Grading co's need to reevaluate how they grade N172's

I don't usually post gripes about grading co's, but it seems like they really need to get their acts together regarding their evaluation of N172's. Obviously image quality needs to be given greater weight in determining the overall grade, with possible deemphasis on back damage and corner wear.

What suggestions would you make? And while you're at it, show some overgraded/undergraded N172's.

Here's a particularly bad example of a PSA graded N172 on ebay right now...

They are entitled to their opinion.
I am entitled to mine.
They charge for theirs.
I laugh.

Personally, I don't think that they should change a thing. I have gotten great deals on many N172's because the grading companies downgrade these cards. I could care less about the back of these cards and only place emphasis on the picture. To the grading companies, please don't change a thing!

Jeff

I have always belived that the grading has to be consistant whether it was made in 1889 or 2009. Obviously the buyers pay more for nice images over light images on N172 no matter what the grade but the buyers tend to pay more for then nice image over the light one thus they are paying for the card not the grade.

lee

I don't collect N172s or know a lick about them, but if I did collect them, I'd want the grading companies to grade on their current technical scale. That's because the corners, small amounts of paper loss, small wrinkles, etc. - those are the type of things I have a tough time seeing on scans. Even in person at a show, it is often tough to catch them. Only in a dark room with a bright light do I usually see them clearly. But the image, well, I can see that completely fine in a scan. So in essence, the grading companies are giving me information on issues I have a tough time seeing, and then I can form my own opinion based on seeing the image in a scan plus knowing what the grading company saw, and with that I can make my own determination on what I'm willing to pay. If the only way to buy cards via the internet/mail was in the blind (like it used to be), then I'd want them to grade on overall image + technicalities. But every auction, every sale has a scan.

Cmoking: if grading companies would provide disclosure for the justification of the assigned grade, I would be in full agreement with you on this subject. However, when they state that a card grades G, and I do not see a defect in the scan; do I assume that there exists a spiderweb of fine cracks in the photographic surface of the card, or an imperceptible glue remnant on the card's back?
A G is a G.
But some are more desireable than others, even with identical image sharpness.

TheRiddler wrote:However, when they state that a card grades G, and I do not see a defect in the scan; do I assume that there exists a spiderweb of fine cracks in the photographic surface of the card, or an imperceptible glue remnant on the card's back?

Yes. You should assume there is something going on. If a card is graded a PSA 2 and it looks like a PSA 7, then you can be sure they saw something that you can't see via scan. If you trust the seller, you can ask him what they see. Of course, many sellers will say "I got killed by PSA, buy it and resubmit"...then you just ask "why the heck didn't you resubmit it yourself". He probably did and still got it in the same grade.

So my thoughts are that while you can't assume exactly what's on the card if it got such a lower grade than it looks, you can assume or you should assume there is something you can't see that grades it down.

TheRiddler wrote:
A G is a G.

I don't use that philosophy for my collection. You can if you want, but that is not the philosophy for me. Cards aren't commodities, one share of IBM is the same as another share of IBM. One kernel of corn is the same as another kernel of corn when they are traded by the ton. But one SGC 50 is not the same as another PSA 4 ... and one PSA 6 is not even the same as another PSA 6. Again, that's just the way I view my cards and cards I'm interested in. You can use your own philosophy if you like, I have no problem with that.

If a G is a G, then why do sellers need to provide scans at all?

TheRiddler wrote:Cmoking: if grading companies would provide disclosure for the justification of the assigned grade, I would be in full agreement with you on this subject. However, when they state that a card grades G, and I do not see a defect in the scan; do I assume that there exists a spiderweb of fine cracks in the photographic surface of the card, or an imperceptible glue remnant on the card's back?
A G is a G.
But some are more desireable than others, even with identical image sharpness.

Cmoking: this is what was written.

Oops, did I mis-read? Apologies.