Options
Theoretical question about black-bordered cards
jrinck
Posts: 1,321 ✭✭
Why do people always refer to black-bordered cards, such as 1971 Topps, as "tough to collect in MINT condition due to the easily chipped black borders"? They say this about ANY black-bordered set, not just '71 Topps. '85 Donruss, '87 Donruss, '85 Topps Football, you name it, they say it!
What is inherent in a black-bordered card that makes it easier to chip than a white-bordered card? I would think that, judging just by color, that ALL cards chip just as easily, regardless of color; you only happen to notice it more on a black-bordered card.
To me, a black-bordered card with the same amount of chipping as a white-bordered card should be judged and graded equally. Do graders bump down grades because one just happens to look worse, despite being technically equivalent? If so, should they?
What is inherent in a black-bordered card that makes it easier to chip than a white-bordered card? I would think that, judging just by color, that ALL cards chip just as easily, regardless of color; you only happen to notice it more on a black-bordered card.
To me, a black-bordered card with the same amount of chipping as a white-bordered card should be judged and graded equally. Do graders bump down grades because one just happens to look worse, despite being technically equivalent? If so, should they?
0
Comments
I agree with you- to a point. I don't believe black border cards are (generally) any more susceptible to "actual" damage, but it certainly is easier to see the damage. However- When you can see the damage more easily, I think it is appropriate to downgrade the card. I believe the grade of a card should be reflective of its eye-appeal, and if a card shows damage more easily, it will have less eye-appeal when it has damage.
Just my opinion.
Rob
1971 Topps baseball in PSA 8 or better.
1966 Topps baseball in PSA 8 or better
1929 Kashin R316 in any grade
1966 Batmans -all varieties- PSA 8 or better
At the end of the day, there is a slightly subjective component of grading related to eye appeal. I have seen numerous PSA 9 and even some PSA 10 white-bordered cards that have slight minute chips along the border. Sometimes it is not apparent unless you use a loupe, but it is nonetheless still there. On the opposite hand, with a black-bordered card, even slightly chipped cards look worn and ugly from a distance. You can see the chips without a loupe. Thus, they fail the eye appeal factor.
My take only...
MS
A purist would say that you judge all cards equally. The same amount of chipping on two cards should lower the grades equally, regardless of eye-appeal. In other words, eye-appeal is in the eye of the beholder/buyer--not the grader. The grader should stick to measurable standards.
But, part of what makes grading so wonderful is that you should, theoretically, be able to buy a graded card sight-unseen and have a reasonable expectation that it will look like you expect it to, so you SHOULD allow eye-appeal to be judged by the grader, and chipping on a black border will detract noticably from the same amount of chipping on a white-border.
I wonder if there would be a market for a grading company that simply graded by measurable standards and left eye-appeal to the buyer.
<< <i>I think if anyone ever devised a program that could scan and grade, people would be put out of the grading business - by the way I purchased a PSA8 71T Reggie Jackson in 1992 from a Greg Manning auction who did not provide pictures and was very disappointed when I got the card - it had chipping all over the place and I thought it looked very bad - they reluctantly allowed me to return it - corners notwithstanding, I think chipping on a dark border card is a detractor. >>
Stone: CTA has such a program, and I believe it is inferior. Not to mention its general inability to sometimes pick up funked cards.
You made your point and I know what you mean and agree. But the eye appeal factor makes the difference, so that is why people are so critical of the black border cards. I am especially drawn to the 1985 and 1987 Donruss because they look so good and special if they have no chipping (I own quite a few like that--from factory sets only). A mint black borded card is truely rare and coveted.
However, I am just as critical about chipping on the 1987 Fleer--the blue borders. They look horrible when slightly chipped, but awesome when everything is perfect.
The 1988 Fleer, on the back, is notoious for chipping. The chipping is easy to spot against a dark blue background.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
my also likey my 85 topps SGC 96 marino as well
loth
DG- right on: there's nothing more attractive than a black or blue bordered card that is flawless - unbelievable eye appeal - I have a 79T blue bordered Bobby Hull that's a favorite of mine.
Is the ink used on black borders more chip-prone, or less durable, than the inks used for different colors ???
Perhaps the contrast for black, to the eye, is more chip-prone than white, but can it truly be more likely to have chips ???
Might 1986 Topps be as tough as 1971 Topps ???
Perhaps the "Woodgrain" borders from 1962, 1968 and 1987 Topps are even more chip-prone ???