Grading discussion- Revolutionizing :) the hobby...

tiger8mush · #1 11-18-2010, 04:12 PM

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 · #2 11-18-2010, 04:16 PM

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 · #3 11-18-2010, 04:19 PM

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 · #4 11-18-2010, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Seems similar to PSA's idea on Qualifiers. Like having a EX/MT card with a pinhole qualifier (i know, the pinhole qualifier doesn't exist, but same idea, no?). But could two pinholes get the pinhole qualifier? 3? At some point too many pinholes = excessive loss of paper and therefore lower grade, right?

barrysloate · #5 11-18-2010, 04:42 PM

Okay, I'm going to throw out another idea, and I'm borrowing it from the coin business:

As I've mentioned before I collect large cents, which are 150-220 year old copper coins. Copper generally does not hold up well over time, and a great many of the surviving coins suffer from some level of surface corrosion. The numismatic industry likewise uses numerical grades, such as Good 4, Fine 12, Very Fine 20, etc. But if a coin exhibits some corrosion the label might read "Fine Details- Corrosion." There is no numeric grade offered in this situation.

To apply this to baseball cards, maybe only cards that possess certain criteria can even qualify for a numerical grade. For example, if a card has some corner rounding and a light crease, and no other visible problems, it would qualify for a VG 3. Likewise, a sharper card with no creases might be an EX 5. However, if a card has a NR MT appearance but also a pinhole, it simply gets a "NR MT- pinhole" label and does not qualify for a number. An Old Judge with back damage could receive an "EX-MT- paper loss" label but also no number. The point is not every card necessarily would qualify for a number grade. And it would likely mean that those that did receive numbers would be more desirable (it's subjective of course) than ones that didn't.

I think in that respect the coin hobby has a better system than we do. Not every card merits a numerical grade, only those that are problem free. Cards with extraneous issues need to be treated differently. How do collectors feel about this idea?

tiger8mush · #6 11-18-2010, 04:20 PM

Quote:

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!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The first published hobby article, 1935....noted here	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	15	07-25-2007 09:43 PM
Hobby Retrospect	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	10	02-16-2007 11:10 AM
PSA discussion	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	103	05-11-2005 01:16 PM
Objective card grading	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	29	10-15-2004 10:05 AM
New trend on E-Bay? Selling cards rejected by grading services as such.	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	08-27-2004 12:02 PM