I am using Heritage as an example, but I hope nobody uses that as an excuse for sniping, as I think we all suffer from a mote in the eye here. In a recent auction HA had this poster - http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161410&lotNo=52344.
I noticed it was the same poster as previously sold by them - http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161253&lotNo=50302. The only difference was that the grading had moved from 'fine' to 'fine+'. I contacted HA to enquire about that and received a reply from Grey Smith. 'If items are reconsigned with us, we have a team grading and evaluating each lot for condition ignorant of its previous sale. Naturally, grading will always be subjective to a degree.' I replied that while I accepted grading as subjective I did not think it unreasonable to expect consistency from the same source, and it would appear that the present team is more lenient in its appraisal than that of the recent past, as is evidenced by yet another poster previously rated 'fine-' which has now been promoted to 'fine'. http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161410&lotNo=52506 http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161246&lotNo=53484 I received no reply to that. Now I appreciate that we are dealing with quite fine distinctions here, but grading is important. Having large images to view is all very well, but it does not show everything. Wrinkles do not always show well, and there are no images of the back of the poster so the amount of tape or writing there relies on description. The main problem I find, though, is one of comparison. Is HA's 'fine' the equivalent of EMP's 'good' (and surely 'good' meaning 'not very good' is one of the worst anachronisms)? HA does at least assign a numerical value to the rating, and other sites such as MoviePosterBid and MoviePosterExchange do use numbered grading, but there still often appears to be some difference in values as, for example, MPX seem to be very critical and often have posters as low as 2 or 3 which I expect others might have as a 4 or 5. The majority of eBay sellers are quite happy to describe their wares as 'excellent', and major auction houses such as Christie's simply have an A,B,C rating system. I like the iguide.net numerical system, and should something like that not now be accepted as an approved standard? CGC and third party grading would seem to have limited appeal, but there is no reason why a unified system cannot be applied. It is surely long overdue, as Alan Adler's post of Jan 2006 demonstrates - A unified grading system would be fantastic. It will happen - just a question of when. Look to Overstreet's comic guide and the pages on grading comics and find a useful and well-organized list of criteria that has worked well for the comic world. Overstreet even has a book out devoted only to grading of comics. It has photos of every grade - using a number scale - 1-100 I think -but could be wrong. Check it out at the bookstore or library. There is no reason this can not be accomplished for movie posters - Even though there are a number of sizes - the same rules set forward for grading movie paper can work for all with minor notations. Eight years later but still it hasn't happened, but the idea must be appealing. At least we would then be able to view and compare posters based on mutual assumptions, and also be able to compare the rigour of the dealers in their appraisals. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
