Elite Fourum's Grading scale (?)

Grading
1

As I buy more graded and think about grading more in the future, I often notice that my scale is harsher than some at PSA, CGC, etc… :unamused_face: A grade is NOT the end-all be-all.

I wonder, if Elite 4ourum had a grading company, what would our scale be?
How do you all classify various conditions?
Are strict grading parameters too harsh, and provenance needs to be a consideration?
I thought this would be an interesting discussion, but maybe I’m starting something dangerous…
…or maybe we’ll prove why E4 shouldn’t have its own grading company. :rofl:

Here’s what I think:
Mint

  • I reserve “mint” for professionally graded cards, regardless of actual condition.

Near Mint

  • No plainly visible scratches/dents. At first glance a Mint card.
  • Holo/Foil is clear and bright. Almost no edge-whitening.

Excellent

  • One major blemish or factory defect, but otherwise Mint: What many sellers may call “Near Mint”. Great for collections, but not grading higher than 7.

Light Play

  • Immediately noticeable blemishes: Finish of card has buffing, light scratches, denting, and/or edge-whitening.

Heavy Play

  • Extensive degree of the above blemishes: Holo/Foil is dull from buffing. No cuts, deep scrapes, tears, water damage.

Damaged

  • Folds, tears, moisture wrinkling, or other changes to card structure.
2 Likes
Efour Digest - Daily summary of activity
Building a Pokémon card grading system as a personal project
2

October 2021.

4 Likes
3

Nice.

Yeah, it’s like in risk assessment, “Let’s assign arbitrary numbers. A 6 to this and a 9 to this.” But what does that mean if it’s ‘decided’ and not measured?

Descriptors are really important but also give a qualitative AND objective measure.
Descriptive measures are also objective. “There is one small scratch” is descriptive, even tho it’s not a measurement. Can this be applied instead of the PSA comparison?

Is comparing to “PSA grade” helpful, since there’s errors and nuance there?

@c0ll3ct0r Sorry, I edited a bit since I realize I talked myself in a circle.

4

It’s there to give some vague points of reference to the intended readers of the post, not to serve as would-be official verbiage (which would be extensive.)

1 Like
5

10 Perfect: card is flawless and pack fresh, with no factory defects and extremely good centering

9 Mint: card is almost perfect, with no signs of usage whatsoever. Some imperfections can be present, like poor centering, a white spot, factory lines, and so on

8 Near Mint (but for real): the card is in excellent shape with almost no signs of usage. It can have a couple of white spots, a light scratch or more pronounced factory defects like silvering.

7 Excellent: A single deep scratch, a mint card with a minuscule dent, or multiple light scratches. 2-3 white spots are possible. The card feels NM from distance and in a binder page.

6 Light Played: the classic card that has been handled, although with some respect. Multiple scratches but the holo isn’t too dull; you can have a dent or 2 and some surface defect, but it looks more than decent in a binder.

5: Heavy Played: this card has been played by some kid or handled without sleeves. The holo is dull, the surface lost its gloss. As said before, you can have very deep scratches, dents and similar too. It’s probably a card you don’t want in a binder, unless it’s rare or expensive.

4: Bent : here you start having cards with structural damage. You can have bent corners or very deep dents that leave a white spot behind. Overall serious damage (for example partial loss of colors), but you can perfectly recognize the card & the artwork.

3: Creased or water damage. The card is in poor condition, however it might retain some aesthetic value especially from afar. Kindergarten level

2: Destroyed: the card is in very poor condition aka has been put in a washing machine, folded multiple times, scratched with some tool, and so on

1: Abysmal: Like the GS rayray Vertemes wanted to buy. Almost unrecognizable, exposed to chemicals, tape, laminated, or the shape isn’t rectangular anymore

3 Likes
6

if it has typical minor flaws, it is an easy 10

3 Likes
7

Ah. It helps. True.
I do think your/our descriptive approach (Mint, Perfect, Worn, Near Mint) is far superior to a numbered system.

1 Like
8

Is this for your scale, or a professional service’s scale?

9

446023886_800073512098390_8063714478269505674_n
446023886_800073512098390_8063714478269505674_n526×137 7.85 KB

3 Likes
10

This is fun to think about. I think my personal “ideal” scale is close to what you described here. I like that your scale uses more TCG-centric terms like LP, etc., and I’d personally like a grading scale that is less precise (outside the very tippy-top). My personal one:

  • Mint+: If something really is flawless, I do think it deserves more than a 10 and it can be a neat bonus to hit. It shouldn’t be so ridiculous to get like a BGS BL. Think an appropriately graded CGC Pristine or very strong PSA 10. As a side note, I chose “Mint+” because I personally don’t love the term “gem mint” haha.
  • Mint: I’d make this equivalent to most PSA 9s-10s and some PSA 8s. I’d consider this the standard goal to hit for clean “pack-fresh” cards. Tolerance for a small amount of whitening, surface defects, or imperfect centering, but a card which if most people saw would say is “very clean”.
  • LP / MP / HP / Damage: I think the “standard” definitions apply here.

Also, my personal preference would be to weight centering less or have a slightly looser of a standard than most grading companies do now, but I understand why folks would disagree.

2 Likes
11

Centering is something that has always miffed me too.

What is it about centering that makes it more appropriate for a perfect card? Is it that it’s a perfect card as intended by the manufacturer?
If the ink is light, or the stamp is a grey stamp, it is also not “perfect” by that standard. :thinking:

One thing I DO like about centering is that it’s easy to measure and know whether it’ll pass muster.

2 Likes
12

Yeah I hear ya, I would like any scale’s top grade to consider centering though (It always seems silly to me to see an ARS 10+ with terrible centering, as I much I like ARS!)

I think I’d still like centering to be considered, but… there’s a good argument to be made not to consider centering at all for most grades. Since unlike things like surface, anyone can easily make their own judgement about if a card is centered enough for their tastes and value it appropriately.

1 Like
13

It’s funny, cuz I was looking at my komiya/kusajima binder last night, and thought, “There are some really cool copies here” that are beat to crap. For me, it’s really about the card despite the grade.

1 Like
14

Easy 10. Typical minor flaw.

Was this pre-10xxxx PSA? :thinking:

This notion ticks me off. Still lots of bad new grades even in modern.

15

sorry it’s just a meme at this point.

1 Like