Grading Standards in Hindsight

JusttheFacts

I've often wondered if we were starting from scratch what changes would be made to the grading standards based on the over a decade that PSA has been grading cards. I'm not talking about the grading scale itself (for example, whether to use half grades or whole grades) but changes to the criteria used to determine whether a card meets a certain grade. Here are some of the changes I would make (if starting from scratch):

(1) A diamond cut would NOT be treated the same as a straight cut. Under the current standards, a diamond cut that measures 60-40 at its widest point is treated the same as a 60-40 straight cut. Yet it seems to be almost universal that collectors don't like the diamond cut as much as the straight cut. What I would do is make the diamond cut measurement double its actual measurement. So, for example, a 55-45 diamond cut would be treated as a 60-40, a 60-40 diamond cut as a 70-30, a 65-35 diamond cut as an 80-20, a 70-30 diamond cut as a 90-10.

(2) I think I might be more harsh on print defects (at least where the defect is not consistent through the whole run), and slightly less harsh on corners. Some print defects are more noticable that a slight flaw in the corners, but the print defect (as long as not giving the card a PD qualifier) counts less against the grade than the corners whose defect is only noticed under magnification. My general rule is that a flaw that is noticiable on casual glance (for example, centering, print defects) should count for more than flaws that are only noticeable under magnification.

(3) A more radical possibility to consider is whether centering should be measured on the same scale no matter the issue. There are some borderless issues and issues with thin borders that make it difficult to tell when the card is off-center. Thus, it is very difficult to distinguish between a 60-40 and a 50-50. In contrast, there are issues with large borders where the difference between a 60-40 and a 50-50 is quite obvious. Should centering count for as much on issues where it is difficult to notice the difference? Currently, centering is measured the same on all issues.

(4) Finally, and related to point (3), should corners be treated the same on black border issues compared to white border issues? The standard is the same, yet it seems that black border issues (whether consciously or subconsciously) are graded harder. Although a touch of wear on the corner of a black border issue is more noticiable, the stock on those cards is the same, so the percentage of cards with white borders with the same touch of wear should be the same. Yet getting high grades on black border issues is much harder. Do we (should we) count corner damage on a tougher scale for black border cards because of the aesthetics of the cards rather than a technical standard? If so, should centering standards be applied based upon how noticable the off-centering is rather than a pure technical measurement?

I'm curious to see what other suggestions/comments regarding this issue that people wish to share.

John

ABBAdad

John,

Personally, I think you make some very valid points. I would doubt that any changes would be made by PSA at this late date, but knowing what we know now, a company starting from scratch would do well to heed some of the points you made. But time will tell whether any do. Good thread.

David

sixdart

(4) Finally, and related to point (3), should corners be treated the same on black border issues compared to white border issues? The standard is the same, yet it seems that black border issues (whether consciously or subconsciously) are graded harder. Although a touch of wear on the corner of a black border issue is more noticiable, the stock on those cards is the same, so the percentage of cards with white borders with the same touch of wear should be the same. Yet getting high grades on black border issues is much harder. Do we (should we) count corner damage on a tougher scale for black border cards because of the aesthetics of the cards rather than a technical standard? If so, should centering standards be applied based upon how noticable the off-centering is rather than a pure technical measurement?

- John

I've noticed this as well ... especially with modern cards. I collect the black-bordered '85 Topps Football, and in comparison to the typical white-bordered Topps sets they are severely penalized for minimal corner wear and corner & edge chipping (this would be under 10X magnification).

RedHeart54

<< <i>My general rule is that a flaw that is noticiable on casual glance (for example, centering, print defects) should count for more than flaws that are only noticeable under magnification. >>



Surface creases or difficult-to-detect creases would be one of my exceptions to this rule. PSA has pretty much established the fact that a crease is a crease is a crease, detectable to the naked eye or not. (I know this firsthand: my potential PSA 7 or 8 '48 Bowman Musial rookie came back a PSA 4 for this reason.)

mcastaldi

RedHeart54> My question is if an advanced collector has to spend several minutes to find a surface wrinkle, is it really bad enough to warrant a 2-3 grade deduction?

Mike

GOODLIEU

While reading your post Redheart I was sadly reminded of how correct you are in regards to PSA's super strict grading policy on those light paper creases. When I first started grading my 1948 Bowman Basketball about 4 years ago I sent in a pretty large group of my own raw cards which to my eye looked great clean,well centered etc..You can imagine how surprised I was when like you they came back as 3's & 4's with others being 7's & 8's to my untrained eye the 3/4 group looked as good unfortunately those one side light creases killed them. A hard lesson learned.

TimeMachine

wrinkles, creases, they are all the same in PSA's well-trained eyes. Hence, the premium gladly paid for the higher-end, crease free examples... ultimately, whatever the market will bear.

frankhardy

I thought there was a distinction between a crease and a paper wrinkle. A crease meaning a bend that can be seen on both sides of the card. A paper wrinkle meaning a bend that can only be seen on one side. I have heard that if the card is otherwise very nice, that a paper wrinkle can get up to a EX 5. Is that right? In the case of the 48 Musial, you said that it could have gotten a 7? Maybe if it was otherwise an 8 or 9, that a paper wrinkle would have dropped it to a 5 instead of a 4. Can someone clear this up?

yawie99

I totally agree with you, JTF, on points 1 and 2. While I can deal with diamond cuts on the low- and mid-grade prewar cards I collect, I really think obvious diamond cuts should keep post-war cards from receiving high grades (i.e. 8+). It's really one of the reasons I quit collecting '68-69 OPC hockey: too many of the 8's have unsightly diamond cuts. I know they're very common with that issue, but I still didn't like the look of them. As for point 2, I too would be more harsh with print problems, in particular focus problems. I haven't actually looked closely at PSA's website lately, but is the OF qualifier even still around?

I had never really thought about the issue of border size, but No. 3 is an interesting issue. I can't say I disagree with you. I do, though, think it's appropriate to be a bit stingier with high grades on cards with dark borders. In a sense, you're right that the wear may be the same from some kind of technical standpoint, but I think the border color issue is one of those times where it makes sense to invoke subjective eye appeal.

JusttheFacts

<< <i>I thought there was a distinction between a crease and a paper wrinkle. A crease meaning a bend that can be seen on both sides of the card. A paper wrinkle meaning a bend that can only be seen on one side. I have heard that if the card is otherwise very nice, that a paper wrinkle can get up to a EX 5. Is that right? In the case of the 48 Musial, you said that it could have gotten a 7? Maybe if it was otherwise an 8 or 9, that a paper wrinkle would have dropped it to a 5 instead of a 4. Can someone clear this up? >>



My understanding is that a card with a wrinkle (visible on only one side) can get no higher than a PSA 6 whereas a card with a crease (visible on both sides) can get no higher than a PSA 4. Some wrinkles, especially wrinkles only visible on the rear of the card, seem to downgrade more than the visual appeal would justify. If you need to hold the card at just the right angle to see the wrinkle, and it takes 30 seconds of hard looking for it, should the card be automatically downgraded to a 6? This is particularly true where the wrinkle is a couple of milimeters or less in size.

As for creases (and larger wrinkles, particularly on the front) I don't disagree with a major downgrade.



<< <i>I do, though, think it's appropriate to be a bit stingier with high grades on cards with dark borders. In a sense, you're right that the wear may be the same from some kind of technical standpoint, but I think the border color issue is one of those times where it makes sense to invoke subjective eye appeal. >>



I agree that it seems appropriate using a subjective visual appeal approach to be harsher on black border wear since it is more visible. However, there really isn't anything in the standards for corner wear that allows for such an approach. Further, if the subjective visual appear is the key, then centering should be treated differently depending on the issue as it is more of an issue depending on the size of the borders.

Thanks for all the great responses so far. Anyone else want to weigh in on these thoughts?

John

jaxxr

Regarding centering........

It can't be done now, and perhaps rightfully so, but whatabout the idea that evey grading company stated their centering evaluation/estimate on the flip but did not use it in the final grade assigned ?

Centering is the most, perhaps only, feature of grading that is truly objective. With the proper device and time alloted we can all measure centering on any bordered card. Possibly a percentage point or two difference but very close to anyone else doing a good measurement.
Also, how do both Left-Right AND Top-Bottom relate to the overall combined centering grade ? Is a card with 50-50 L-R and 60- 40 T-B the same as one with 55-45 both ways ? Should a card with 50-50 L-R and 70-30 T-B be rated the same as one with 60-40 both ways ? Who is the final judge of this and other degrees of centering of both L-R and T-B ?

Would it not have been nice to see a PSA, SGC, or any graded card assign a grade based on all subjective features and then additionally show the centering of both L-R and T-B and then let the owner of the card decide how he personally feels the centering adds or detracts. ?

We can all probably agree on how a card is centered and would need a professional opinion the least to confirm. We would much more likely require a professional 3rd party to determine concepts like "slight wear, average wear, abnormal wear, amount of brightness, degree of focus, vibrancy of gloss, overall eye-appeal", and countless other subjective items.

WinPitcher

? Who is the final judge of this and other degrees of centering of both L-R and T-B ?


the buyer.


great thread btw

SD

CardHunter