Card Grading vs. Autograph Grading

[scooter729]

I’m one of those who collects both vintage cards and some vintage autographs. While I do think the grading companies do provide a great service (I know others will argue this point), but I find the numerical grading standards applied to be far from consistent.

On the card side, a card can have fantastic eye appeal, but certain slight issues (spot of paper loss on the back, very minor crease) can knock a NM card down to a grade of 2-3.

On the other hand, a vintage ball can require some eye strain to read it, yet get a similar 2-3 grade.

It does make me wonder – are the companies too harsh in grading cards? I’m not suggesting the old-school grading tiers from 30+ years ago (a card called VG now was accepted as EX-MT then type stuff), but when cards like this Cracker Jack (mine) get a 2 (on a 1-10 scale), and this Lou Gehrig autograph (currently in SCP's auction - I have no affiliation) gets a grade of a 3 (also 1-10), it makes me question the systems in place.

Now, I'm not faulting the SCP grade on the Gehrig - it seems to meet the PSA / DNA description:
VG 3: Very Good. A PSA VG 3 is an autograph that is noticeably faded throughout. The autograph must still be approximately 50% visible to the naked eye. Advanced degrees of the above mentioned defects might be more noticeable at this stage with major eye-appeal issues clearly visible. For example, a surface defect on the item itself that has, in essence, removed a small part of the signature, may be acceptable within this grade.

It just makes me wonder why the same company would have such differing standards for very similar services it provides.

Thoughts?