Grading vintage expectations

[Jichael Mordan]

I am new to the hobby and have a simple question that I have not been able to get a straight answer on yet. To what standard are cards graded? For example lets take something like a 33 Goudey Babe Ruth . A card printed in 1933 will never have the same quality as a 2024 card. So that leads me to believe there is an "allowance" for poor quality printing based on the year right? Well in my short history of grading I have not seen that "allowance" . Example: ink issues and print lines in older cards that are pack fresh getting grades of 7.

So if I had a time machine and went back and got a pack fresh 33 Ruth would it still grade a 5-6 because of the printing quality ? Is that why all T203 cards are relatively low grades?

[oddstuff]

Only PSA can answer this question. Anyone outside of PSA would be opinions/speculations. Go to a show where PSA is doing onsite grading and see if they will take the time to give you the answer. There is some "allowance" but to what degree no one outside an actual grader can tell you...that's why can't get a straight answer from anyone yet.

[hxcmilkshake]

You're right...and the farther you go back, the less the cards were cared for, which is why you see low grades for cards issued in cigarette packs, etc

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[jtclockwork]

Too harshly, in my opinion. BVG and CGC are a little fairer with mid-grade vintage, but it's really hard to get high grade pre-war stuff.

But it could be worse, you could have cards with slight fraying be confused as trimming like SGC just did with my order.

[Gary]

Originally Posted by jtclockwork

Too harshly, in my opinion. BVG and CGC are a little fairer with mid-grade vintage, but it's really hard to get high grade pre-war stuff.

But it could be worse, you could have cards with slight fraying be confused as trimming like SGC just did with my order.

BVG and CGC are a joke with vintage,Thats why they sell for less than PSA/SGC.thats if they sell at all.

[Gary]

The standards are the standards its not year depending,or at least if you believe PSA and SGC web sites.They list no different standards by year.my guess is that's the answer you will get if you ask PSA/SGC.what the truth is i and i doubt anyone here could give you a real answer unless they work for or did work for PSA.SGC.

Best advice your going to get here is send your vintage to PSA/SGC no other grader is respected enough in the vintage space.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by Gary

BVG and CGC are a joke with vintage,Thats why they sell for less than PSA/SGC.thats if they sell at all.

CGC has really turned it around and has been real solid recently. Just as accurate as PSA/SGC. However, you can have an opinion. When was the last time you graded with CGC?

Edit: I sell CGC slabs for the same price as many SGC slabs. PSA is the only one that fetches big premiums right now. If you are talking pre-war cards, SGC does just as well as PSA. However, CGC sells surprisingly well for T206 in crappy plastic inserts.

[Gary]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

CGC has really turned it around and has been real solid recently. Just as accurate as PSA/SGC. However, you can have an opinion. When was the last time you graded with CGC?

Edit: I sell CGC slabs for the same price as many SGC slabs. PSA is the only one that fetches big premiums right now. If you are talking pre-war cards, SGC does just as well as PSA. However, CGC sells surprisingly well for T206 in crappy plastic inserts.

Correct the op was asking about pre war.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by Gary

Correct the op was asking about pre war.

CGC has graded pre-war tougher than PSA/SGC from my limited experience. Have a few T206 and 1933 Goudey cards that would definitely grade higher with SGC. Cards look like crap in their holders, but they are far from a joke grading wise.

[jtclockwork]

Originally Posted by Gary

BVG and CGC are a joke with vintage,Thats why they sell for less than PSA/SGC.thats if they sell at all.

I don't use BVG, but GCG is fine IMHO and far more consistent with vintage than SGC or PSA. I have nailed CGC orders of 30+ cards all within 0.5 in my pre-order estimations, whereas I've had wild swings in both directions on PSA/SGC in just about every vintage order.

[jtclockwork]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

CGC has graded pre-war tougher than PSA/SGC from my limited experience. Have a few T206 and 1933 Goudey cards that would definitely grade higher with SGC. Cards look like crap in their holders, but they are far from a joke grading wise.

Not my experience, but depends on what you are sending. With higher grade vintage stuff, they are definitely tougher or as tough. However, I've found it far more likely to get a bump up within grades in the lower grades with CGC, i.e. a 2.5 rather than a 2 or a 3.5 rather than a 3 -- especially with prewar vintage. As stated above, I also find CGC to be incredibly consistent, far more so than the other two companies with pre-war.

[Gary]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

CGC has graded pre-war tougher than PSA/SGC from my limited experience. Have a few T206 and 1933 Goudey cards that would definitely grade higher with SGC. Cards look like crap in their holders, but they are far from a joke grading wise.

i sent them 1 order,everyone came back 1 grade higher than SGC did.i cracked everyone and sent the same exact cards out to SGC,i knew when i got them back they were over graded.was my 1 order not typical?dont know never sent another.

i also sent gma an order of regular vintage a few years ago,same story grades were .5 to 1 grade higher than PSA/SGC.haven't used gma again either.

i was answering the op question,if someone asked you who to send pre war to,are you going to say CGC?

[jtclockwork]

i was answering the op question,if someone asked you who to send pre war to,are you going to say CGC?

I would include them in the conversation, yes. There is no right answer. Everyone should do what they want. For me personally, I tend to send most pre-war stuff to SGC or CGC. I have a pile to send to PSA but I'm waiting for a pre-war special that will probably never come.

I usually break it down this way:

SGC -- Stuff PSA doesn't grade or isn't in their database and I don't feel like hunting down a checklist for them, such as certain trade cards, low grade tobacco cards (3 or lower), especially those that have a declared value in the $500-1500 range or any T206 or tobacco cards where PSA doesn't include the year on their label (I absolutely hate that as these cards are for my PC and to help my wife sell them after I die and she's not going to know WTF they are without that info).

PSA -- Anything I think is a 4 or above in vintage, but waiting on a special for most of them. Some of the more valuable cards, I'll probably send in at some point, but haven't gotten around to it.

CGC -- lower to mid-grade obscure pre-war vintage. Mostly stuff with a declared value under $100. Lots of boxing and old soccer cards, racing cards, etc. I did some T206s as well, but commons and ones without rare backs. If I want it slabbed and it's in that grouping, I usually send them here.

[hanes1111]

I like CGC but they do seem to have some stuff to work out. These both got 2s and the Jackie to me was far worse shape. I do know there is staining on the Musial and some back damage but same grades just seemed unlikely.

1948 Leaf Stan Musial RC by Lucky Larrys, on Flickr
1948 Leaf Stan Musial RC by Lucky Larrys, on Flickr

1950 Bowman Jackie Robinson by Lucky Larrys, on Flickr
1950 Bowman Jackie Robinson by Lucky Larrys, on Flickr

[Jichael Mordan]

yeah I do not understand that Stan M getting a 2. I guess my question boils down to this:

Is each set graded on their own scale based on print quality and age?

or is a 10 only a 10 compared to 2024 cards. and if that is the case then no 2024 cards will be 10's in 2064 because card printing quality will continue to rise and 2024 will be very poor compared to 2064 cards.

Based on current knowledge, Id say cards are graded based on the posted qualifications with a small (too small imho) allowance for age. so they give you some wiggle room but not a ton.

[hxcmilkshake]

Originally Posted by Jichael Mordan

yeah I do not understand that Stan M getting a 2. I guess my question boils down to this:



Is each set graded on their own scale based on print quality and age?



or is a 10 only a 10 compared to 2024 cards. and if that is the case then no 2024 cards will be 10's in 2064 because card printing quality will continue to rise and 2024 will be very poor compared to 2064 cards.



Based on current knowledge, Id say cards are graded based on the posted qualifications with a small (too small imho) allowance for age. so they give you some wiggle room but not a ton.

You seem hung up on "print quality"

I highly doubt in 40 yrs print quality will be that advanced that todays cards would grade poorly.

That Musial has staining, and if any of that on the back is paper loss that kills it. It has nice eye appeal however.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[towerymt]

What's on the back of the Musial, paper transfer? Was there glue? I assume the back surface is the reason for the 2. Probably gets a similar grade with PSA. Front looks like at least a 4-5. That's the type of card that sells for 3-4 money in a 2 holder.

The Jackie Robinson looks like a PSA-1.5 due to the surface wear.

Low technical grade can have a wide variety of appearances.

PSA-2?!





Line down the front, either manufacturing or vending


Dent in the top (horizontal view) edge


Light wrinkle on the back

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by hanes1111

I like CGC but they do seem to have some stuff to work out. These both got 2s and the Jackie to me was far worse shape. I do know there is staining on the Musial and some back damage but same grades just seemed unlikely.

Technical grades look correct on both and that is what any grading company would have to give both of those cards. We could argue if the Jackie is a 1.5 or 2, and I have seen similar Bowman's in both 1.5 and 2 PSA/CGC/SGC slabs. Paper loss, even minimal, will destroy any grade. They don't have a choice with the Musial. You can't give a technical grade on a card because it looks better. They have a rubric they are trained on.

What drives me crazy is someone would buy a PSA 2 in horrific shape over that CGC 2 Musial because of the PSA slab. Not all technical grades are the same. Sometimes we need to use our own eyes.

[hanes1111]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

Technical grades look correct on both and that is what any grading company would have to give both of those cards. We could argue if the Jackie is a 1.5 or 2, and I have seen similar Bowman's in both 1.5 and 2 PSA/CGC/SGC slabs. Paper loss, even minimal, will destroy any grade. They don't have a choice with the Musial. You can't give a technical grade on a card because it looks better. They have a rubric they are trained on.

What drives me crazy is someone would buy a PSA 2 in horrific shape over that CGC 2 Musial because of the PSA slab. Not all technical grades are the same. Sometimes we need to use our own eyes.

Agree, I love both cards dont get me wrong, I just thought it was odd when I saw both got a 2. I was expecting a 3-3.5 on Musial and a 1-1.5 on the Jackie

[Gary]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

Technical grades look correct on both and that is what any grading company would have to give both of those cards. We could argue if the Jackie is a 1.5 or 2, and I have seen similar Bowman's in both 1.5 and 2 PSA/CGC/SGC slabs. Paper loss, even minimal, will destroy any grade. They don't have a choice with the Musial. You can't give a technical grade on a card because it looks better. They have a rubric they are trained on.

What drives me crazy is someone would buy a PSA 2 in horrific shape over that CGC 2 Musial because of the PSA slab. Not all technical grades are the same. Sometimes we need to use our own eyes.

Your last sentence shows you know exactly why i asked you if your going to recommend CGC for pre war.not someone, everyone is going to pay less for the CGC card.for the exact reason i said before.CGC is not a respected vintage grader.You can not like it all you want.but there's right,wrong. and the way it is.CGC is not respected in the vintage market that's just the way it is.same as SGC is not for ultra modern.your trying to argue right and wrong.none of that matters.the only thing that matters is the way it is.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by Gary

Your last sentence shows you know exactly why i asked you if your going to recommend CGC for pre war.not someone, everyone is going to pay less for the CGC card.for the exact reason i said before.CGC is not a respected vintage grader.You can not like it all you want.but there's right,wrong. and the way it is.CGC is not respected in the vintage market that's just the way it is.same as SGC is not for ultra modern.your trying to argue right and wrong.none of that matters.the only thing that matters is the way it is.

I don't recommend CGC for pre-war and it has nothing to do with value. I also think they grade the same, which people might think I would recommend them. The reason I don't recommend them for anything pre-war or even cards like 1950 Bowman is because they don't have holders that display them properly. They put them in a crimped plastic sleeve, just like BVG, and don't have a proper slab for them. I will send vintage to CGC, but only cards that they can slab up nicely. If I have a 1933 Goudey, it goes to PSA or SGC because they display the card better. I don't care about value, it is all about aesthetics.

[Gary]

Originally Posted by jtclockwork

I don't use BVG, but GCG is fine IMHO and far more consistent with vintage than SGC or PSA. I have nailed CGC orders of 30+ cards all within 0.5 in my pre-order estimations, whereas I've had wild swings in both directions on PSA/SGC in just about every vintage order.

Every grader is more consistent than psa these days,personally sgc is the most consistent grader,but you can say cgc is that's fine,what i question isn't cgc's consistency its their accuracy i question.in other words you can be the most consistent all you want but wrong with grade accuracy being consistent just mean your consistently wrong.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by Gary

Every grader is more consistent than psa these days,personally sgc is the most consistent grader,but you can say cgc is that's fine,what i question isn't cgc's consistency its their accuracy i question.in other words you can be the most consistent all you want but wrong with grade accuracy being consistent just mean your consistently wrong.

Personally I think you should submit more than one time with a company before making statements like this. CGC grades much different than a few years ago. You are acting as a CGC expert and with one submission. SGC has been less consistent and accurate for me the last year than PSA/CGC. However, I have only submitted with PSA three times, SGC twice, and CGC five times the last year. I won't make statements like yours, because I don't have enough data.

[towerymt]

Grading is opinion. I don't think they are wrong if another grading company would assign a different grade.

The "wrong" argument holds up if you're claiming the grade changes if submitted again to the same grading company.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by towerymt

Grading is opinion. I don't think they are wrong if another grading company would assign a different grade.

The "wrong" argument holds up if you're claiming the grade changes if submitted again to the same grading company.

Each company also grades according to their own standards and rubric. A 3 is defined differently for PSA/CGC/SGC.

PSA is looser on centering, and harder on corners. SGC is stricter on centering. CGC is stricter on surface. If I pre-grade a card I know where I could get the highest grade. It is always not CGC, PSA, or SGC.