SGC Labels

[BCauley]

Hello everyone! Quick question here. In finally having a collection focus and narrowing down/shrinking down my collection, I found two cards I forgot I had. I had the two cards graded by SGC eons ago, 9-10 years ago I think. I'm going to sell them off to try and pick up a T206 card I want but am curious about the labels/flips, whatever they are called.

They are the older ones that are no longer used and have that gold hologram sticker on the back. Frankly, I don't really care but I know other people do. How are the cards in older SGC holders viewed as opposed to the newer ones? Are they less desirable?

I know some people might care about this but am just looking for some insight from people who deal a lot more with the graded cards than I do. Thanks!

[Robextend]

I think I speak for most people when I say it doesn't matter at all how current the SGC holder is. If someone likes the card and condition, they will pay the same no matter what kind of SGC holder the card is in.

Rob

[BCauley]

I think I speak for most people when I say it doesn't matter at all how current the SGC holder is. If someone likes the card and condition, they will pay the same no matter what kind of SGC holder the card is in.

Rob

Thanks. That's what I was hoping to hear.

[chaddurbin]

scan of said holder would help...

but i would take a very close look at cards in the oldest "SG" holders. i'm not even 100% sure if the current SGC people would automatically cross them over either....a few years back some had to go through the crossover channel.

[Clark7781]

Bill:

I can't help you with your answer, but did want to say hello to a fellow NOVA resident.

I'm just south of you in Lorton.

V/r,

Paul

[showtime]

i once asked brian of sgc about the older flips and he said that during that time the grading of the centering of the cards was much more lax than it is today. which goes to the point listed by the other poster that they may not cross to the same grade with the graders at sgc today

[T206Collector]

I believe there are 3 generations of SGC flips. The 1st generation is the one that may be problematic on crossover, but the 2nd and 3rd generations are the same in my estimation. The 2nd generation has the gold bar on the back. The 1st generation has a very different looking front of the flip than the 2nd and 3rd generations.

[BCauley]

Thanks for all the replies guys! I've included a couple of scans below just so I will know if I have the 1st or 2nd generation. I know it's not a pre-war card which is why I hesitated to post the scans but if it helps, I'm getting rid of much of my collection and some of the upcoming stuff is going to help me obtain a few pre-war cards! :D
Don't ask why I got this graded. It was about 10 years ago and for some reason was excited about the whole graded thing. I don't really care anymore.

Anyway, thanks again. You guys always come through!

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/billcauley/54F.jpghttp://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/billcauley/54B.jpg

[Peter_Spaeth]

1st generation. But at that grade level it shouldn't make a difference.

[chaddurbin]

this is the 1st gen. with the "SG" in front and cool hologram on the back...i think there's a couple variations of this flip. don't know anything about '54 topps, but since you got it graded urself card itself should be fine and cross to current holder. however potential bidders may be confused by the old flip when bidding

[HBroll]

Hi everyone,
Great question Bill. I have a card with an old SGC flip I was wondering about also. Would it effect the value of this card (if I sold it) if I left it in this holder or should I upgrade to a newer holder? Thanks!
Howard

[BCauley]

this is the 1st gen. with the "SG" in front and cool hologram on the back...i think there's a couple variations of this flip. don't know anything about '54 topps, but since you got it graded urself card itself should be fine and cross to current holder. however potential bidders may be confused by the old flip when bidding

That's one of the things I was worried about. Oh well, it is what it is I guess. I'd like to pick up this card somewhere down the line but I think the pre-war has tightened it's bite on me and has broken skin. No sense in fighting it now.

Paul-Great to see a fellow "NOVA" person! I actually ran into a member of this board at a show this past weekend in McLean/Tyson's Corner. He's got a shop opened up that way with vintage material that I keep saying I'm going to go to. I'll tell you what, this area is much better for cards than the Ft. Bragg/Fayetteville N.C. area where I just moved from 6 months ago!

[Kenny Cole]

I have some difficulty with the same company disclaiming the grades that it previously gave (and which people paid money for), based on the lapse of time. IMO, if the grade was given, SGC should stand behind it. I kind of thought that was why the money was paid to begin with. Just my .02.

Kenny Cole

[Robextend]

Kenny I agree, also I had purchased a 1933 Goudey card in the same 1st Gen "SG" holder and was told by SGC that it can easily be re-holdered without any issue. But for my collecting purposes I am not concerned about which SGC Flip/Holder I have, I didn't think there was a need to be concerned. Either way this is an interesting topic.

Rob

[Jim VB]

I have some difficulty with the same company disclaiming the grades that it previously gave (and which people paid money for), based on the lapse of time. IMO, if the grade was given, SGC should stand behind it. I kind of thought that was why the money was paid to begin with. Just my .02.

Kenny Cole



Kenny,

I bet if there was a big issue SGC would "fix" it for the card owner. Their customer service is pretty good. I wouldn't get all riled up before I talked to them.

[Kenny Cole]

Jim,

I'm not riled up at all, at least not yet. I was simply commenting on what I understood to be a company response that I view as a complete cop-out -- i.e., we didn't do as good a job back then as we do now so we don't stand behind our previous product. IMO, that sort of company response is complete and absolute BS. I hope that my understanding of the company response is incorrect.

Moreover, to the extent its an issue, I don't think it should have to be the screwed consignor's responsibility to contact the company and try to get them to make it right years later. The consignor paid for a correct grade and that is what they should have gotten, be it 2000, 2005, or 2010. I don't even think that a contrary viewpoint is arguable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Many 1st generation SGC cards are improperly graded because they basically ignored centering. Puts the new ownership in a difficult position, I think they made the right call in saying reholdering was not automatic.

[Leon]

As much as I respect what Kenny Cole (hi Kenny) says, above, and am usually about 99% in agreement as to what he usually states, I agree with Peter on this one. It was all different graders and all different ownership when most of the older card holder's cards got graded. I think it would be a disservice to the current group of SGC graders, and customers, to blindly reholder at the same level. That being said I do think that most times the grades will be pretty darned equal, if not exactly equal. I sent in an SGC 92 M116 HOF'er, about a year or three ago, in an older holder and it came back an SGC 92. Now, that being said I would hope that on most (or all) occasions that SGC would mitigate some damages (grading vouchers etc..) if the card didn't cross to an equal grade. Also though, that being said, if it crossed to a better grade would we expect us to give them money for the increased value? It's a tough question and I think could be fairly debated either way. Just my opinion. For the record the card in question, from the scan, looks to be correctly graded, at least to me. I think I might have just said a whole lot of nothing :) regards

[Jim VB]

Kenny,

I didn't mean to insinuate that you were riled up. My comment was intended to calm the drumbeats of the gathering hordes.

[Kenny Cole]

Peter and Leon,

So its OK to pay for a "service" you evidently didn't get the first time around and be held up to pay for that same service again? I don't think so.

It seems to me that it is SGC's responsibilty to get it right the first time since accuracy is what they sell (and have presumably sold from the get go). Accuracy is precisely what was marketed and presumably what the buyer purchased even back when, according to what appears to be the current position, their grading was, at least sometimes, somewhat subpar.

I am not suggesting that SGC has to stick with the grade it previously assigned. It doesn't even do that now. I am, however, suggesting that if SGC backtracks on a grade it previously gave, it needs to make it right financially. The buyer should not be out because SGC did a poor job to begin with.

[Robextend]

I am, however, suggesting that if SGC backtracks on a grade it previously gave, it needs to make it right financially. The buyer should not be out because SGC did a poor job to begin with.

I think that SGC would make it right, but someone from SGC would have to confirm my assumption.

[Leon]

Peter and Leon,

So its OK to pay for a "service" you evidently didn't get the first time around and be held up to pay for that same service again? I don't think so.

It seems to me that it is SGC's responsibilty to get it right the first time since accuracy is what they sell (and have presumably sold from the get go). Accuracy is precisely what was marketed and presumably what the buyer purchased even back when, according to what appears to be the current position, their grading was, at least sometimes, somewhat subpar.

I am not suggesting that SGC has to stick with the grade it previously assigned. It doesn't even do that now. I am, however, suggesting that if SGC backtracks on a grade it previously gave, it needs to make it right financially. The buyer should not be out because SGC did a poor job to begin with.

Well, yes, since standards have changed the "today" grade could be different than the many years ago grade. Now if we could go back and the exact same grading scale, and definitions of the grades, were exactly the same back then, then I might see your point more. I am sticking to my answer on this one....and we do agree on the mitigation of any lost value but that doesn't seem quite fair vis a vis a higher new grade. This is not a black and white issue in my book and very debatable, as previously stated. I might even be convinced otherwise if an argument is made contrary to my current thinking, that I agree with. But those are my thoughts now. regards

[Kenny Cole]

But Leon, that is sort of the basic problem I have. Grading was supposed to set forth a definitive, concrete, immutable standard that people paid good money to have their cards achieve. It is still supposed to do that, but the previous definitive, concrete, immutable standard evidently now doesn't mean much because there is now evidently a new, different, definitive, concrete, immutable standard that you can once again pay money to achieve. Therein lies my problem.

[egbeachley]

Are there ANY products sold today that are the same as sold 10-20 years ago?

When the counterfeiters have mastered the art of copying slabs and flips, whether it occurs 2 years or 10 years from now, another service (by existing or new company's) will take its place.

[Kenny Cole]

The question, to my way of thinking, is whether the product is sold as being the end-all and be-all. That is the way card grading has ALWAYS been promoted. I suspect that no one will be able to provide any literature from any of the big grading companies that is in any way hesitant about the accuracy, wonderfulness or permanancy of their grades. I also suspect that there will be lots of stuff promoting the accuracy, wonderfulness and permanency of the given card grading companies' grades, particularly back when they were trying to promote the brand.

I'm a simple guy but I'm also a lawyer. Maybe the two go hand in hand. In any event, if you sell me a product on the basis that there is some numerical standard which it meets (and will always meet) and that later proves not to be true, that is, at least where I live, probably actionable as constructive fraud. Where I live, constructive fraud has the same legal consequences as actual fraud. Fraud damages can be really ugly.

[chaddurbin]

i don't think the grading scale changed that much in 10 years...just that the old SGC regime merkle et al before derek grady was not very good graders and the current people at SGC don't want to be held accountable for those mistakes in the old holders.

from personal experience i place the "SG" slabs above GAI but below PSA in term of trust that the card is not altered (and we all know psa's rep).

[Bosox Blair]

Jim,

I'm not riled up at all, at least not yet. I was simply commenting on what I understood to be a company response that I view as a complete cop-out -- i.e., we didn't do as good a job back then as we do now so we don't stand behind our previous product. IMO, that sort of company response is complete and absolute BS. I hope that my understanding of the company response is incorrect.

Moreover, to the extent its an issue, I don't think it should have to be the screwed consignor's responsibility to contact the company and try to get them to make it right years later. The consignor paid for a correct grade and that is what they should have gotten, be it 2000, 2005, or 2010. I don't even think that a contrary viewpoint is arguable.

I don't know what the company response is that you refer to. I have never heard of SGC failing to honor the guaranty in these circumstances. That is why it is a guaranty. If the card would not cross at the same grade under the current standards, they owe the owner some money (usually offered first as grading vouchers...cash is tough to part with).

The change of ownership issue is a red herring. I am 100% sure that when they did the deal there would have been some form of contingent liability reduction in the selling price of the company to account for future guaranty claims that the new owners would have to deal with...standard procedure.

Cheers,
Blair

[Leon]

Hey Kenny
I am not sure what the analogy is for me arguing with a lawyer that I know is very rarely incorrect but there is a good one, I just can't think of it. Maybe I am coming to a gunfight unarmed? At any rate I wouldn't want to put words in SGC's proverbial mouth so I don't have any idea what their official stand is. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that they can't really give a blanket statement to cover every scenario and take them one by one. That being said I have not seen them (ever that I remember) make a poor decision so that is what I am going with. Also, when I buy cards, especially for my collection, and they are in anyone's holder, my main concern is about them being altered. As long as they aren't altered then I can pretty much see how the card looks myself. And I fully undertsand that misses the point concerning value....but that is my thought anyway.

Since there has to be a clause about grading being subjective, and that they are human and can make a mistake, I sort of doubt they have themselves cornered without having an out, concerning any grading. That wouldn't be smart. I don't ever remmber seeing the term "concrete and immutable standard" on the SGC site. kind regards

[barrysloate]

Kenny- I agree with what you are saying in theory, that professional graders should be so precise that regardless of who owns the company or who does the grading, the card should receive the same objective grade very time.

But what we've discovered in the real world is grading is way too subjective. Why do so many people keep resubmitting the same card over and over until they finally get it bumped up? Grading is a flawed system, and quite possibly it was even more flawed with the first SGC regime. So if the new owners come in and want to correct some of the mistakes of the previous one, you very well may get a different grade. It's a system that still needs a lot of work, no question about it.

[egbeachley]

Standards change. So do detection methods.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter and Leon,

So its OK to pay for a "service" you evidently didn't get the first time around and be held up to pay for that same service again? I don't think so.

It seems to me that it is SGC's responsibilty to get it right the first time since accuracy is what they sell (and have presumably sold from the get go). Accuracy is precisely what was marketed and presumably what the buyer purchased even back when, according to what appears to be the current position, their grading was, at least sometimes, somewhat subpar.

I am not suggesting that SGC has to stick with the grade it previously assigned. It doesn't even do that now. I am, however, suggesting that if SGC backtracks on a grade it previously gave, it needs to make it right financially. The buyer should not be out because SGC did a poor job to begin with.

I don't agree. People who submitted under the old regime got what they paid for -- a card graded according to the standards of the day. That new management chooses to go forward with a more accurate grading system does not mean they "owe" anything to people who submitted in the past. If past submitters' cards deserve the same grade, fine; if not, why should they be compensated when they received what they paid for?

Example: I submitted a card that by today's standards deserves a 7 but back then it got an 8. So I have an 8 in an old holder, which the market will value accordingly -- probably the same as a 7 in a new holder. I have what I always had -- why am I entitled to a windfall?

[Robextend]

Hi Peter, I respectfully disagree. It is the same company, new set of eyes. Does that mean anytime management changes we all might be subjected to the same thing all over again? We paid for a service and shouldn't have to find out years later that a $1k card is now worth $500. That just doesn't seem fair without some type of compensation.

[Kenny Cole]

Peter,

First, let me say that this is a purely theoretical discussion because I agree that SGC's customer service has always been good (at least so I hear -- fortunately I have never had a problem that required me to test it). Nonetheless, I could not disagree more with your last post.

If I pay to have a card graded today, it should retain the same grade tomorrow. No ifs, whens or buts about it. It shouldn't matter that the company was sold, that a different grader is looking at it, or anything else. I paid for an accurate grade-- "Consistent, accurate grading" as quoted from SGC's website -- not for a grade that might change tomorrow when management does. What you are suggesting seems to me to be the antithesis of what is supposedly being sold when you purchase their service.

[barrysloate]

Kenny- you don't need something as drastic as management change to get a different grade. Just resubmit a bunch of cards and I'm sure a few will come back with different grades, almost every time. The accuracy you feel you are entitled to, and I agree with you wholeheartedly, may not really exist.

[steve B]

The problem is that all grading is subjective, and even one persons standards can change with time. I never used to care about centering. I even collect miscut cards as miscuts. Back when grading was new I was against it because they assigned a grade based partly on aesthetic issues like centering and registration. I felt then that the grade should be based purely on the degree of preservation of the cardboard.

The earlier published grading standards were mostly about corners, creases and other defects. If I recall correctly, centering got added in a fairly brief time before the grading companies started. If you look at the grading standards in the first few beckett guides you'll see a far different standard than is used now. (The same or more lax standards are still used at flea markets and BCCG) None of the standards can cover everything that can happen to a card. And each company treats different defects in its own way. If you really want a strict unchanging standard I'd be perfectly happy to revert to the 1981 standards. And I've a load of "vg" cards that I'll be happy to sell at todays VG prices. I'd be surprised if any of them actually would grade as VG these days.

Steve

[Robextend]

Kenny- you don't need something as drastic as management change to get a different grade. Just resubmit a bunch of cards and I'm sure a few will come back with different grades, almost every time. The accuracy you feel you are entitled to, and I agree with you wholeheartedly, may not really exist.

I agree, and my point is that if you resubmit a card already graded by SGC and it comes back at a lower grade, you receive some sort of compensation. Weather anyone agrees with that or not, I always thought that was what SGC did in these instances.

I am not arguing the fact that standards and opinions change, because they do and I have seen it happen first hand when I have submitted cards for review. My issue is that I believe SGC should be held accountable for the "SG" flips as well. I would not consider those submissions to be a "crossover".

[egbeachley]

We paid for a service and shouldn't have to find out years later that a $1k card is now worth $500. That just doesn't seem fair without some type of compensation.

The card never changes, so don't blame the grading company opinion.

[egbeachley]

If I pay to have a card graded today, it should retain the same grade tomorrow. No ifs, whens or buts about it. It shouldn't matter that the company was sold, that a different grader is looking at it, or anything else. I paid for an accurate grade-- "Consistent, accurate grading" as quoted from SGC's website -- not for a grade that might change tomorrow when management does. What you are suggesting seems to me to be the antithesis of what is supposedly being sold when you purchase their service.

I couldn't disagree more. A company that doesn't change with the times will go bankrupt. If centering (or creases, etc) is now considered critical, then the grading companies must adapt or lose all their business. There is no other option!

The best way to make a change is to change the flip or something to show consistency within the grading timeframe.

[Robextend]

The card never changes, so don't blame the grading company opinion.

So then who is held accountable, the card owner? What is the whole point of third party grading if a company is not going to stand behind their service?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter,

First, let me say that this is a purely theoretical discussion because I agree that SGC's customer service has always been good (at least so I hear -- fortunately I have never had a problem that required me to test it). Nonetheless, I could not disagree more with your last post.

If I pay to have a card graded today, it should retain the same grade tomorrow. No ifs, whens or buts about it. It shouldn't matter that the company was sold, that a different grader is looking at it, or anything else. I paid for an accurate grade-- "Consistent, accurate grading" as quoted from SGC's website -- not for a grade that might change tomorrow when management does. What you are suggesting seems to me to be the antithesis of what is supposedly being sold when you purchase their service.

Of course consistency would be preferable, no one is disputing that. But the fact is that SGC's original grading was fundamentally flawed -- it took centering too little into account in arriving at the overall grade. The new owner to his credit recognized that, and to improve the quality of the brand, implemented change. Why should that mean people whose cards were overgraded before are entitled either to a fresh overgrade -- which would hurt the value of the brand -- or to compensation where they had no loss? The flaw in your analysis, as I respectfully see it, is that you assume people were hurt -- I don't think so -- they still have the same card and the same opinion, just one under a different set of standards. And, the fact that the label was changed mitigates against any confusion.

[terjung]

I'm really not sure what the whole debate is about. I look at it like this...

The card in the SG holder was presumably graded at standards consistent with the standards at that time. That (in the SG slab) has a specific value of X in the market today. Cards in a modern SGC holder are similarly graded at standards consistent with those in place at that time. That (in the SGC slab) has a specific value of Y in the market today. Does X=Y? Maybe, but not necessarily and I don't see it as SGC's responsibility to ensure that X=Y. The standards weren't necessarily the same and the market adjusts for that - just like it does for the perceived overgrading by GAI in the past. So, just like a crossover candidate, you have to weigh is it worth it to try to get it into an SGC slab?

I ask... why is that necessary? It is due to the market reflection of the acknowledgment of the difference (or at least the potential difference). Therein lies your answer. A buyer similarly weighs the risk, determines the value to them in its current holder, and also determines if they even care what holder it is in. Perhaps it will be broken out anyway and put into a raw collection...

[Kenny Cole]

OK, I get it. An 8 is an 8 unless its really a 7 or a 6, and that's OK. "Consistent, accurate grading" is neither consistent nor accurate and that's fine too because things change. However, the card hasn't changed. Therefore, you can't blame the grader that you paid to do a job if it is later determined that he/she was wrong and the job was poorly performed.

Deep down inside I have always known that card grading was more scam than science. The comments here simply reinforce what I already knew. Where do I sign up for a job that pays me to present a subjective opinion as fact until its wrong, at which time it just becomes a subjective opinion, subject to change, again? Getting paid to not be accountable for what one says or does sounds like a great gig.

[Robextend]

Getting paid to not be accountable for what one says or does sounds like a great gig.

But do we know for sure that SGC won't compensate at all? I know the majority feels they shouldn't be held accountable, but can anyone confirm for sure that they treat the "SG" cards as a crossover? So far I didn't hear a definitive answer.

[Jim VB]

But do we know for sure that SGC won't compensate at all? I know the majority feels they shouldn't be held accountable, but can anyone confirm for sure that they treat the "SG" cards as a crossover? So far I didn't hear a definitive answer.



At the risk of causing trouble for my favorite grading company..., I think they'll be open Monday.

[Robextend]

They are my fav too...I don't wanna see anymore "SGC is Closed" threads from Brian!

[teetwoohsix]

I agree Kenny.What I guess I don't understand is-have the grading standards really changed "that much"?

Maybe someone who has taken an old SG graded card and resubmitted it to them could chime in with their outcome...........

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kenny I am not sure what your point is any more. Should SGC simply have frozen their grading system even though it clearly was out of sync to avoid inconsistency, and remained forever out of sync? Should SGC blindly cross over cards graded under the old system even if they are clearly overgraded under the new system? What are you suggesting?

[Kenny Cole]

Peter,

My point is people are purchasing a "service" that rather clearly isn't as advertised and promoted. When you pay for a card to be graded, you are supposedly buying expertise, consistency and accuracy. Presumably, you are also buying some degree of objectivity because an 8 is supposed to have discernable characteristics that differ from a 6. Where is the "consistent and accurate" grading if what is graded as an 8 today is a 7 or a 6 under some new standard tomorrow? For some reason, the image of a herd of sheep patiently waiting for their chance to be fleeced comes to mind.

What if some poor schmuck is unfortunate enough to actually believe in the grade given, pay 8 money for a card he can't hold in his hand and can only view in a scan, and later learn that his 8 is now really a 6? Why should he be out the price difference between the two grades when it was purchased based on a reasonable belief that the card was actually in the grade SGC represented it to be? As I understand your position, it certainly isn't the grading company's fault that "things change" so the buyer is just SOL. I have a big problem with that.

I understand that standards may change. When they do and there is a loss suffered as a result of that change, I think that SGC, or any other company for that matter, needs to make things right. That is my point. You obviously disagree which is fine.

[barrysloate]

Kenny- I support your argument but let me play devil's advocate for a moment: suppose you have a card with an old SGC label that is an 84, and you resubmit it to get a new label and it comes back an 86. Would you feel any differently about the lack of consistency?

[glynparson]

but I know for a fact that when i worked there all cards in SGC holders regardless of generation of label were covered by the guarantee 100%. SBC cards were not covered but all the MErkle SGC cards were. I would have to assume that this is still the same policy but I would just give Brian or Mike a call if I needed to know with 100% certainty.

[Kenny Cole]

Barry,

I suspect the chances of that occurring are somewhat less than it happening in the other direction but I would have to concede that getting a bump up is inconsistent too. However, if there is going to be inconsistency, I would prefer that it work in my favor:D

[barrysloate]

Fair answer, and I agree the new regime is likely stricter than the old one.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kenny: If I sell a PSA 8 that I submitted raw and the buyer gets it bumped to a PSA 9, does PSA owe me?

[egbeachley]

Where is the "consistent and accurate" grading if what is graded as an 8 today is a 7 or a 6 under some new standard tomorrow?

If you paid 8 money for an 8 slab, you got it. If you paid 8 money for a 6 card, you're overpaying. Next time look at the card, especially if we're referring to centering.

[Peter_Spaeth]

These damn plaintiffs' lawyers see a cause of action everywhere they look. :D:D

[sox1903wschamp]

Not sure if this gets into a current SGC 84 Holder. Centering is pretty off to the top. This is a good debate. I have a few of the old SG holders and this is one I have doubts that it would or should "cross". Besides the centering, it is a sharp card. And I do not think I paid "7" money for it but it was long time ago (late 90's?).

[Kenny Cole]

Peter, I don't think so. Nor is that scenario likely to occur. While the buyer received what could be perceived as a windfall, you aren't out anything and haven't suffered a loss, except, perhaps, a loss of opportunity.

egbeachley, as for paying 8 money for a 6 and "looking at the card" you are missing the point. You paid 8 money for an 8 card that became a 6card. "Looking at the card" isn't going to help because it only became a 6 due to a change in grading standards. Unless you are the Amazing Karnak and can anticipate that change, you can look at the card until your eyes fall out and it won't matter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kenny I think what you are missing here is that everyone knew SGC standards were different from PSA and probably even most people's standards for raw cards due to their weird indifference to centering. So it's not like there was some unfair surprise in the change, the change really was just to conform to what everyone else was doing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kenny, the scenario I mentioned has probably occurred countless times, particularly in the days when PSA was bumping cards at shows.

[cozmokramer]

With all the different labels out there... it seems as though collectors always seem to prefer to have the latest one. As crazy as it sounds, cards recently encapsulated with a newer design PSA label sometimes sells for more than the same card with an older label.

[showtime]

With all the different labels out there... it seems as though collectors always seem to prefer to have the latest one. As crazy as it sounds, cards recently encapsulated with a newer design PSA label sometimes sells for more than the same card with an older label.

not exactly. those collecting bgs seem to prefer and pay more to have the old bgs label with the subs printed on the back. the explanation for this from buyers and what people list on auction descriptions......"this card has the old bgs label from when bgs had tougher standards with their grading" is this true or not, who knows. also people seem to prefer the old bvg labels that were bronze for grades 8 and up. these cards are believed to be stronger cards again from when bvg was (commonly believed to be) tougher on grading.

i always see auctions with the old bgs label and people saying resub this for a higher grade. to me thats mostly just a sale tactic to try and get more money. i really dont see that working. bgs has always seemed pretty consistant to me. however, bvg hasnt been so consistant (to me at least)

[chaddurbin]

with prewar cards, stay away from bgs holders with the subs...because beckett sucked and there's alot of altered and trimmed cards in there.

[Robextend]

I agree with Quan, I know I have heard on at least 3 occasions where those old BGS slabs were not able to crossover due to trims and other alterations.