new idea for grading

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

On a recent thread we discussed the harsh way the grading services treat a little back damage on blank backed cards, and how it was time for them to reconsider the process. Here's an new idea I want to suggest: Suppose you submitted two Old Judges in identical condition, and each was worthy of a VG-EX 4 holder. However, one had a pristine rich photo, as perfect as they come, and the other had a light, blurry and unattractive one. I say the strong photo should be rewarded and bumped up one grade to an EX 5, and the blurry one penalized a grade and given a VG 3. In the real marketplace, the clearer one will sell for nearly twice the other, so why not reflect that distinction in the grade? I think it's time for photo quality to be given strong consideration when assigning a grade. What do others think?

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

In fact, I would bump up the one with the great photo 2 or 3 grades!!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I was kind of thinking that too, but it depends on just how rich the photo is. The first step is for the grading service to acknowledge the importance of photo quality; how they set their parameters would then follow.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Jones

I think that they do take into consideration how pleasing the card is to the eyes. But I agree. Maybe it should have a number attatched to it like corners 7, edges 7, centering 6, surface 5, photo quality 7. And then average the total.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Mc

I agree, blank back cards should not carry the same grading scale. If there is a piece of tape on the back or some small paper loss, I doesn't bother me too much. If it causes damage to the front, it's a different story. Maybe it can be noted like psa notes a mark (mk), say (bd)Back damage. My thoughts, o.k. let the poo poo fly.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

If you start deviating in grade assignments based on subjective factors, you are asking for trouble and even more inconsistency down the road. Grading services 1)verify the card hasn't been tampered with, 2)verify that it is genuine and 3)assign a grade based on objective technical criteria.

It's the collector's job to pick which cards fit in his collection. I've tossed many higher graded cards back and kept better looking, lower graded cards. I hope most of us would take a beautiful SGC 30 over an unattractive SGC 40.
Minor corner creases and flaws that can't be seen except under a microscope affect technical grading but not eye appeal. With Old Judges, eye appeal and photo clarity are what matter most, and neither fit into the technical grading criteria. Back damage and corner wear matter very little, and they are a big part of technical grading criteria. You are trying to correct a "problem" that doesn't exist.

Buy the card, not the holder.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Richard- fair analysis, but grading is an evolving art, so why not consider eye appeal in grading the card. Why only technical criteria?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Only technical factors should be considered because the grade is supposed to be objective. If grading were subjective, we'd be right back where we started without any consistency. Kit Young, Mike Wheat, Larry Fritsch and Lew Lipset all have a different idea of what a VG card is. So do I. One man's Ex is another man's NM-. The art is picking cards to collect that are the best looking cards, not necessarily the highest numbered plastic. That's why I have to laugh when it comes down to obsessing about the difference between a 7, 8, 9 or 10 and the resulting price differences. They all look nice to me. In some cases, a 6 can be just as nice or even better that these other grades if the picture is perfectly calibrated and centered.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Jones

If I recall the last time I read the GAI Guidelines for grading, they first consider eye appeal when grading a card.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

"Buy the card, not the holder" is a great aphorism but in the real world I think more people buy the holder. If you didn't take photo quality into grading consideration, a 30 with a strong photo would sell for more than a 40 with a weak one, and if that is the case, there is a flaw in the grading system. Grading is really only an opinion in the end, so why not add eye appeal into the mix? Diamonds and pearls are graded using technical criteria but you better believe eye appeal is part of the mix.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Eye appeal definitely does not factor into the grading of diamonds and pearls. There is an objective measurement of clarity and brilliance which can be measured.

Topps cards in holders may be commoditized by grade.
Old Judges, because picture clarity matters, simply cannot.

What about a caramel card graded 1 or 2 because of small insignificant paper loss on the back, otherwise Ex, versus a creased, dirty and worn card of the same grade. Which would you rather have? Which will consistently trade for a higher price? You can't take judgement out of the equation.
And the less subjective judgement in the hands of the grader, the better.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Doesn't clarity and brilliance fall under the category of eye appeal? How objectively can you measure something like that? Yes, I would take the card with the Ex front and a tiny bit of back damage vs. the creased card. But if I had two VG-EX Old Judges and one had a much better photo, I would take it. So if I can make that judgment myself, why can't people who are paid to grade cards make the same judgments too, with some set of predetermined rules as their guide (hey, we're both sticking to our guns pretty well- good thing we are friends)?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

To add to my previous post- I still maintain that grading is still in the process of evolving. Think about the way cards were graded fifteen years ago vs. how they are graded today- there's no comparison. It's likewise reasonable to assume that five years from now, further modifications will be implemented. I say starting with photo quality is as good a place as any. More changes are on their way, too. To stay competitive, the grading services must stay on the cutting edge (no, not the trimming edge).

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

If there are objective criteria for corner wear and creases, why can't there be the same for photo contrast and resolution? I simply don't agree with the view that evaluating corner wear and creases is an objective evaluation but evaluating photo contrast and resolution is unnecessarily subjective. It seems to me that in the end, the grade for the card should reflect some reasonable determination of how a knowledgable collector would rate the card. If I owned a grading company, I would announce my grading criteria and objectives and let the market decide how much they agree with my factors and my weighting of each.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I will concede there are in fact many levels of photo quality. Corey and I usually discuss photos using a scale of 1 to 10- with ten being perfect clarity and one the other extreme. Admittedly, that would be a complicated evaluating process but all problems have solutions and it is up to the grading companies to find a way to handle it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Photo clarity and contrast is only an issue with these certain 19th century issues (and maybe Topps magic photos).
Do you deduct for a bad picture or add for a good picture?
If you start adding or subtracting, there will be no comparability. an SGC 50 might be a great picture on a F-G card or a lousy picture on an Ex card. At least the way it is now, you can combine the grade (state of the card) with the scan (photo clarity) and make up your own mind.

Maybe a shorthand way to do this would be to designate OJs as either a "+" (nice photo), "-" (poor contrast) or nothing to designate average contrast for the issue, but don't start putting it in the grade.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Vintage cards are not a commodity. Each card is unique.
Not all SGC 30s are the same.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

I responded in a similar fashion in the thread about mismatched fronts and backs. I believe these things we all collect are intended to be pictures first, some of which happen to be supplemented with printed information on the rear. If you accept the premise that these are really picture cards, then the quality of the picture ought to weigh into the grade regardless of whether there is any printing on the back. As long as we would be talking objective criteria only (dark versus light; in focus versus out of focus) it seems to make perfect sense to me to take the quality of the picture into account.

But as much as I don't agree with the technical grading process whereby damage to a blank back negatively affects the overall grade, I think it makes sense to include that criteria since to ignore it completely would give unfair advantage to blank backed cards.

Following the "picture first" philosophy, perhaps the back condition for all cards should not weigh as heavily as the front in the overall grade.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Richard- you may be on to something. Maybe an Old Judge needs a grade that reflects wear and a second designation indicating photo quality, since the photo is the single most important characteristic of the card. Of course, you could take this a step further and ask does a T206 need a second designation for richnesss of color? Who knows, perhaps that is the future of grading. I brought this lively discussion up because I have seen too many OJ's graded 60 and 70, sometimes even 80, with photos so light it is difficult to make out details. That to me is not a satisfactory evaluation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

An interesting and spirited discussion on the board, free of insults and innuendo. Cool.

I agree that the back of all cards should be weighted less than the fronts in grading. The best card bargains are those that have been heavily downgraded due to a minor scuff, mark, or paper loss on the rear, but with nearly flawless fronts.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

The photo on an Old Judge is its single most important characteristic; paper loss on the reverse may be among its least important. There is no comparison.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I agree- a lively debate without any name calling. Network54 at its best. I'm packing it in for the night. I'll check further in the morning.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Barry, I agree with your assessment. I, too, am surprised to see high grade Old Judges where you can't even read the name (but boy are those corners sharp!).

Again, and especially with Old Judges, buy the card, not the holder.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I too think that there needs to be a way to judge a 19th century card, especially ones with blanks backs, with more weight given to the front than the back. This N690 photo is one of the best I've seen on a 19th century card. I hear there was a group of 3 that had pics like this. It's only graded an SGC 60, I guess due to corner wear. The photo is mint though, imo.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

Because of writing on the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

It has been said that one should buy the card, not the holder. It has also been said that card grading is an evolving art. I agree with both of these statements. It seems to me that because the grade of a card should reflect the overall collector assessment of the card's condition, buying the card should equate to buying the holder. The fact that in my view it clearly doesn't in the case of 19th century photographic blank-backed cards suggests that the grading criteria needs some serious reevaluation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt Goebel

Barry, great idea for a thread and I am curious to hear everyone's opinion.

I think in a perfect world, a grading company would assign a grade for the overall state of preservation that the card is in, and then the subjective factors such as image quality would effect the market price. Alas, we don't live in a perfect world and, in my opinion, the price at which a card sells is usually much to dependant upon the grade on the holder. And I'm a grading advocate! That being said, the more information given regarding the grade the better, which is why I liked the Beckett system of grading individual categories like corners, edges, surface, etc. And I really like the idea of giving the image quality a +, - or neutral, at least that would be a start. Ultimately, it's going to come down to an individual's preference which is how it should be anyway.

My favorite set, the 1923-24 Billikens, are just like the Old Judges in that they are little photographs so the single most important characteristic is the image quality. I have an extreme example with two cards of the same player - one is graded an SGC 86 which is the highest grade for any card from the set and the other is an SGC 10 which is the lowest grade. The SGC 10 has been given the grade (correctly I might add) due to a single bughole in an unobtrusive location, however it has on of the best images I have seen. Therefore, I would take this card over the SGC 86 any day of the week. I know there are those who would think I'm crazy, but I guess that difference is what makes this hobby great, everyone can collect whatever they like.

BTW, it is my understanding that SGC does take the overall eye appeal of a card into consideration when assigning a grade.

BTW again, this topic is a great example of why I think it's okay to use the much maligned "looks very nice for the grade" description when someone is selling a card. If it's true.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt Goebel

I was also going to mention that I own the Boston Kalamazoo Bats team card from the same group, and although it grades "only" an SGC 50 it is one of the most crisp and clear images imaginable. I am mesmerized by it every time I look at it. How that could not effect the value I don't know. I'm sure you love yours as much as I love mine.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jerry Spillman

Increasing and decreasing the grade of a card for picture quality would likely generate more disagreements.

For a time coin graders added PQ to the label of a graded coin when the coin exceeded an average appearance due to: strong strike / abundance of mint luster / toning / lack of bag marks etc. But the coin maintained the same grade due to the amount of wear on the coin.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

For photos I give two grades, one for the physical photo (wrinkles, edges, stains, etc) and one for the clarity of the image. 'Cyrstal clear' or 'mint' is highest description for the image. I don't know how I would combine the two grades into one, and don't try.

As a photograph collector, physical condition is important, but quality of image is most important.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

I think David has hit upon the solution - we are getting all contorted trying to force two things into one. Why not give each card two grades - picture quality and card condition? That concept is no different than assiging grades to individual components - corners, surface, etc. There's just no need to try to come up with a single overall grade.

So, a card that is perfect physically, but has a faded picture might get grades of picture quality = 40/condition = 100. Conversely, an Old Judge with a perfect picture, but rounded corners and writing on the back might get grades of picture quality = 100/condition = 40. I'm not sure what you all might think about the picture quality grade for a card with a perfect picture, but a crease that cuts right through the middle of it. My inclination is that that would make the picture quality less than perfect.

Of course, people will still disagree with the numbers (or maybe letters) assigned by the grader as being too subjective, but then if you buy into the practice of "professional" grading at all, you'll always have differences of opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Whether the photo quality is factored into the single overall grade or instead made a grade into itself, to me either way works. The point is that photo quality should be a significant aspect of the card's grade and it is not under the current grading system.

I know the first grading company to step to the plate and revamp its way of grading these kinds of cards will get my kudos, and I suspect a great deal of new-found respect from a significant number of collectors.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Through discussion I think we have all come up with a reasonable solution: in cases where the card possesses a real photograph, perhaps a type of qualifier along with a physical grade would be extremely useful, and each collector could determine what importance he wants to place on the quality of the image. Leon's Kalamazoo Bat is a perfect example of a card that should grade SGC-100; but the fact is that would be leaving out some natural wear visible on the card. All I am saying is we have seen all the major grading services make changes over the years (did the AUTH category even exist a couple of years ago?) so here is another issue to discuss the next time they sit down to evaluate how to improve their product.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Very interesting thread. I've thought about this issue too and I have a slightly different take. While it would be useful to have a set of grades for photographic cards I believe grading companies would be reluctant to do this because this would compromise their registry set calculations which rely on one grade per card. If I might I would like to suggest a different solution which I think incorporates what has been suggested so far. Going forward each cards grade would be a function of either two or three numbers depending if it were a photographic card or not. The numbers would be a front grade, a back grade and a photo clarity grade(if photographic). The card's aggregate grade would be a weighted average of the three. The weighting factors would differ from series to series and would be stored in the grading company computer. The grader would simply grade the factors for the particular card, type these resulting grades into the computer, and then have the card's aggregate grade calculated. Therefore, for example, say for an Old Judge card the grading company assigned weightings of 30% front, 10% back and 60% photo clarity. The grader looking at a particular Old Judge assigned grades of 6 front, 1 back(damage) and 8 photo clarity. The cards aggregate grade would be 6.7 which could be rounded to a 7 and this aggregate grade would be displayed on the holder and used for regisrty purposes. For T206s the front/back weighting factor could be 65% front, 35% back, for example. This system would reflect what is important about each issue while still arriving at one grade per card.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jay- That's an interesting point. Not only would it complicate the set registry based on various weighted factors, but I think your set is also weighted based on whether your Anson and Kelly are your highest graded cards or if it is instead your Smith and Jones. It would begin to get immensely complicated, almost like trying to figure out a quarterback rating (does anybody know how that works?) It's a pity to penalize the card because of the registry but you are correct that this would be a logistical nightmare.

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry

The most abhorrent part of grading is the lack of weighing the front against a blank back card...Old Judges are a perfect example...I have an old judge rare HOFer that SGC gave a 20 although it has image quality, corners and visual appeal of a 60...There was a pencil name on the back that was erased at one time and because of this it was downgraded..If SGC is to rise above PSA, they should set the trends and change their overly conservative approach to this..I have in my possession a card that is rare that has a small paper tear on back where there is print, the tear is not in the printing area and that card with a strong front got an SGC 50, where is the consistancy...?

Lastly, SGC has told me directly that tech grading differs from visual appeal, and that is why it receives the grades it does....If a card says SGC or PSA 2, no one will pay for a 6 if the card looks like a six but has a minor permanent rear imperfection...There I can say PSA is right , an ink mark on blank back can get a 5 mk, SGC would give it a 2....it should not...tech grading has merit but should be averaged into overall appeal, a card with an ex/mt front and a blank back with a tape stain or minor paper abrasion should not get an SGC 30/2 while a card with rounding and creases(yes rounding is a form of paper loss since it is rounded!) can get an SGC 40/3...SGC is the best holder, GAI does make allowances but somehow does not get the same $ as SGC is comparable grades... SGC should be the trend setters, not follow PSA's stupidity, especially since the owner himself is far above in knowledge, personality and direction than their main competition.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Larry- I think we are unanimous in that SGC is too harsh on cards with a little bit of back damage- are they listening?- and that's an area they need to address. However, you mentioned you had a card that was really rare but had a tear- I don't think rarity should have any influence over a grade at all. A T206 Wagner and a T206 common must meet the same standards, except that hopefully they will spend some extra time examining the more valuable card. That in theory is why you pay more to get a high value card graded, so that they are compensated for the extra effort that goes into getting it right and for getting it back to you quickly. We all hope that is where our extra fees are going.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce Babcock

Jay's idea make a lot of sense. We've all seen PSA 6 Old Judges where the player is barely visible. This would never be acceptable in an Ichiro rookie card. We've all seen Old Judges with glue stains and slight paper loss but this can hardly be compared to the equivalent damage to Stan Musial's last Topps card with all of his career stats. The notion of averaging the front and back grades as one would with a coin makes no sense with a blank back card. I'm personally not even too fussy about cards with the same backs, like N28s. The very fact that many of these early cards were glued into albums is why they have survived with beautiful fronts. Collectors today would never do this today. Grading standards need to take collecting habits of the various eras into account in some way or other.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I've always thought SGC should actually make full use of it's 100 point scale. Break the tech stuff down to corners, centering, register (which can also include photo clarity), back, surface/edges. Give the 5 areas a grade from 1-20 and you get a score from 5-100. I love Jay M's idea of weight various areas depending on the set. I also think the grading companies should be giving back a report on the cards they grade so that when you get your cards back you can understand why your card got the grade it did. Sometime, you look at a card and wonder if they just spun a wheel and gave it a grade.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

This has been a very interesting thread, and hopefully will be product. I just wanted to add one thought. Though the problem of poor picture quality is at its peak with photographic cards, it is not unique to photographic cards. Your run of the mill 1958 Topps card might have horrible registration, which, to me at least, is a similar problem that should have a similar effect on the grade. So, I would take Jay's idea of front, back, and photo quality grades and apply it to all cards. The weight given to photo quality might be greater for photographic cards, but an out-of-register Topps card should take a hit as well.

Incidentally, I believe the grading companies already take registration into account, at least in the higher grades. I don't think you can have an out-of-register 10. If they've already crossed this bridge, I don't see why the grading companies can't take registration and photo quality into account across the board.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

All these suggestions are great and food for thought but if we expect too much out of them, such as a report as Jay suggested, then be prepared to pay a lot more to have your cards graded. One thing I give the grading companies credit for is charging what is really a nominal fee for what is a very important service. You don't want to find yourself paying $40 to have each Old Judge common graded because someone has to send an analysis and add five extra steps to the grading process. Maybe there is some middle ground where they are a little more accurate but don't have to double the time they spend with each submission.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

At one time, I felt that a revamping of the grading systems employed by the major services was desireable. My current thinking is to take advantage of the inadequacies (as I see them) in the system and purchase cards which have been downgraded for reasons which I do not care about.

However, a number of viewpoints have been posted and have merit. Of course, everyone has different ideas and priorities, but there are many similarities too. Some notes which I compiled from a few of the more recent posters are shown below - for fun.

"That in theory is why you pay more to get a high value card graded, so that they are compensated for the extra effort that goes into getting it right ..."

If you have to pay extra for correct grading, that distinction should be noted on the slab.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

"Grading standards need to take collecting habits of the various eras into account in some way or other".

I respectfully disagree
__________________________________________________ __________________________

"If SGC is to rise above PSA, they should set the trends and change their overly conservative approach to this ..."

If anything changes - then what happens to all of the cards previously graded? And at whose cost?

__________________________________________________ __________________________

[Archive]

Posted By: Patrick McHugh

Alot of great ideas and thoughts! How about front of card grade, back of card grade. Front of card looks 6 back of card has minor paper loss 2. Average = 4, as opposed to the standard 2. The way grading is now is very easy for everyone to understand. It must be kept simple and yet evolve and be fair.Great thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Barry--I never suggested a report. What I suggested is probably what the grading companies do right now, assess the card's front back and clarity. The only step I added is that they weigh these metrics differently for different issues.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Providing a basic report of the card grade shouldn't be that big of a burden. There has to be some sort of notes taken when grading the cards. Why not just pass those notes along? The extra cost involved should only be a couple of dollars.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Jay, there are two of us responding in the thread. He was refering to me.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

The Importance of Eye-Appeal and Subjectivity in Grading
Over the years, more and more collectors have come to understand the basic guidelines behind PSA grading. After grading for well over a decade, PSA grading standards have truly become the official standard for the most valuable cards in the hobby. That being said, there are a host of grading questions that arise and the one basic question that comes up the most has to do with eye-appeal and centering.

While it's true that a large part of grading is objective (locating print defects, staining, surface wrinkles, measuring centering, etc.), the other component of grading is somewhat subjective. The best way to define the subjective element is to do so by posing a question: What will the market accept for this particular issue?

Again, the vast majority of grading is applied with a basic, objective standard but no one can ignore the small (yet sometimes significant) subjective element. This issue will usually arise when centering and/or eye-appeal are in question. For example, while most cards fall clearly within the centering guidelines for a particular grade, some cards fall either just within or just outside the printed centering standards. The key point to remember is that the graders reserve the right, based on the strength or weakness of the eye-appeal, to make a judgment call on the grade of a particular card.

What does this mean exactly?

Well, take this example. Let's say you have a 1955 Topps Sandy Koufax rookie card that is right on the edge of the acceptable guidelines for centering in a particular grade. The 1955 Koufax card has a yellow background that tends to blend with the border of the card. In other words, the contrast isn't great so poor centering may not be much of an eyesore - the borders are not clearly defined. In this case, if the card exhibits extremely strong characteristics in other areas (color, corners, etc.), an exception may be made to allow an otherwise slightly off-center card to fall within an unqualified grade (no OC qualifier). This is a rare occurrence but it does happen.

On the other hand, there are cards that technically fall within the printed PSA Grading Standards that may be prevented from reaching a particular, unqualified grade because the eye-appeal becomes an issue. For example, a 1957 Topps Sandy Koufax card has great contrast between the white borders and the picture because the background is very dark. It is possible that a 1957 Topps Sandy Koufax, one that technically measures for a particular grade - let's say 70/30, may be prevented from reaching that unqualified grade because the market would view that card as off-center - based on eye-appeal issues. Again, this is a rare occurrence but it does happen from time to time when a judgment call has to be made on a card that pushes the limits for centering.

In conclusion, the issues discussed do not apply to the vast majority of cards that filter through the PSA grading process each day but this is an issue that needed some clarification in the marketplace. The bottom line is that there are times when a PSA grader must make a call on a card that falls on the line between two grades and that final determination is made based on experience, eye-appeal and market acceptability.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I believe it was Jay Behrens who suggested the report, not Miller. Should have included last name.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Greg touched on an interesting point and that is "what is the market demanding." I don't think you want to turn the marketplace into too much of a democracy because then the grading companies will be bombarded with a hundred different and often contradictory opinions, and that would not work. But the harsh way they grade back damage on blank backed cards and their virtual indifference to photo quality, or in the case of Topps cards aspects of print quality, are almost universally begging for change and I think that would make for an excellent starting point. Grading will ultimately become more precise and the process more complicated, but you don't want it to become so complicated that nobody understands it. Coins are graded on eleven different levels of Uncirculated, from MS-60 to MS-70. How many people in the world can distinguish eleven different shades of the same general condition? It's just too complicated. Grading cards hopefully won't get that bogged down.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

While perhaps in regard to post-war cards PSA's grading standards adequately address the concerns raised in this thread, it seems to me that these standards are woefully inadequate for "N" cards. There are simply too many instances where "buying the card not the holder" results in absurdities-collectors having strong preferences for PSA 2s or 3s over PSA 5s or 6s (or for that matter even 7s and 8s). That simply shouldn't be the case with a grading system which adequately takes into account collector preferences, which in the end is what I thought a grade is supposed to reflect. As many posters on this thread have remarked, many of us hope that the grading services will take these concerns into account and revamp its way of grading blank-backed photographic "N" cards. When and if that happens, whichever service does it first will in my view be the grading service of preference for 19th century card collectors.