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

sbtrailrider

I agree with your sentiment and find grading criteria skewed toward individual attributes of a card with little regard to overall visual acceptance. My pet peeve is the over emphasis on the corners. Cards with razor corners are certainly a sign of high condition, but image registration, color and centering are more important factors in the visual enjoyment of card, (IMO).

Personally, I find a crease to be a more significant factor than a wrinkle, but the grading reflects this, too. And if grading is to reflect condition (not eye appeal) then the max grade for a wrinkle should be kept at the midgrade. However, it doesn't mean the card is not a worthwhile card for the grade.

Of course, there is the art of spooning to correct those surface wrinkles, but that unethical for a graded card and most likely worthy of a different thread...

KbKards

A lot of collectors, even down into the VG-EX range don't want creases in their cards. Fish eyes, weak registration, off center, and rough cut are all defects that are there because that's how the card was made. It's not the grading companies choice to relegate cards with creases down to a 5. They're just working from the standards that what most people want. If you don't think an 8 looking card with a crease should be graded a 5 then what grade would you have them put on it. Do you really think it should grade a 6 or 7 just because from a distance it looks like an 8. That's one of the reasons grading got popular. People were selling raw NMMT looking cards with defects at NMMT prices to people who didn't know any better. Now with grading, cards with those hard to see problems are identified and discounted.

JMDVM

<< <i>A lot of collectors, even down into the VG-EX range don't want creases in their cards. Fish eyes, weak registration, off center, and rough cut are all defects that are there because that's how the card was made. It's not the grading companies choice to relegate cards with creases down to a 5. They're just working from the standards that what most people want. If you don't think an 8 looking card with a crease should be graded a 5 then what grade would you have them put on it. Do you really think it should grade a 6 or 7 just because from a distance it looks like an 8. That's one of the reasons grading got popular. People were selling raw NMMT looking cards with defects at NMMT prices to people who didn't know any better. Now with grading, cards with those hard to see problems are identified and discounted.[/q

Some tiny wrinkles are made during the manufacturing process as they tend not to appear on both sides of the card. I own cards where PSA has missed them. I also have 8s where serious creases were missed. And in my opinion,there is nothing worse than an 8 that is washed out or the registration is terrible-----why doesn't PSA treat them as harshly as wrinkles if wrinkles are such a bad thing? Then again PSA grades are such a crapshoot anyway.....

DavidPuddy

I think that a Surface wrinkle should be given a qualifier, so you could have a 9SW.
Now a crease is a different story. I think a crease that shows up on both sides of the card should grade no higher than a 5.
JMO

1960toppsguy

I agree with JMO

Boopotts

<< <i>I think that a Surface wrinkle should be given a qualifier, so you could have a 9SW.
Now a crease is a different story. I think a crease that shows up on both sides of the card should grade no higher than a 5.
JMO >>



I think that once you reach this level of discrimination the hobby gets too nerdy for anyone with any shame to take it seriously. The hobby is still reeling from these unabashedly homoerotic 'game used' cards; a move towards distinguishing the severity of creases via qualifiers issued by TPG's just might bring us to the point of no return.