Wrinkles and creases

SOM

Why does the fact that a card exhibits a crease or a wrinkle automatically relegate it to the "EX-5" category anyway? Where/when/by whom did this designation originate? Does it go back to the pre-graded card days?

Sometimes the arbitrariness of this blows my mind. I mean, how can an otherwise glorious, beautiful NM/MT 1971 Topps baseball card with a tiny, hairline, barely-perceptible wrinkle be assigned a grade lower than a rough, ugly beat up EX-MT card from the same year? (Have you ever noticed how unattractive PSA 6's from 1971 are??)

How can a pack-fresh, gloss-dripping, sharp-cornered 1966 Topps baseball card with a tiny surface crease...also virtually imperceptible, except under a zoom lens...be graded lower than a miserably off-centered, diamond-cut example from the same year?

And why does a NM/MT card with a small wrinkle always grade lower than the exact same NM/MT card that has a print mark, two fish eyes, weak registration and a rough cut border?

For the life of me, I just do not get it.

These aren't rhetorical questions; if anyone has an answer, I'd love to read it.

Thanks!

Nick

jeff8877

Nick,

I couldnt agree more with you. I think a very minor wrinkle being knocked down to a 5 is ridiculous. My guess is that those who grade get to make up the rules/guidelines and someone came up with this. Kind of hard to change now in mid stream after millions have been graded.

Jeff

lawnmowerman

I assume it's given a 5 because it's a "hidden" flaw and not an obvious flaw like a 9 with one slightly touched corner. Some people view hidden flaws as alot worse than flaws readily seen. I guess the guy that made the grading scale was one of them

storm888

I can't even count the number of 9s and 10s that I have in 5 slabs.

It is the most aggravating - to me - part of grading cards.

rube26105

me too-55 bowman fb was horrible for factory wrinkes,i gots losta great looking cards in 5s in 55

sbtrailrider

SOM - you cross posting this in the Registry forum. See if an admin can merge so the discussion is in one thread.

stevek

Ya gotta remember that card grading evolved from coin grading - if there's a a slight scratch on a proof coin, it diminishes the value a lot, and I mean a lot...and I agree with that. However, on a printed product such as a baseball card, a slight wrinkle that occurred in the manufacturing process, in my opinion shouldn't downgrade a nice card so much like that, but that's the grading system we're "stuck" with.

Morgoth

I really really hate it when it's on the back.

Morgoth

This issue is one of the main reasons GAI got into so much trouble. 1955 Bowmans FB or BB are notorious for having these wrinkles. GAI graded a ton of star BB cards from PSA 5s to GAI 7s and above. Once they hit and people started buying em on the Bay and trying to cross them back to PSA the fur flew.

mtcards

I agree. My last sub came back and every card was either a 9 or 10 that was modern, except one. I had a Topps Toys R Us Frank Thomas Rookie that was perfect centered, perfect gloss, four sharp corners, no chipping at all on the black borders and it came back a five. Upon closer inspection, there is a surface wrinkle on the BACK no bigger than a cat's pube and it gets a 5. Ive seen some of these get a 9 with a chip spot on the border.


I think the thing is...if all cards were graded this strict (ie. this is wrong, so your grade is this), you wouldnt have the many discussions on why something got this so and so grade. It seems silly to use terms like "eye appeal", "hard issue in high grade" and other things that allow flaws to not count against a card in that level of subjectivity and then have this hard line "wrinkle" clause.