's value. If an 88 sold, for example, for $1000, and a 92 for $1050, nobody would care what the grade was.

[Al C.risafulli]

Sure, Barry, that's a great point.

But with cards, I also have the latitude to review a card and decide whether or not it is worth paying the upcharge for the higher grade. I guess I'm not the greatest example, since there's only one issue that I collect where the numerical grade actually has any importance to me, but in that issue ('38 Goudey), I have passed on higher-grade cards that I didn't feel were worth the premium, and I have also purchased lower-grade cards that I felt were nicer than the ones in my collection.

For example, I had a Gehringer in 8 that was very nice. I now have a Gehringer in 7 that, to me, is nicer (though I agree with the grades of both of the cards).

I guess in a perfect world, all of us would give credence to the TPGs, but not at the expense of failing to use our own brains when making a purchase.

-Al

[Matthew H]

I think TPGs should continue to grade back damage accordingly regardless of issue, there are too many sellers that use nothing but the number on the slab as their description of the card.

I like the idea of having a separate grade for photo quality; however, do we really need the TPGs to tell us how nice the photo is? Photo quality seems obvious to me.

Anthony- Your Hellman is a beautiful card. If it were given a higher grade due to photo quality, it probably would have cost more. Would you really want that?

[barrysloate]

Al- I would be less of a stickler with regard to accuracy if there really wasn't that big of a price differential between grades. But we've all seen how the value of a card increases exponentially between a 7 and an 8, an 8 and an 8.5, an 8.5 and a 9, etc. I find it truly shocking that collectors are willing to pay these enormous premiums when the grading companies themselves can't even guarantee the accuracy of their grades. As I noted earlier, you can submit a card three times and receive three different grades. How do collectors pay such huge premiums under these conditions? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Given how subjective and often inaccurate grading is I might imagine a marketplace where a 7 sells for $100, an 8 for $110, and a 9 maybe for $120. Because who is to say that today's 8, upon resubmission, might not be tomorrow's 7?

Frankly, I find the whole thing goofy. But nobody listens to me.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Anthony- Your Hellman is a beautiful card. If it were given a higher grade due to photo quality, it probably would have cost more. Would you really want that?

It is more valuable than a card with a very light photo so why shouldn't it cost (and sell) for more? As mentioned, isn't part of the whole grading industry to help determine value? Now, since he has that card, and the potential to have a higher number could exist in a new scenario, thereby making the card worth more....my guess is Anthony (or anyone) wouldn't be against having a more valuable card. Just sayin'......Good debate so far. If anyone thinks the top 3 grading companies don't read this board then I think they are mistaking. Keep the comments, good, bad and indifferent coming. best regards

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Anthony- Your Hellman is a beautiful card. If it were given a higher grade due to photo quality, it probably would have cost more. Would you really want that?

While I think the current system is pretty absurd, I do like the fact that alot of collectors will refrain from bidding on an otherwise aesthetically pleasing card because of a 1 (PSA) or a 10 (SGC) on a label. Unless, of course, I'm selling the card.

[Leon]

Hey Anthony,
That is certainly my point.

[Anthony S.]

Leon,

It's funny that you started this thread, because I was thinking about the exact same thing last night. The premium that some collectors are willing to put on sharp corners and a clean back on a card where you can barely even see the player in the picture never ceases to amaze me. Looking at those cards is like practicing for glaucoma.

[ullmandds]

Barry...I like that idea!

[Ohio_Collectibles]

I think we need a new grading company that grades graded cards.... Oh wait..... nevermind.

[tiger8mush]

it seems the ploy is to get cards that are technically a low grade (i.e. paper loss on back of card) into slabs with a higher grade so they will sell for a higher price.

why should the TPG be responsible to decide the significance of the area of the paperloss with respect to the grade? So a N172 with paperloss on the back could still have a grade of NM? What if the paperloss was on the players foot? Could it stil be EX? And if it was on his face then it'd be just a Good grade? Whats a shoulder? VG? This would open up a can of worms, cuz what about M101-4s? If its a blank back vs Sporting News or Holmes Bread etc.

Paperloss is paperloss as far as a technical grade is concerned. The consumer can decide the price they are willing to pay cuz whats pleasing/detracting to one person may not be to another.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Paperloss is paperloss as far as a technical grade is concerned.

I sort of disagree but understand what you are saying. Paper loss on a blank back is not as significant as one with printing on it...at least I think most people, myself included, feel that way? Why should they be downgraded the same if they are different. That is most of the point of this discussion. (and photo quality)

[tiger8mush]

I totally understand what u're saying Leon, but what about blank back T206s and other blank back cards? TPGs should be TECHNICALLY assessing cards. Obviously that is just my opinion, as I can see your arguement for giving a higher grade for a card that is more pleasing to the eye.

The error is not in how TPGs grade cards (other than it should be 100% technical and therefore exact, but thats another topic), but the fact that the hobby correlates a direction relationship between a slab grade and market price. Why do we want the TPGs to dictate what should be appealing to us? Can't we be allowed to collect the card and not the slab?

Next will be pinholes. Should a NM card with a pinhole be downgraded to Poor? Well, it has eye appeal! So we'll call it EX/MT. Unless its bigger than 1/16th in diameter or near the subjects face, then its just VG.

Eye appeal is subject. Like others have said, keep things objective! Its bad enough that, like Barry said, you can submit the same card 3 times and get 3 different grades. Imagine how much it'll vary when eye appeal affects the grade!

sorry for the rant
Rob

[barrysloate]

Rob- with regard to Old Judges maybe the focus should be not how much paper loss there is, but why paper loss carries more weight than the quality of the photo. Even I agree paper loss on a blank backed card should cost grading points, but nothing is more important than the clarity and richness of the photo.

[barrysloate]

And to continue Rob's thought about how to handle pinholes on a card: how about dispensing with the numerical grade and simply have say "Excellent appearance-pinhole" on the label. That tells me all I need to know. A high or low number would tell me nothing.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

but nothing is more important than the clarity and richness of the photo.

good point Barry. Is it possible to technically assess the clarity and richness of a photo so that when its submitted 10 times it could get the same grade most of the time and not vary by 3 grades? If its subjective, you could get 5 graders tell you 5 different grades. Heck, some may like the pinkish looking Old Judges and give those a higher grade!