RANKING SPORT CARD CERTIFICATION COMPANIES: A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY ON THE IMPORTANCE OF HIERARCHIES

Bob Regoli, University of Colorado

Abstract

Baseball card collecting has changed in many ways over the past 100 years. One signifi­ cant development is the emergence of card certification companies. These companies pro­ vide buyers and sellers with an independent opinion of the condition of cards. What is socio­ logically interesting about this development is that collectors have produced an informal ranking of the certification companies. The consequence of them doing so is that today the value of a baseball card depends in large measure on what company authenticated it. What is not known, however, is whether any of the companies provide a more accurate assess­ ment of cards. Nor is it known whether variability exists among the ratings assigned to cards by the companies. This research provides strong evidence that the ratings companies as­ sign to cards are remarkably similar. Our principal conclusion is that the informal ranking of certification companies that presently exists rests on a foundation of sand and is likely to be unstable and volatile.

Funding for this research was provided by the Council on Research and Creative Work at the University of Colorado (Boulder).

Many people enjoy observing and par­ become. Today, there are numerous card ticipating in sports. Countless others add manufacturers. scores of hobby publica­ to their enjoyment by collecting sports tions. hundreds of card shows annually, and memorabilia. Of all the sports memorabilia more product being produced than any per­ people collect. the most widely collected son only a decade ago could have possibly are sport cards (EBAY Maga::,ine, 2000). imagined. The more than one million people who The first sport cards appeared in the late collect cards contiibute financially to the nineteenth century. The only cards of pro­ multi-billion dollar sport card industry fessional athletes that were available to (Williams. 1995). collectors then were those of baseball play­ The sport card industry is complex. It ers. The great majority of these early cards consists of many different types of com­ were of the comic variety. suggesting that panies. The most significant are companies in the late 1800s people did not take base­ who pay a licensing fee to major league ball seriously. A typical card from this era Players Associations for the right to pro­ showed players with skinny bodies, large duce merchandise bearing the names and heads, and foolish facial expressions resemblances of players, team mascots. (Voight, 1989; Lipset. 1983 ). People who and logos. Billion dollar companies such collected these early cards typically com­ as. Topps. Fleer, and Upper Deck are ex­ piled sets. trying to obtain one card of each amples. player. While this was difficult to do (par­ Many other companies in the industry do ticularly for non-smokers. since cards were not pay fees. They provide support ser­ only available as inserts in cigarette packs), vices by offering collectors assistance and it was possible. inasmuch as only one or merchandise that advances their involve­ two card sets were manufactured each year. ment in the hobby and thus. indirectly en­ In 1886. for instance, the only card set pro­ rich the coffers of player associations duced was offered by Goodwin & Com­ through the purchases of collectors. pany. a New York cigarette maker. The fol­ Sport card collectors of I 00 years ago lowing year. two cigarette manufacturers­ would not recognize what the hobby has Charles Gross & Co. of Philadelphia and 92 Volume 29. No. 2, December 2001 FreeInquiry in Creative Sociology

Allen & Ginter of Richmond. Virginia­ James Beckett. who. in his 1984 publica­ each created a set of trading cards that in­ tion Beckett's Baseball Card Monthly. pro­ cluded baseball players (Bloom,.. 1997; vided collectors with a "Condition Guide." Li pset. 1983). Beckett identifiedfive grades or condition Until July 1980, when U.S. District of cards based on their physical properties: Comi Judge Clarence C. Newcomer ruled • Mint: A card with no defects. A card that the then only manufacturer of trading that has sharp corners.even borders, origi­ cards (the ToppsCompany) had "restrained nal gloss or shine on the surface, sharp fo­ trade in the baseball card market in viola­ cus of the picture, smooth edges. no signs tion of the Sherman Antitrust Act," only a of wear, and white borders. single baseball card set was manufactured • Excellent: A card with very minor de­ yearly (Williams, 1995:37). Immediately fects. Any of the following would lower a following the judgment. a plethora of sets card to Excellent: very slight rounding or produced by a variety of companies be­ layering, minor wear on edges, slight un­ came available. evenness of borders. These minor defects Today, four companies (Fleer/Skybox, are so minimal as to be only visible on Pacific Trading Cards, Topps/Bowman, close inspection; an Excellent card looks and Upper Deck) manufacture baseball Mint unless closely examined. cards and each produces more than one set • Very Good: A card that has been of cards annually. In 2000. for example, handled but not abused. Some rounding nearly 350 differentbaseball card sets were at the corners, slight layering or scuffing. produced (Beckett, 2000).Th ese and other slight notching on the edges. A Very Good companies (e.g., Playoff)also produce sets card may have a very light, barely notice­ of cards for other sports, including, bas­ able crease. ketball (NBA and WNBA), football, golf, • Good: A well-handled card, rounding hockey. and racing. Because of the glut of and layering at the comers, scuffingat the card sets available today. coupled with the corners and minor scuffing at the face, fact that many sets can be purchased in notching at the edges. their entirety (no collecting is involved), • Fair: Round and layering corners, relatively few modem collectors put sets brown and dirty borders, frayededges, no­ together. Most modem hobbyists collect a ticeable scuffing on the face. A heavily player's rookie card1 regardless of the creased card can be classified as Fair at athlete ·s sport. Since moderncoilectors are best (Beckett, 1984). more likely to collect single cards. they also In reaction to criticisms. complaints, and are more concerned with the condition of suggestions from collectors, Beckett has their cards than were earlier hobbyists. periodically revised and modifiedthe Con­ Contemporary collectors are not satisfied dition Guide. Today, the number of condi­ simply to own the rookie cards of their fa­ tion categories in the Guide has increased vorite players; they want cards in pristine fromfive to nine.� condition. In spite of the precise criteria Beckett and The preoccupation of collectors with card others recommend to evaluate the condi­ condition is a recent phenomenon, emerg­ tion of sport cards. there is generally little ing only during the past two decades. While agreement between sellers and buyers on early sport card collectors were mindful of the condition of a card. Compared to buy­ card condition, they were not preoccupied ers, sellers usually see fewer and less seri­ with it. and thus the practice of formally ous flawson cards. If the indisputable eco­ placing a grade on a card to denote its con­ nomic conflicts inherent in buyer-seller dition was infrequently done. One of the relationships are put to the side, it is evi­ firstattempts to establish a set of standards dent that grading sport cards is less about for sport card grading can be traced to applying strict, unwavering, objective stan- Free lnquirv in Creative Sociology Volume 29. No. 2. December 2001 93

TABLE 1 GRADED CARDS SOLD ON ER.w

CARD GRADING COMPANY GRAD Ea SOLD FOR 1985 Topps Mark McGwire BGS 9 $1,528.00 1985 Topps Mark McGwire PSA 9 $ 425.00 1985 Topps Mark McGwire SGC 96 $ 404.99

1989 UD Randy Johnson BGS 9.5 $ 600.00 1989 UD Randy Johnson PSA 10 $ 480.00 1989 UD Randy Johnson SGC 98 $ 340.05

1995 Bowman Vladimir Guerrero BGS 9 $ 310.00 1995 Bowman Vladimir Guerrero PSA 9 $ 200.00 1995 Bowman Vladimir Guerrero SGC 96 $ 160.00

1989 Bowman Ken Griffey Jr. BGS 9 $ 261.69 1989 Bowman Ken Griffey Jr. PSA 9 $ 54.55 1989 Bowman Ken Griffey Jr. SGC 96 $ 56.01

1992 Fleer Update Mike Pizza BGS 9.5 $1,500.00 1992 Fleer Update Mike Pizza PSA 10 $ 609.00 1992 Fleer Update Mike Pizza SGC 98 $ 332.03

0 There is no standard set of designations used by the certification companies. Comparable designations are reported in this table. Source: Ebay auctions that closed April-May 2000. dards than it is about the meaning each ob­ the questions raised in the preceding para­ server attaches to the physical properties graph. Moreover. there also is no implied of the card. For example. referring to or suggested ranking system for specify­ Beckett's classification scheme: ing which of the defects are the most sig­ 1. When is a border uneven? nificant when determining the grade as­ 2. What constitutes a blurred picture? signed to a card. For example, is it more 3. When do edges change from being or less detrimental for a card to have one smooth to rough? fuzzy comer or to have a light crease? To 4. When does a sharp comer become a have an uneven border or to have a rough fuzzy one? edge? To have a blurred picture or to be 5. What is the difference between a light slightly off center? and a moderate crease? For years. much confusion has sur­ Among card collectors. these are hotly rounded grading sport cards. The chaos that debated issues for both the experienced and besets this facet of the hobby has led to beginning hobbyist. Unlike other collect­ the development of certification or grad­ ible hobbies. in the baseball card hobby ing services. These companies provide there is no formal organization like the buyers and sellers with an independent, American Numismatic Association is for third party opinion of the condition, au­ coins. that imposes a unifom1 set of stan­ thenticity. and originality of sport cards. dards for collectors to follow. Therefore. Today, three companies dominate the cer­ card collectors are free to grade however tification market: Beckett Grading Service they wish (Rosen, 1991; Green and (BGS ), Professional Sports Authenticators Pearlman. 1989 ). To put it differently. there (PSAl. and Sportscard Guaranty Corpora­ are no absolute. correct answers to any of tion ( SGC ). Collectively. these companies 94 Volume 29, No. 2. December 2001 Free Inquir\' in Creative Sociologv

grade more than 350,000 cards monthly. tion of the condition of cards than any of with PSA grading the overwhelming ma­ the other companies. However, whether jority of cards (Forman. 2000). 3 BGS provides a more correct assessment What is sociologically interesting is that of cards is not objectively known: collec­ collectors have infomially established a tors only assume it to be true. Nor is it hierarchial ranking of the card certifica­ known whether there exists variability tion companies. Data forthis conclusion among the grades assigned to cards by the were derived from a content analysis of companies. In other words. is BGS more spor1 card hobby discussion and chat room or less likely to grade sport cards higher groups found on the internet for a 12 or lower than PSA or SGC? The research month period. from January I-December reported here will examine these issues. 31, 1999. Information culled from these public fornmslead us to conclude that in METHODS the minds of collectors, the opinion of Data forthe project are evaluations of five some certificationcompanies is more val­ spo11 cards by four card certificationcom­ ued than the opinion of others. This ob­ panies. The cards selected were those of servation not only speaks to the social or­ "common players", picked from the 1990 ganization of the baseball card hobby. but 0-Pee-Chee Premier hockey set (the 0-Pee­ the creation of a ranking affects (I) what Chee Company. which is located in Canada, companies collectors are likely to submit is a division of the United States based cards to and (2) the amount of money col­ Topps Company). It was importantthat the r lectors will pay forcards certifiedby spe­ cards be selected fom the same set because cific companies. As shown in Table 1, card design and peculiarities of the manu­ collectors will spend varying amounts of facturing process may inadvertently affect money for sport cards in comparable con­ judgments made about card condition. dition depending on what company au­ There is considerablevariability among card thenticated the condition of the card. sets both in their physical appearance and The data in Table l illustrate that col­ the production process. While some card lectors value cards graded by BGS more designs are perceived to be attractive, other highly than they do cards graded by PSA card sets are plagued with persistent prob­ or SGC. lems such as, off-centering(e.g .. 1961 Fleer Presumably, collectors believe that BGS Basketball), chipping (1994 SP Baseball), offers a more valid and accurate evalua- and poorly registered photographs (e.g ..

TABLE 2 CARD CONDITION AND GRADES ASSIGNED BY THE CERTIFICATION COMPANIES

CERTIFICATION COMPANY EXPERT PLAYER BGS CSA PSA SGC• TIME 1 TIME 2

Berthiamue 9 8.5 8 92 (8.5) 9 9 Gaetz 9 9 9 96 (9) 8 9 Ing 8 9 9 96 (9) 9 9 Sillinger 9 9 9 92 (8.5) 8 8 Stanton 8 8 8 92 (8.5) 9 8 TOTAL 43 43.5 43 43.5 43 43

·sGC uses a grading scale ranging from 10 (poor) to 100 (pristine). To make comparisons among the certification companies, for SGC we show the SGC grade received and in paren­ theses the comparable grade from other companies. Free Inquiry in Creati,·e Sociologr Volume 29. No. 2. December 2001 95

TABLE 3 FRIEDI\IAN TEST RESULTS FOR CARD RATINGS BY CERTIFICATION COMPANIES

COMPANY MEAN RANK STANDARD DEVIATION

BGS 2.50 .548 CSA 2.60 .447 PSA 2.30 .548 SGC 2.60 .273

N= 5; Chi Square= .333; df= 3; Significance= .954; tau= .022

TABLE 4 WILCOXON SIGNED RANKS TEST RESULTS FOR CARD RATINGS BY CERTIFICATION COMPANIES COMPARISON Z SCORE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL

CSA-BGS - .447° .655 PSA-BGS .OOOb 1.000 PS A-CSA -1.oooc .317 SGC-CSA .OOOb 1.000 SGC-PSA - .577° .564

0 Based on negative ranks. bThe sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks. cBased on positive ranks.

1987 Donruss Baseball). To control for the 2. Players selected were males to con­ impact of card design. production. and trol for the influence (if any) of sex on judg­ manufacturing on the evaluation of card ments made about card condition. condition. the cards selected for inclusion 3. The players selected were Caucasian to in the study were drawn from a set with no control for the impact (if any) of race/ reported peculiarities. ethnicity on the evaluation of card condition. The players selected for inclusion in the The certification companies participating study were: Daniel Berthiaume. Link Gaetz. in the study were BGS. PSA, and SGC. and, Peter Ing. Mike Sillinger. and Paul Stanton. one of the ten smaller companies--Certified These players were selected for the follow­ Sports Authentication (CSA)- that was se­ ing reasons: lected randomly from the group of ten. l. To control for the possibility that the as­ Before the cards were mailed to the cer­ sessment of card condition may be influenced tification companies. they were examined by an athlete ·s status. all of the players are by an independent card grader. who docu­ "common players." which means they are not mented his findings in detail for the re­ "semi-star" or "star" performers. Common searcher. Next. the cards were mailed to players are the most ordinary of professional the first card certification company (SGC) athletes: their cards generally have little mon­ for grading. When the cards were returned etary value. By including only common play­ by SGC. ( l ) the grades assigned to the ers. we were able to control for the impact cards were recorded, (2) the cards were (if any) of player's reputation on the evalua­ "cracked" from their case. and ( 3) the cards tion of card condition. were packaged and mailed to the next com- 96 Volume 29, No. 2, December 2001 FreeInquiry in Creative Sociology pany. This procedure was followed until was the difference in ratings of cards be­ the cards had been rated by all of the com­ tween companies found to be statistically panies. After the last company (PSA) significant. graded and returned the cards, the cards were '"cracked" from their cases, and ex­ DISCUSSION amineg a second time by the independent There are few things known with cer­ grader . tainty in an interpretive world. Something that is known is in every social group there FINDINGS exists a social organization that consists of The study's findings are presented in nom1s, roles, hierarchies, and mechanisms Table 2. Of foremost importance is that the of social control. This study examined one independent expert's evaluation of the five of the several hierarchies present today in cards at the beginning and at the conclu­ the world of sport card collecting. We were sion of the study were unchanged.5 This curious to know whether the infom1al rank­ finding confirms that the cards were not ing of card certification companies devel­ damaged in the data production phase of oped by collectors was valid. Particularly, the project or by the certification compa­ we wanted to determine whether the in­ nies (a complaint often made against cer­ formal ranking of companies was a func­ tificationcompanies by disgrnntledcollec­ tion of performance differencesamong the tors who are dissatisfied with the ratings companies or whether it could be traced to of their cards). Had the expert grader re­ unmeasurable, subjective factors. ported a significant difference in the con­ We found no statistically significantdif­ dition of the cards at the beginning and con­ ferences among the companies with respect clusion of the study, the validity of the re­ to the grades assigned to sport cards. We ported findingswould be problematic. also did not uncover any evidence to sug­ Next, we assessed the issue of whether gest that one company graded cards more there were statistically significant differ­ or less rigorously than any of the others. ences in the ratings assigned to the cards Our data lead to the conclusion that the cer­ by the certification companies. To deter­ tificationcompanies grade cards similarly. mine whether significant differenceswere Some people will undoubtedly be surprised present, first we analyzed the data with a by this conclusion, while others may contest Friedman test for repeated measures. it. Weexpect this inasmuch as collectors have Based on the infom1ation shown in Table hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in 3, it can be fiimly concluded that the rat­ cards graded by the certificationcompanies. ings of the cards by the four companies Forus to suggest there is no differencean10ng are comparable. The chi square value of the ratings assigned to cards by the certifica­ .333 (df=3; N=5) indicates the differences tion companies is akin to questioning the sen­ in the ratings assigned to the cards by the sibility of many different investment deci­ companies are not statistically different sions made by countless hobbyists. But we fromone another. Further support for this cannot ignore what the data tell us. Namely, findingcomes fromthe Kendall coefficient that the informal rankingof certification com­ of concordance (tau) of .022, which sug­ panies that now exists is not the result of per­ gests immeasurably weak differences fom1ance differences amongthe companies. among the ratings. The present ranking system rests on a foun­ Tomore fully examine the data, pairwise dation no more fim1than sand, is highly un­ comparisons foreach combination of com­ stable and could collapse without warning. panies were conducted using a Wilcoxon We are left to explain why the informal Sign test and controlling for the Type I er­ ranking of the certification companies in rors across the comparisons at the .05 level. its present form exists. Card certification As illustrated in Table4, in not one instance companies aim to make objective some- Free Inquirv in Creative Sociology Volume 29. No. 2. December 2001 97 thing that is not. They do this by assign­ of a "report card" to clarify forcollectors ing a score or grade to a card, placing it in the rating assigned to a card. and on-line a fancy holder, and affixing a computer population reports showing the scores of generated label to it. But let us not forget all cards graded by the company. The in­ that in the firstinstance the rating assigned forn1alranking of certification companies to a card comes from the interpretation of is less a reflection of the quality of the card its physical properties by a grader regard­ inside the holder than it is a statement about less of what company he or she works for. what collectors believe to be true about the Card grading is not a pure, exact science. company that graded it. This conclusion is While there are rules to follow, more sa­ consistent with the theorizing of W.l. Tho­ lient is how the guidelines are interpreted. mas ( 1928) who wrote that "if people be­ Grades assigned to cards are as variable as lieve a situation is real, it will produce real the people who judge them. Only if one consequences." This is precisely what is presumes that graders who work for one occurring in the ranking of card certifica­ company are more expert than graders em­ tion companies. The differencespresumed ployed by another company, would differ­ to exist among the companies, exist only ences in the ratings of card condition be in the minds of collectors; not in the real­ expected. There is no evidence to suggest ity of the ratings of cards. that one company employs more skilled This is not the final word on the infor­ talent than the others. What competence mal ranking of certification companies. does a more superior card grader possess? One reason is that our research is afflicted Does he or she have more years of formal with limitations that restrict its usefulness. education? Possess a more keen apprecia­ The most noticeable limitation is the size tion fordetail? If. for the moment, we as­ of the sample. consisting of only fivecards sume the more highly ranked companies submitted to fourcertification companies. do employ more skilled graders, how much Second, the research design did not allow more expert are they? What standard are us to measure the reliability of the card rat­ card graders measured against? Do more ings we received. Ideally we would want accurate graders have access to and know to resubmit the cards to the companies. two better how to handle complex equipment, or possibly three times to determine such as a stereo microscope? A lOx mag­ whether the ratings were consistent. Third, nifying class? How much training is re­ more information on card graders is quired foran interested person to make the needed. We are particularly interested in determination that a card has a sharp or knowing whether differencesexist among fuzzy corner'? To conclude that the edge graders within and between companies. If on a card warrants calling it Mint and not differences do exist. what are the differ­ Gem Mint? ences and which differencesaffect the rat­ If the informal ranking of certification ing of cards? Finally, information is needed companies is not related to characteristics regarding the decision-makingprocess col­ of a company"s graders. then what explains lectors use when deciding what company a company's reputation among collectors? to submit cards to and how much money We propose that a company"s reputation to spend for cards graded by specific cer­ is a consequence of several factors,includ­ tificationcompanies. Without this informa­ ing its longevity in the hobby. experiences tion we may only speculate as to why col­ with customer service. size of its advertis­ lectors value the grades of cards offered ing budget. representation among the by one company differently than the rat­ hobby elite. the nature and extent of its ings of another company. presence at national and notable regional Until additional evidence is forthcoming, card shows, and gimmickry, such as. at­ we advise collectors to pay careful atten­ tractiveness of its card holder. the issuing tion to what they buy. The decision to pur- 98 Volume 29. No. 2. December 200I Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology chase a card should be based on the card • Pristine: Centering 50/50 all around inside the holder. not on the present repu­ (top/bottom; left/right) corners perfect to tation of the company that certified it. In the naked eye and Mint under magnifica­ an industry where a company's rating is tion, no print sports, perfect gloss, devoid derived from unknown, subjective ele­ of any surface flaws. ments and not from measurable objective • Gem Mint: Centering 50/50 one way, differences, the certification company re­ 55/45 the other. Comers Mint to the na­ garded highly today, may not be so well ked eye but subtle wear is allowed under respected tomorrow. magnification, smooth edges, a few ex­ tremely minor print sports detectable un­ REFERENCES der intense scrutiny. Beckett Baseball Card Monthly. 1984. • Mint: four sharp corners (a tiny speck "Condition Guide" volume I :no page of wear is allowed), 55/45 or better cen­ number. tering, smooth edges, original color bor­ Beckett Baseball Card Monthlv. 2000. ders and gloss. a handful of specks or one "Beckett Price Guide." volume 17: 23- minor spot. 82. • Near Mint-Mint: Must have 60/40 or Bloom, John. 1997. A House(�{ Cards. better centering. relatively smooth edges, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota original color borders and gloss. One of Press. the followingvery minor flaws is allowed: EBAY Maga-::,ine. 2000. "25 Alive.'' No­ corners sharp to the naked eye but slight vember: IOI. imperfections under intense scrutiny, a Forman, Ross. 2000. "Card-Grading Ser­ handful of minor print spots, subtle color vices Leaving Their Mark.'' August 3:9C or focus imperfections. in USA Today. • Near Mint: Centering of 65/35 or bet­ Green, Paul and Donn Pearlman. 1989. ter. In addition one of the following minor Making Money With Baseball Cards. flaws is allowed: a slight touch of wear on Chicago: Bonus Books. two or three corners,slightly rough edges, Lipset, Lew. 1983. The Encyclopedia of a fewnoticeable print sports or speckling, Baseball Cards, volume I. Centerreach, color or focus imperfections. NY: Lew Lipset. • Excellent-Mint: Centering no worse Rosen, Alan. 1991. M,: Mint's Insider's than 70/30. No more than two of the fol­ Guide to Investing in Baseball Cards and lowing flaws are allowed: two or three Collectibles New York: Warner Books. fuzzy corners, slightly rough edges, very Thomas, W.l. and Dorothy Thomas. 1928. minor border discoloration, noticeable TheChild in America. New York:Alfred print spots, color or focusimperfections. A. Knopf. • Excellent: Centering no worse than 75/ Voight. David Q. 1989. 'The History of 25 with four fuzzy corners (a touch of Major League Baseball." Pp. 7-53 in notching or a minor ding is allowed). May TotalBaseball, edited by John Thornand also have rough edges, minor border dis­ Pete Palmer. New York: Warner Books. coloration and noticeable print spots, color Williams, Pete. 1995. Card Sharks. New or focus imperfections. York: Macmillan. • Very Good: Handled, but not abused. Centering 80/20 or better. Slightly rounded NOTES corners with slight layering, slight notch­ I. A player's rookie card is designated ing or noticeable chipping on edges, mod­ by his or her first appearance in a set that erate border discoloration, some gloss lost is nationally (not regionally) distributed. fromthe surface, very minor scuffing. May 2. Today, Beckett's Condition Guide in­ have hairline creases. cludes nine categories. • Good, Fair, Poor: Well-wornor abused. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology Volume 29. No. 2. December 2001 99

Badly rounded and layered comers, scuff­ search. Cards graded by these companies ing, no original gloss. major border dis­ command Jess money on the secondary coloration. and serious creases. market than do cards graded by BGS. PSA. 3. In addition to the companies that or SGC. dominate the market. there are ten smaller 4. On the card of Stanton. the indepen­ companies that certify sport cards: dent grader's evaluation dropped from 9 Accugrade Sportscard Authentication. to 8. We asked him about this and were Advanced Grading Specialists. Certified told: "Frankly. the card could just as eas­ Express, Certified Sports Authentication. ily been graded a 9. It is a 'tweener.' It CTA Grading Experts, Kanadian Sports­ could have gone either way." card Authentication. ProfessionalGrading 5. It is possible to damage a card when Service. Pro Sports Grading Inc .. Ultimate "cracking" it from the holder it was placed SportscardAuthority, and William Tell Re- in by the certificationcompany.

FICS Book Review

Welcoming book reviews forpublication on the FreeInquiry in CreativeSoci­ ology (FICS ) website. The FJCS Book Review seeks out and promoted book reviews in a wide range of sociological issues and topics. In order to bring readers into the ongoing process of sociological inquiry, FICS Book Review features incisive, independent comments on major monographs and books on the day.

See theFICS webpages at www.ou.edu/special/freeing forfurther information.