Grading discussion- Revolutionizing :) the hobby...

[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

[Al C.risafulli]

why shouldn't it cost (and sell) for more? As mentioned, isn't part of the whole grading industry to help determine value?

Is it?

I don't see the grading companies adding price tags onto their flips (although one of them does publish a price guide).

That's the thing. Regardless of what the grade is, a good portion of the cards in this hobby are sold via auction, where an auctioneer determines the floor, and bidders determine the ceiling (shill bidding notwithstanding).

And yes, there are people who have chosen to pay a premium for the higher number on the flip.

But there are others - many on this board - that don't, and are more interested in paying the premium for scarcity, eye appeal, or some other variable in the equation.

-Al

[smtjoy]

Interesting Thread!

My one comment is I just feel that the TGC's should grade the clarity and registration of a card. As was mentioned above they do for non vintage and modern cards, submit some 1975 topps baseball and see how they downgrade for print marks. I just dont understand why this is not considered in OJ's and others. I have no problem with the OJ above getting an SGC 10 from back damage and I want to see that repersented, I just think its a mistake for them to not take off for lack or registration. IMO the PSA 7 above should have graded much lower just based on the fact you can hardly see the player, maybe a 3 or 4.

[obcmac]

I thought about a seperate thread for this topic, but Barry mentioned one thing in particular that I've also been thinking...trimmed cards in holders. As a collector of mostly unslabbed low grade cards...it seems to me that many of the slabbed cards are trimmed. I don't think there is a slabbed collection of t206's around that has a greater average border width than my collection. So the question is...why shouldn't border width be considered? Cards are easy to trim and corners can be sharpened...but they are impossible to lengthen. Grading corners but not length does nothing but demand people trim their cards. And while we're at it, I think all auctions should be dutch auctions (where the price starts high and is lowered)...then shilling would be impossible (gasp).

Mac

[Exhibitman]

I would perhaps like to be careful to separate the questions of valuation and grading. They should not intersect at all, as I see it. The card is what it is, regardless of what someone wants to pay for it.

When it comes to the photographic cards (and Exhibit cards) as SGC handles them (can't speak to PSA since I don't use it) I see two issues:

--First, back damage: the "yes, but" approach to OJs, Exhibits and other blank-backed cards with back damage it seems to me is already part of the discretion of the grader and is already accurately factored into the grades. I have some gloriously sharp albumen cards with back damage in SGC 20 holders and I am fine with that. As far as I am concerned, a noticeable amount of back damage = poor with a bump for exceptional front clarity being part of the grader's flexibility to perhaps a 2 but no more. Sorry, but a vg card to me means basically intact front and back with general wear. The eye appeal of a sharp OJ with album removal scars is definitely more than a typical card in the grade with overall wear and tear, but I think it is already properly reflected in the technical grades up to a 2.

--Second, photo clarity: I think there is where the real issue lies. I don't think the graders give enough weight to clarity of image on the 19th century photographic cards, on the top end; i.e., I think they give a card's corners, edges and crease-free status too much weight. I don't see a very light image as meriting more than a vg grade, even if the card is sharp and clean. That said, I have seen quite a few cards from SGC that have been graded higher than I think technically merited because of an especially sharp front. This one, for example, which has a small back wrinkle but is a 60:



[pardon my sucky scan; the card is actually a lot whiter] I think it got a grade better than technical for the great image clarity. And I agree with that approach. Where I have a bone to pick is the opposite--the weak image with sharp corners.

I guess some of it also comes down to tastes great or less filling; everyone's got a view.

Pricewise, I think the knowledgeable buyers already separate the light image cards from the sharp ones, regardless of the number on the slab. That's the way it should be--buy the card and not the holder.

[Leon]

Just to be clear, I don't personally believe in the "buy the holder" mentality, I am only making an argument that some do, so the holders need to be as accurate as possible. regards

[M's_Fan]

One BIG problem with grading a card based on photo contrast is that many 19th century cards have light contrast simply because they were taken with a lighter background, while others have better contrast only because the background and player are darker.

So to grade on this basis of contrast would have the effect of not grading the card's condition, but grading the photographer's skills. This is not the grading company's job, to rate the photographer's skill.

Also, to slab every 19th century card as "A" is a disservice because it doesn't differentiate the altered cards from the non-altered cards.

I've thought about this quite a bit but I keep coming back to this Churchill-esque conclusion: letting the market settle these disputes is the worst system, except for the all the others.

[E93]

Originally Posted by Leon

Just to be clear, I don't personally believe in the "buy the holder" mentality,

Really, I thought you collected flips.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

And yes, there are people who have chosen to pay a premium for the higher number on the flip.

-Al

Exactly my point. Thanks AL...