I am looking for some feedback for an initiative that we are lookin at running with PWCC. As some of you may know, we currently do eye appeal designations for pre-1987 sports cards, and we’re looking at expanding this service into Pokemon and Magic: The Gathering. It is a free service, where the cards get reviewed on intake, and get an eye appeal designation if they are deserving of it.
Currently we are looking for feedback from the Pokemon community on if this is something that people would appreciate and like implemented. My thought is that we would do 1996-2002 for anything $500+, but we are open to any other recommendations or feedback. At the end of the day we would not want to implement something that people are against, but I also feel it is important for Pokemon community to be treated with the same as those in the different sports card markets.
So please let me know A) if you think PWCC should offer this free service, B) what years you think it should encompass, and C) what dollar value do you think it should cover? Thanks for any and all feedback!
How many people are looking at the card? I could see having a voting system but 1 or 2 people telling me what card they think looks better doesn’t do much for me if there are already good scans available.
Some people may prefer nice edges and don’t care as much about centering and vice versa.
Eye appeal seems a bit biased based off of preference vs an actual grade.
I agree as well, it is just another metric to try and slap on a slab. It might be something for really high end things where the distinction of a strong/weak 9/10 matter to some people. But for 99% of cards, I would imagine that it’s just adding another unneeded level of complexity to gauging a card.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the eye appeal designation mainly for sports cards in lower grades (i.e., <8) that look better than average for their grade? In contrast, in Pokemon there’s very little value in sub-9 grades. And the eye appeal of PSA 9s/10s doesn’t vary all that much. The main apparent visual difference is going be the amount of whitening on the back, which is very easy to see in scans.
There’s even this blurb on your website, which basically applies to Pokemon cards:
There are a decent number of high grade examples from every Pokemon era (although obviously much less for older than newer). Everything from Pokemon is modern, in effect, compared to sports.
The majority of Pokémon cards are in grades high enough where an extra 3rd party opinion regarding the eye appeal isn’t really needed imo. Glad to see y’all are thinking of us Pokémon nerds though!
Like @zorloth mentioned I think it makes sense for a 1889 PSA 4 Allen and Ginter Cock of the Rock but not really for Pokemon cards. Pokemon is pretty much mint by default. I’m guessing the service will be limited to nice cards with a small dent (which is easy to surmise from photos) or “strong 9s” which involves making a pretty detailed and accurate assessment.
I think the inverse problem is more relevant. I think a lot of people would appreciate seeing the grossly overgraded cards tagged as weak. Of course I think it’s also a terrible idea from pwcc’s perspective since that will just lead to upset sellers and lower auction prices.
The closest thing to practical I can think of is to designate cards as being consistent with their grades. Like a little symbol that says, “yes, this is an accurately graded PSA/CGC 8/8.5/9/10”. But that would essentially require a grading team at PWCC and also I imagine could open up some liability too
I always saw the “eye appeal” thing as major boomer energy. I can see it maybe on 1st Ed base holos, or trophy cards. But overall it just doesn’t add much value. Perhaps when pokemon cards are comparable in todays age to a mantle or honus wagner.
Agree with the above. This reminds of me of in the coin world where coins with exceptional eye appeal can get a green “CAC” sticker, and really nice ones can get a gold CAC sticker.
It doesn’t seem necessary for Pokemon, and cardboard is much easier to assess eye appeal on via a computer screen compared to metal.
And as others have mentioned above, Pokemon is modern enough that there aren’t many cards below mint that would really benefit from this. People can view the images and grade and determine if it meets their standards for their collection. Additional qualifiers would just add a layer of complication that isn’t needed.
Seems a little redundant to me to mention eye appeal on a card that’s already graded.
Oh also @petiparty… totally unrelated but while I have you here The new search function with the autocorrect spelling feature is driving me crazy. Takes me like three or four tries to search for most things pokemon related.
Concurring with all the above posts. I think it would be excellent to distinguish what PSA 5/6 cards are effectively mint with a very small dent or impression. I don’t see the appeal for higher graded cards, especially because people would end up using the eye appeal designations as proof that a card is either accurately graded or not. I think PWCC would be causing themselves a hell of a lot of hassle if they started putting eye appeal designations on anything PSA 9 and above.
I don’t know if including eye appeal even for lower graded Pokemon is worthwhile given that lower graded Pokemon (i.e. < PSA 8) really only has a defined and consistent market for 1st ed Base holos. One of the benefits of eye appeal from the PWCC standpoint, I would think, is the ability to present statistics that say that eye appeal designated cards earn X% over the market value for a non-designated card. I don’t think you could get to that for Pokemon given the underdeveloped lower grade market, so why put in the time and effort?
If the service catches on, I’d assume it would give pwcc an edge over any other auction service that does not have something similar.
As a buyer, why not go after the card that has been noted as having strong eye appeal over one without. It definitely would add value to the cards resulting in higher sale prices; therefore, more profit for pwcc.
It could also cross sellers who have a card listed on eBay for a higher price due to its flawlessness and want that flawlessness recognized.
Isn’t there already a company who sticks stickers on sgc slabs? Wasn’t there an sgc 10 1st edition zard with a different companies sticker on it (representing accuracy of grade)?
I’d say the faster pwcc jumps on this the better since it is almost an inevitability in the current world of collectables
I think this could make sense at some point for certain higher valued cards that are still graded low. For example, some PSA 5s and 6s can legit look really good and may just be brought down because of some dent or other minor flaw that PSA or another company graded harshly. So for something like a 1st Ed Base Charizard or Blastoise, I could see the appeal of having a sticker that may make it stand out more at an auction or whatever.
With this said though, I think most people buying lower grade WOTC holos are doing so to break them out of the case for binder sets or even just to enjoy in a toploader instead. I know myself and many others on here apply a similar strategy when collecting.
Here is a BGS 9 of an Espeon Gold Star PLAY! that should be a 6. It’s clear Edward Scissorhands didn’t cut that card. Eye appeal rating would be poor for this one.
I’m on the fence about this. I think a lot of people are against this because it adds another layer of subjectivity to an already subjective endeavor. I agree and think that’s the biggest gripe. However, I think this service could be good for lower graded cards with excellent eye appeal i.e. nice cards with slight indents.
I guess this doesn’t fall directly under “eye appeal” but could this also carry over to clearly misgraded high grade cards i.e. cards with missed indents/creases
The new search function with the autocorrect spelling feature is driving me crazy. Takes me like three or four tries to search for most things pokemon related.