Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul on October 20, 2016 at 6:21pm

Lovely.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on October 20, 2016 at 6:15pm

Can't say I like that. It blends things it perhaps shouldn't/can't. And it all reduces to eye appeal which is not a constant anyway. An 8 can have only a minor skip but can have a retrace by the original signer? An 8 is "super high end" but can exhibit a slight trace, slight fading and less than optimal placement?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on December 11, 2016 at 8:09pm

Here - this thread re grading. I saw a Roger Waters Wall LP grading at 9 -  and signed just "Rog". I read the criterion for "8" and wonder how such an abbreviated signature can be a 9. Then again, an 8 can have some retrace so...

For illustrative purposes:

"9: Mint. A PSA Mint 9 is a superb condition autograph that exhibits only one of the following minor flaws: A very light skip (almost unrecognizable to the naked eye), a slight acceptable variance in boldness of the autograph (still very bold and clearly readable - even at arms length - but perhaps not quite as bold as an autograph that would qualify for a PSA Gem Mint 10) or a some other aesthetic issue such as undesirable location if the location of the autograph hinders the eye-appeal of the autograph, slightly, in some way.

NM-MT 8: Near Mint-Mint. A PSA NM-MT 8 is a super high-end autograph that may appear to qualify as a Mint 9 at first glance but upon closer inspection, the autograph may exhibit one or more of the following: A slightly more noticeable skip in the autograph (though still very minor in nature) slightly inferior boldness of the autograph or very slight fading (the autograph must still be completely legible and intact), or some other aesthetic issue such as undesirable location if the location of the autograph hinders the eye-appeal of the autograph, slightly, in some way. For example, a very light bleed on one of the letters may be acceptable if minor or some very minor unevenness to the signature if the uneven nature of the autograph is limited to a small area - no greater than approximately 20% of the signature. A very light retrace, by the original signer, may be acceptable."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on October 20, 2016 at 6:17pm

That was interesting ,now I get it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jared on October 20, 2016 at 6:56pm

There only has been one set ever by the Beatles graded 10. I don't think you guys understand the competitive nature between many collectors that want "the best," which is why cards, autographs, bats ect. are graded. To say the grades "don't matter" means you seem to like the history of an item over the quality of an autograph, which is fine, but don't say things shouldn't be graded or they don't matter. 
Everyone is different, some collectors go for quality, while others go for story/history. The grading process, just like the authentication process, isn't science. It does provide a level of quality to our valued items just like any other major item of value. Hell, even Beef is graded and we question it, but it still needs to be graded. 

An item like Neil Armstrong un-inscribed photograph is a great example where grading is very important due to his signature. The Beatles on the other hand signed many autograph books in ballpoint, which have stability, which is way many remain in excellent condition IMO. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on October 20, 2016 at 7:02pm

I don't say they shouldn't be graded, I just wonder if this system makes any sense.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jared on October 20, 2016 at 7:11pm

For the most part it does, but there're head scratchers just like authentication.  Trust me if you spoke to card or bat people they would say the same thing, but for the most part it does provide a valuable service. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on October 20, 2016 at 7:11pm

Not knocking it, honestly, there obviously is value there in grading. For me, yeah, I would rather know time or place of signing. I would rather have it on something that was on a program or album.

To me grading and encapsulation leaves it "cold" (to me) I don't think The Beatles were thinking 50 years ago that they hope this signature will get graded a 10 and stuck in between a plastic slab so no one touches it again.

I get it, you don't want to lose value and it protects them and everything else. Value is in the eye of the beholder and I can see and respect it from both sides.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jared on October 20, 2016 at 7:21pm

Beatles were not thinking much other than about woman and music at that time IMO, which is why many of the signatures you see are towards women. Encaps just make things more "tradable" to me. You can hand the item to someone with no concerns. I have handed baseballs to customers/lookers to inspect and cringed. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on October 20, 2016 at 7:41pm

You cant grade vintage Beatles items in my opinion with their modern equivalent. Eg a 67 polaroid signed by paul or a modern 8x10 signed by paul.
The Beatles are historical figures and many collectors only prefer 6os beatles signed items and generally most of the times the early items wont be in as nice of condition as something signed 10 years ago rather than 40 years ago.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jared on October 20, 2016 at 7:51pm

I can agree with that logic. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on October 20, 2016 at 7:53pm

"...there obviously is value there in grading..."

Indeed. Lots. Good model.

But of little to no practical use to the collector.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page