Grading discussion- Revolutionizing :) the hobby...

[barrysloate]

Jim- agree completely. Technical flaws should of course be considered, but eye appeal must be given great weight.

[Leon]

Yikes, I see a conundrum a brewin'.

Unfortunately, so far, I see great arguments on both sides of this equation. No doubt what Jim B says is true and no doubt what Al and Rob D say, is true too. Maybe we could have a technical AND a visual grade on 19th Century Photographic cards? That way we could possibly cure both issues. Heck, I am more on the fence now than I was when I started this .

[E93]

Originally Posted by Leon

Yikes, I see a conundrum a brewin'.

Unfortunately, so far, I see great arguments on both sides of this equation. No doubt what Jim B says is true and no doubt what Al and Rob D say, is true too. Maybe we could have a technical AND a visual grade on 19th Century Photographic cards? That way we could possibly cure both issues. Heck, I am more on the fence now than I was when I started this .

When I am speaking of appeal, it is NOT only immediate visual appeal that I am speaking of, but more technical condition attributes as well. I just think there needs to be a readjustment in how grading companies weight these and that the grading of N172s is a perfect example of the problem.
JimB

[barrysloate]

I know the argument against considering photo quality is that it is too subjective...but isn't the whole grading process subjective? That is part of my argument- if a grade can change upon resubmission, then there are no strict standards. Therefore, the whole process is subjective. So let a grader look at a photo, assess it, and make his call.

[Al C.risafulli]

I guess what I don't understand is this: why does there need to be a visual grade? You can see it with your EYES.

Maybe you can't see small flaws like certain types of wrinkles, bits of paper loss, slight softness of corners, paper pulls. The technical grade of a card accounts for those flaws as well as bigger ones like holes, ink, soft corners, creases, etc.

Your eyes can already see what the card looks like. What do you need a number on a flip to do that for?

I can look at a card that's a 3, and say "Man, that's an ugly 3" or "Wow, that's a gorgeous 3" and make a decision as to whether or not I want to have it in my collection. I don't need another number to tell me that.

I can look at a 3 and say "Wow, if it wasn't for that pinhole, that card would be an 8" and then make a determination as to whether or not I can overlook the pinhole, I can say "That card has all the characteristics of a 3, but the centering makes it look much better."

I can use my own eyesight to tell me whether or not I like the eye appeal of a card. Why do I need another grade to do that?

Al

[bijoem]

I'm all for it Leon.

I've said this before (I believe) - grading companies are 'paper graders'. For the most part it seems they ignore the printing quality or the photo quality. It is a shame.

Funny to see OJs with terrible photo quality get a high grade -
and funny to see other cards with terrible print quality (faded colors / color out of register, etc.) get high grades.

I would much rather the image quality (photo or printed) be considered as important as the paper quality.

How that would work in a numerical system - I have no idea.