Crossover Issue

[dancollins]

I have to tell the board about this.

First of all I know many of you personally and I also know that many people on the board prefer SGC over PSA for various reasons. I have almost 1000 graded tobacco cards including a complete PSA graded T206 set minus Wagner and Doyle.....

I had 103 PSA graded T207's and I recently was at a show and took them to SGC to cross them over because I felt they looked better in SGC holders and also anytime I buy a SGC T207, PSA never crosses them over due to minimum grade.

When I submitted these to SGC I did not ask for minimum grades I just left it open figuring they would do a great job. I got my cards back and let me tell you I am disgusted.

Out of 103 here is the results:

52 Downgraded and most of them were either 5's that went to 4's or 4's that went to 3's. (Full grades)

5 They felt were trimmed and left in the PSA holder

43 Remained the same

3 Yes only 3 were bumped and only by half a grade


Now before people start saying well that makes sense because of PSA grading and bla bla bla. Let me explain.

I generally prefer PSA over SGC and I am constantly sending cards there. Usually PSA is much more strict on its grades than SGC especially with T206. I also went on Ebay and did some random research and found that they were tougher on my cards than many other SGC graded examples I found. I contacted Brian at SGC and he said to send some of them back to have looked at again. I am not sending 52 cards back. That is rediculous and you would think they would have called me and said hey half of your cards are about to lose a full grade. Now I am sitting here with my partial T207 set being devalued by thousands. I could have lived with maybe 10 or even 15 being downgraded not 52!!!!!!!

Now I am going to rip everyone of them out of their SGC holders and resubmit them to PSA raw. I will never use SGC again it is clear to me that they were biased on the grades due to them being in PSA holders just like PSA does to their holders. It is sad that these two grading companies get in a pissing contest with each other at the collectors expense. I thought SGC was a much better company than this but they have proved their worth to me.... In my opinion beware...

Dan Collins

[botn]

Hi Dan,

That is a bad break. Sorry to hear this has happened to you. I generally always use a minimum grade when using the cross over service because grading is subjective at best. I really do not like using a cross over service as I like the cards I submit to be assessed in their raw state so they get a fresh look.

Absent seeing scans of the cards which got downgraded it would be impossible for any of us to draw any conclusions as to SGC's determination.

Best of luck on getting this resolved.

Greg

[carrigansghost]

If these cards had never been in a holder before and you were just seeing them for the first time in the SGC holder, would you disagree with the grades they received? I think more than likely not.

Rawn

[collectbaseball]

I don't know a whole lot about the whole sub, re-sub, crack and re-sub, review, crossover, crossing over a cracked resubbed Dick Towle-d reviewed crossover of a re-cracked card game (I have never sent in a card to be graded; I have bought graded cards, though), but if you were so concerned about protecting your investment I don't know why you wouldn't submit them with a minimum grade, or raw (unless you suspected them of being altered in the first place).

I know both companies have their quirks and perhaps you landed on the wrong side of one of them (e.g. SGC is more lenient on centering and PSA more lenient on stains).

I think if Joe P were still around he'd say something like:

Aren't they still the same exact cards???

..... Relax .....

Enjoy them. :)

[Tcards-Please]

Dan

Sorry to hear about your experience. I can certainly understand your frustration as I too have had cards lose a full grade. It would be nice to see some pictures of the SGC graded cards to judge for ourselves. Be sure to let us know what the PSA regrades are as it will be interesting to see how they do the second time around.

r/
Frank

[sbfinley]

They were biased on the grades due to them being in PSA holders just like PSA does to their holders.



:cool:

[Jantz]

This has got to be the most radical attempt I've ever seen to get a Christmas card from Joe Orlando!

[dancollins]

Jantz get serious

[bobbyw8469]

I can totally understand your frustration! I won't get into my incident with SGC here, but let's just say I can relate. In addition to losing thousands of dollars of value, I am sure you also paid a pretty penny to get them all graded. Did the custom inserts they used even fit (some of my 1952 Berk Ross have a gap, some fit perfectly)?? Talk about annoying!

[barrysloate]

It's unclear to me that the cards were penalized because they were submitted in PSA holders. I don't know what effect, if any, that has on the graders. What troubles me most about this, and about grading in general, is that after you complained about the grades, SGC asked you to send half of them back for a review. Why do they have to go through this procedure all over again? Why not get them all right the first time? If grading really is so subjective then what's the point?

Crossing over cards for a regrade is like walking through a minefield. I'm sorry this happened to you, but my opinion is when you buy a card in say a PSA 5 holder, that is what it is at that point in time. Once you send it for a regrade or a crossover, all bets are off.

[bobbyw8469]

Well said Barry....if I believe a grader got it wrong, I get a second opinion. I do it for dentists as well (as one has said I need 3 crowns, and the other said my teeth are fine). I have only sent cards in review a few times (I have NEVER had any cross) enough to tell me that that avenue is NOT the way to go. I have had cards come back that I was 100% POSITIVE look better than the grade on the card. I got my dremmel tool out and resubbed. Had a 1961 Fleer Bob Cousy turn from a '5' into an '8'. Has a 1956 Mantle "Authentic - trimmed", become a '4 (MC)'. I don't do that often, but I do know that those guys are FAR from perfect!!

[benjulmag]

While I understand how you can be frustrated, this seems like a correctible problem -- resubmit them raw to PSA (as you said you plan to do). Presumably SGC did not damage the cards, so if in fact they were downgraded for reasons other than to do with their actual condition, PSA should reslab them with their original grades. And if PSA was not to give a card its original grade, then that would suggest the card was overgraded to start.

I think one of the reasons many collectors prefer SGC is because of the perception they are more strict then PSA. So maybe it's possible the downgrades had nothing to do with bias against PSA? But if you feel it was, going forward maybe the thing to do is not to submit them for cross over in the other company's slab? Also, couldn't you have told SGC that if they knew they were to downgrade the card, to leave the card in the original PSA holder?

Bottom line, as a previous poster said, is that the cards themselves are unchanged. So, if they were inappropriately downgraded, presumably they can be upgraded. I realize the whole thing might be a pain to get back to that point, but at least the option is there.

[barrysloate]

Of course, if he sends them back to PSA raw there is no way he is going to get the exact same grades. They could end up higher or lower, who knows. And if they are lower he has spent a fortune on grading and will lose because of the downgrades. What a pain in the butt.

[Matt E.]

When I read stories likes this it only reaffirms my faith in SGC and why I primarily buy SGC.

Like you I have received lower grades when crossing expensive cards. Usually T205's from PSA to SGC. Each time they had a reasonable explanation why my card received the grade it did (Seems like I usually get bit by erased writing)

Not bashing PSA here, just my two cents.

Dan, Sounds like your beef is they did not call you.

Barry, By having SGC look at them again could be considered good customer service. ;)

EVERYBODY KNOWS SGC GRADES TOUGHER THAN PSA
Matt

[Bicem]

PSA sucks.

[egbeachley]

I imagine the review was to help Brian explain why they got the grades they deserved and wasn't an attempt to regrade.

To say SGC was wrong is ridiculous. The other posibility is that PSA was wrong. Or maybe they were both right based on their particular standards.

I expect they were both right since PSA has loosened their standards over the years.

[Matt]

Usually PSA is much more strict on its grades than SGC especially with T206.


I find the opposite - I've seen way too many cases of PSA cards that I felt were overgraded as compared to SGC cards. Maybe that's all that happened here.

I do think a phone call, especially with an important issue on such a significant submission, would have been appropriate.

[dancollins]

Both SGC and PSA are very inconsistent at best! I would have had put minumum grades on them but I like having a whole set type all graded by the same company. I see problems with both and I am fully aware of PSA issues, I figured SGC would do better. I have bought, sold and upgraded hundreds and hundreds of graded tobacco cards and I have always noticed that PSA was stricter on condition. BOTH SGC and PSA do not cross very often.... Last year I purchased a T206 Chase blue portrait from another member on here it was an SGC 80/6 with a piedmont fact. 42 back and I sent it to PSA and they would not cross it due to minumum grade. I popped it out sent it back raw and got a 6.5 That is just one of many many examples I can give. Bottom line is I feel as though I was ripped off by SGC and Barry is absolutely right they should have done it right the first time. If it were 10 or 15 I could have lived with that not 52. I just spent 2 hours popping all of them out and I can see some of their downgrades but many were just flat out under graded and this has been a very costly lesson and horrible experience. Grading is actually very annoying but the cards are worth more in those stupid holders.

[D. Bergin]

So in the end these cards will have been graded three separate times, been handled and busted out of plastic cases a couple times over and will somehow be the exact same cards they were before they ever saw a holder to begin with? :confused:

I imagine I'm a lot clumsier then everybody else in the world. :(

[calvindog]

So Dan you believe that SGC, by not bumping more of your cards up or keeping them the same grade purposely defrauded you?

Your mistake was that you didn't ask for a minimum grade.

One quick story: I began representing Dave Forman a couple years ago and when he came to my office the first time I gave him four GAI graded cards (graded years ago) to cross: a T206 Matty dark cap graded 6.5, Diamond Stars Mel Ott graded GAI 7, Play Ball Greenberg graded GAI 7.5 and 53 Bowman Color Reese GAI 7.5. Three of them came back graded a half grade lower and one stayed the same (the least valuable card). As soon as I saw the grades, I flipped out and accused SGC of ripping me off. Ok, the last part is a lie.

Moral of the story: if you don't want SGC's opinion on your cards, don't submit them to SGC. Try submitting cards in GAI and SGC holders to PSA and see how well you do. My guess is you'll think they 'ripped you off' too.

[barrysloate]

Matt- is SGC reviewing them as a courtesy, or are they charging Dan a grading fee for each one? That isn't clear to me. If it's a courtesy look then I agree that is a good thing.

[dancollins]

One other piece of info about this was last year I sent roughly 10 SGC graded T207's to PSA at different times and none of them crossed. What is the problem with these grading companies? Both of them do the same things. Part of the reason I sent them to SGC is because everyone on here brags on SGC so much......... Everyone has their opinion on grading companies but I challenge anyone on this board to send a bunch of their graded cards to either PSA or SGC for crossover and see your results. I promise you and would bet on it that no one would be satisfied with results and would feel the same way I do about it.

The reason I am posting about this is to warn others so they don't waste a bunch of time and money like I just did and end up with the picture below.

[dancollins]

They were going to do it as a courtesy but it is a waste of time and pointless unless about 30 of them get higher grades. Already popped out and I will never use SGC again

[dancollins]

calvindog you are missing the entire point...... If this happened to you I am sure you wopuld be pissed off and posting about it. If I had submitted them and asked for a minumum grade I would still be in the same boat I would have half graded by PSA and half by SGC and I like them to be in the same holders when I am putting together a set. Everyone rants and raves about how damn great SGC is and they are not. They are no better and no more consistent than PSA. I guarantee if I sent them into SGC raw again they would be totally different grades just to show a few SGC lovers on here I would if it wouldn't cost hundreds of dollars and all that time. Bottom line is in most years I spend 6 figures on cards and they lost my business for good. Last point if the person who graded these had half a brain he would have realized at some point that more than half the cards were down graded and the average person wuold be pissed off about that and should have called me. That would be customer service.

[bobbyw8469]

Dan, I am like 0 for whatever on crossovers....anytime I leave a card in someone elses slab it gets rejected. Talk about the ultimate insult, I even had GAI of all freaking people reject an SGC slab and say THEY overgraded the card! This was when GAI was "reputable" way back in the day with Danny Fisher, Justin Preddy, et al. Now, I wouldn't want ANY GAI card in my personal collection, nor would I touch one with a 10 foot pole!

[Pup6913]

Yeah they have all the time in the world to just call you because PSA and their lax standards of grading, over graded your cards. I never cross PSA to SGC for this reason much less buy PSA anymore. About 80% of the PSA cards I have tried to cross end up lower or are altered.



Bottom line is in most years I spend 6 figures on cards and they lost my business for good. Last point if the person who graded these had half a brain he would have realized at some point that more than half the cards were down graded and the average person wuold be pissed off about that and should have called me. That would be customer service.


Man this sounds famliar. Didn't one of the Board members just quit that sounded just like this:rolleyes:

[scottglevy]

Andrew,

The difference is that Dan is the 'real deal' not a pretender. Just take a look at his set registry if you have any doubts. I never knew that one man could own so many high grade Lenox back T206s :)

Regards,
S

[Pup6913]

Scott I was referring to the money comment. I have no doubt he is legit more so than another.

[3-2-count]

Dan sorry to hear your experience was a bad one. I do have one question though. Why didn't you take the initiative to call SGC yourself on such a sizable cross over submission with specific instructions? I can tell you this, if it were me I would have had notes on my submission form to cover my butt and also placed a call into them prior to on something this size.
They're very easy to get ahold of. You should in my opinion take much of the responsibility in this instance. Again, just my opinion.

[ullmandds]

That sucks Dan...I recently sent 42 cards to SGC for a combination of grading, crossovers, etc. When I got the cards back I was perplexed at some of the grades. Some were undergraded, some were what I thought to be overgraded...some didn't cross.

IT's really unfortunate our great hobby has come to this. The grading companies have got us by the balls...and there is not a thing we can do about it!

But I think you are wrong saying PSA grades tobacco cards tougher than SGC...this is totally wrong...and in my opinion the opposite is true...and if SGC sucks...than PSA is the antichrist!

[dancollins]

Tony I submitted them in person at a show to Brian and he reassured me they would do a great job grading but you have a point that I should have took some other steps. None the less I am not happy and I am relaying my story to people so something doesn't happen to them like this and many members with previous posts have nothing better to do but find a reason to argue.

[FrankWakefield]

I love the photo of the mass slab grave.

Dan, if you'd never graded them in the first place with PSA, nor the second time with SGC, nor again with PSA; AND if you'd have devoted all of that grading money to buying more cards, then you'd have one fine pile of cards right now. Maybe the lesson was to bust 'em outa the PSA slabs before submitting to SGC, maybe the thing to do was not fool with slabbing. And if you're content when you get them all back into PSA slabs, then obviously that was the right thing for you. Wish you well with it all.

[3-2-count]

Dan I totally understand. My objective is to not argue here. Gets you no where. I just think it's very important that others know that when submitting a cross over submission, especially a large one like yours you'd better make it very clear to the submitter your "goal". If you throw caution to the wind without it you take a chance of getting hurt just as you did. I hope it all works out in the end for you. As others have mentioned you still have the same great cards so that's a plus, right?? :)

[Peter_Spaeth]

From my observation SGC is less strict about corner wear but more strict about surface wrinkles, paper loss, marks, etc. I don't think you can fairly complain given that each company has its own criteria and you did not specify minimum grade. It is my opinion that recognizing you have significant cards, SGC would want your business and would not deliberately screw you on your submission. That said, all grading is a crapshoot.

[T206Collector]

"Usually PSA is much more strict on its grades than SGC especially with T206."

This is just completely wrong. I once attempted a 40 T206 PSA cross over of PSA 4, 5 and 6 graded T206 cards and only 30 came back graded by SGC. (Of course, I put a minimum grade -- PSA is notorious for overgrading pre-war cards.) I could also give you countless examples/stories of PSA 5 graded T206 cards with wrinkles that SGC would never cross over. SGC is somewhat more lenient when it comes to moderate corner rounding and centering, but otherwise is the stricter company with respect to creasing, wrinkles, paper loss, glue residue, etc.

Your failure to put a minimum grade was a catastrophic mistake and the blame here should not be shifted to SGC. The fact that they have signaled a willingness to work with you on a group of them only confirms that their customer service is second to none.

Finally, the below T206 Cobb was submitted to SGC by me for a crossover. I submitted it in its PSA 4 case, with a "Min. 50" notation. SGC gave it a 60, which I always felt was the right grade. By doing so, they have affirmed for me that I need not crack my PSA cards out before submitted for crossovers.

<table style="width:auto;"><tr><td><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/c8iq6qseG7GwMm1-VyRt0g?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Ys7fw31kTDs/Rouvek_nEPI/AAAAAAAAAkU/hJIgcS4Lv4w/s800/CobbBatOnShoulderSGC60.JPG" /></a></td></tr><tr><td style="font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:11px; text-align:right">From <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/pmifsud3d/SGCGradedCards?feat=embedwebsite">SGC Graded Cards</a></td></tr></table>

[aaroncc]

I'm trying to understand what benefit it is to SGC to lower the grades?

[bobbyw8469]

No benefit that I can think of. On my submission and the OP submission I am sure it was an inexperienced grader....I had 64 cards, and the OP had quite a bit as well. Maybe they are giving their big subs to their graders with the least experience?

[Robextend]

From my observation SGC is less strict about corner wear but more strict about surface wrinkles, paper loss, marks, etc. I don't think you can fairly complain given that each company has its own criteria and you did not specify minimum grade. It is my opinion that recognizing you have significant cards, SGC would want your business and would not deliberately screw you on your submission. That said, all grading is a crapshoot.

Couldn't have said it better myself.


Tony I submitted them in person at a show to Brian and he reassured me they would do a great job grading but you have a point that I should have took some other steps. None the less I am not happy and I am relaying my story to people so something doesn't happen to them like this and many members with previous posts have nothing better to do but find a reason to argue.

No one is looking to argue, but I think many would do things a lot different and that is the message being conveyed. There are plenty of good reasons to bash any grading company, but this might not be one of them.

[slidekellyslide]

Did you take scans of any of these before cracking them out? It would be helpful to see examples of the downgrades.

[T206Collector]

I am sure it was an inexperienced grader.

As far as I know, they have been using the same small group of graders for a very long time -- there are no "inexperienced graders" at SGC.

I once made the same complaint to them at a show and was told that there are no new graders and they've had no turnover in the grader department.

[smtjoy]

I can not help but think I am happy I choose SGC for my grading. I do feel they are tougher than PSA as well as more consistent and threads like this only confirm it.

I feel sorry for what happened to you Dan but it really sounds like you played the reslab game and lost. If you liked the cards in the first place and you were crossing as you said because you liked the SGC slabs better then the grades should not have mattered, at the end of the day you had the same great cards in the slabs you prefered. But because of your comments I can not help but think you were crossing because you felt many/most of them would get bumped and were doing it for your own gain and when that failed you decide to take it out on SGC.

Good luck on your resubbing at PSA and for your sake I hope you get the easy grader over there so all your grades come out higher and you can come on here and praise PSA's great work lol.

[nolemmings]

*

[bcornell]

One other piece of info about this was last year I sent roughly 10 SGC graded T207's to PSA at different times and none of them crossed. What is the problem with these grading companies?

T207's often vary in size and even when a card is short but untrimmed, both SGC and PSA may reject the card because it doesn't measure "normally". I've had that happen more than once with submissions. It may have happened with a number of your cards.


Bill

[Robextend]

No benefit that I can think of. On my submission and the OP submission I am sure it was an inexperienced grader....I had 64 cards, and the OP had quite a bit as well. Maybe they are giving their big subs to their graders with the least experience?

I could be very wrong, but doesn't more than one grader factor into the final grade? I thought at the very least a second grader looks over the original grader's decision. Obviously that is not the issue here anyway, but that was my understanding.

[Bicem]

sounds like you played the reslab game and lost...


the end.

[botn]

I understand Dan is upset as any of us would be if we lost money or value in our cards however that is why it is imperative if using the cross over to employ minimum grades. You lose nothing other than the grading fee by doing this. Under these circumstances there is no reason or incentive for SGC to have misgraded the cards. What do they gain in do so? I do not use SGC but who says the cards that downgraded were graded right by PSA in the first place? Which is why on the second post on this thread I suggested Dan provide some scans so we know if SGC messed up. Think it is only fair if you are going to trash someone or you want meaningful responses to a problem you have to be willing to provide sufficient information.

[quinnsryche]

The original poster is wrong in this case. If he didn't want them qualified with a minimum, it's his fault. SGC doesn't owe him a phone call, he chose to let the chips fall on the grading. They graded them at their standards, not PSA's. If he loves PSA so much, why did he want to cross them over? Anyone with any knowledge of grading in this hobby KNOWS PSA overgrades and SGC is tougher. Sending that many cards as a crap shoot with fingers crossed makes no sense whatsoever. Also, why would anyone think a card should automatically crossover equal from one to another? Kinda defeats the purpose of 2 completely different grading companies, doesn't it?

[M's_Fan]

Dan, I just wanted to say I feel your pain. I really wish you would have asked us on the board and I think we would have told you this mass crossover from PSA was a bad idea.

And let me just state that I'm an SGC fan, all of my cards are SGC graded. This is mainly because I love the look of the SGC holder, their fees are reasonable, and they have great customer service.

But I have to admit that SGC has a big anti-PSA bias. PSA probably has an anti-SGC bias, though I don't know that from experience.

I've quit buying PSA cards and trying to get them to cross over because SGC never gives a PSA graded card a fair shake, I really think they are harsher on cards graded by other companies, it makes them feel superior when they can turn their nose up at a PSA graded card.

Consider this stunning Mathewson that SGC wouldn't grade:

http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv82/3fingerbrown/T206%20HOF%20For%20Sale/Mathewsondarkcap1007psa5.jpg?t=1274192697http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv82/3fingerbrown/T206%20HOF%20For%20Sale/Mathewsondarkcapz1007psa5.jpg?t=1274192739

Luckily I said I wouldn't accept below an SGC 60, so they just charged me the grading fee and sent it back, but if I didn't, who knows what it would have come back in (30, 40, or 50, depending on the mood of the grader).

This was supposedly due to "glue residue" on the back of the card. Huh? The back is clean!

I gave up crossing over after this experience, I'm not going to pay money to boost SGC's ego.

So tell me how this Matty isn't a 60 and this McGraw is? The Mathewson has sharper corners, colors and a cleaner back.

http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv82/3fingerbrown/Miscellaneous/mcgrawfront.jpg?t=1274197857http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv82/3fingerbrown/Miscellaneous/mcgrawback.jpg?t=1274197913

The silly part about this is that grading companies are losing revenue because people have become very hesitant to cross cards over. So they've shot themselves in the foot in my opinion with their snobiness.

[JasonL]

You said this was an in-person show submission. Was there some discussion between you and SGC at the time -some dialogue wher you indicated that you wanted to be called if there was significant discrepancies in the grades, or was there any talk at all about the best way to submit the cards (e.g. what service level offered you protection against this type of outcome, etc)...?

As much as this stinks, I would think that the only fair gripe you would really have is if something occurred that was different than what you expected based upon your interaction with SGC. I certainly sympathize, but I'm not confident I have enough info to actually judge fairness, etc.

Thanks for the heads-up regardless of PSA vs SGC and fairness, etc, because it is a valuable lesson if you have a concern towards preserving card value when submitting.

[botn]

I think there is plenty of incentive for a grading company to cross over a card. That means one more card in their holder and one less in their competitors. That is how you build market share.

[D. Bergin]

All you guys should just send your cards into PRO grading and get guaranteed 9's and 10's back. :D

[where the gold at?]

Why be mad at SGC when it is PSA who drastically overgrades in my opinion. I collect SGC cards ONLY....i have bought several PSA cards with hopes of crossing over to SGC only to be let down.......but the difference is that SGC grades accurately in my opinion and PSA over grades. So im not let down i just know this going forward and don't buy PSA unless im paying a real low number. Im sorry to here that you have been effected as you have by this company.
Hopefully this is a learning lesson for everybody.

[danc]

As a person who prefers and respects SGC over PSA, would this thread have been started if there was a tremendous amount of upgrades, over downgrades? I hope this poster sends 106 raw cards to PSA and I want to see what kind of grade they get a second time with them. A kind of a test. If an original PSA 5, got a SGC 50 and now a PSA 4 (or funnier yet, 3 1/2), it would could further frustrate the poster and bemuse the board.

DanC

[rman444]

Dan - first would like to say sorry about what happened. This situation would upset me as well.

However, I don't want to speak for SGC, but I just had a similar discussion with Michael at a show this weekend when we were discussing crossing over my PSA registered set. The impression that I got was that they could take a quick look at the set and give a rough estimate if the majority would cross in the same grade before they started cracking out cards and charging for the grading.

I would think that something like this could have been arranged for your set before any of your cards were cracked out and you were charged any fees. If their initial assessment was that roughly half of your cards were clearly not close enough to make the grade, you could have kept them all in the PSA holders without any damage to your wallet. And, as previously mentioned, SGC doesn't really have any motive to not get cards out of PSA holders. They want as many cards in their holders as possible, but if they don't make the grade, it is probably because they truly don't believe that the condition warrants it.

[barrysloate]

It's unfortunate that the grading standards differ from one company to the next. It would be good for the marketplace if all the major grading companies used the same criteria, but they compete fiercely for market share and I doubt they would ever have a summit to work this out.

I also find it interesting that the majority of posters believe PSA cards sell for more than SGC cards, while just as many believe that SGC cards are more strictly graded. That would suggest given a PSA 5 or an SGC 60, the SGC card should sell for more. But the fact is it probably sells for less.

[botn]

It's unfortunate that the grading standards differ from one company to the next. It would be good for the marketplace if all the major grading companies used the same criteria, but they compete fiercely for market share and I doubt they would ever have a summit to work this out.

No two graders at a given grading company grade the same all the time. That is an inherent flaw in grading.

I also find it interesting that the majority of posters believe PSA cards sell for more than SGC cards, while just as many believe that SGC cards are more strictly graded. That would suggest given a PSA 5 or an SGC 60, the SGC card should sell for more. But the fact is it probably sells for less.

You are failing to factor in the PSA advantage--their set registry.

[glchen]

I think I agree w/ most posters on this board in that Dan made a huge mistake in not putting min grade for crossover. It will be good luck for going back to PSA because I've read threads on the Collectors saying that PSA gives different grades depending on which day of the week they process the cards. The only mistake I could see from SGC, and this is could be debateable, is that Dan did meet with Brian at SGC. Brian could have looked at the submission sheet, and warned him the he should put minimum grades for crossovers.

Minimum grades for crossovers is absolutely required. I did not have a minimum grade for a crossover once, and that was only because the card (cheap Pedro Martinez RC) was in a GEM holder. (Yes, and graded GEM10, which I am not really expecting it to come back as.) Otherwise, you have to give minimum grade. There is simply too much danger the card will come back as altered, lowered, etc. This past weekend, I dropped off a submission to SGC at the SF Card Show. I had 3 cards for crossovers, 2 GAI and 1 BVG. I put minimum grades for each of these. For one of them, Erving RC, I was fairly skeptical it would crossover, and I had Michael from SGC look at the card, he told me it was possible, so I submitted it anyway. However, Michael gave me plenty of warning that he wasn't a grader, so I made sure that I had put a minimum crossover grade anyway. I think that the rule of thumb pretty much is if you want all of your cards in one holder, it's almost better to sell your cards in the different holder, and buy the cards in the holder you want. That's what I'm planning on doing if my GAI cards don't cross.

About Brian should have warned Dan as a courtesy, I'm just saying that because Michael had checked that for me when he reviewed my submission. Michael also told me my declared values were probably too low, so it would be bad if my package got lost or damaged in the mail coming back. Saying this, I'm obviously biased towards SGC. I really think their customer service is great, and I've spoken with Brian on the phone too, who is really nice. I think Dan made a mistake here which is very unfortunate. I understand why he's pissed. He'll have to spend untold hours of time getting this fixed and obviously significant amounts of money.

[Robextend]

That would suggest given a PSA 5 or an SGC 60, the SGC card should sell for more. But the fact is it probably sells for less.

I would think that a good amount of truth in that comes down to registry purposes. When I see a dinged up PSA 5 outsell a good looking SGC 60 that is usually the first thing that comes to mind.

[GrayGhost]

Well, unless you have an inherent need to have such an amazing set, does it really make ALL that much difference when you have the means to own quality cards like these? Now, if I had a Wagner or a big dollar card, I could see the real concern.

That said, as it apparently does matter a lot to Mr Collins, Im sorry he lost the money in "book value" too, and any additional grading fees. Still, he probably will still have a bunch of really nice cards too, which some of us wish we had too.

Its a shame so much of this is "financially motivated", and you guys just sometimes can't enjoy owning quality cards, and are more worried about grading greed w the companies, etc. , the value based on a small grading difference, etc.

[T206Collector]

But I have to admit that SGC has a big anti-PSA bias....I've quit buying PSA cards and trying to get them to cross over because SGC never gives a PSA graded card a fair shake, I really think they are harsher on cards graded by other companies, it makes them feel superior when they can turn their nose up at a PSA graded card....This was supposedly due to "glue residue" on the back of the card. Huh? The back is clean!

I gave up crossing over after this experience, I'm not going to pay money to boost SGC's ego....The silly part about this is that grading companies are losing revenue because people have become very hesitant to cross cards over. So they've shot themselves in the foot in my opinion with their snobiness.

SGC is not rejecting PSA cards because they have an ego. To suggest otherwise based on a scan of a card that has glue residue that you cannot see in a scan is absurd. The whole purpose of 3rd party grading, especially in the internet/scan age, is to identify flaws in cards that cannot be seen easily in a scan like, e.g., glue residue.

[barrysloate]

The set registry has caused such an excessive valuation of cards at the top end. I wonder if a time will come when that bubble bursts.

SGC has a set registry too, and there are some pretty fine vintage sets represented. But that's one area where PSA has a market stranglehold.

[Griffins]

Other than a head start, I'm still puzzled why SGC's registry lags so far behind PSA's in participation. Certainly it's in part due to availability, but the gap is so huge it can't be just that.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Dan,

You give an example of a Chase in an 80 that is now in an PSA 6.5 after originally not meeting the minimum grade.

Did you by chance call out PSA and tell them the story behind the card and demand it go into a 6 holder?

Lee

[glchen]

The PSA registry is extremely nice, which most people on this board are probably aware. You can add many cards to your inventory, and it will let you know all of the different registries that you can have. PSA validates that only one cert belongs to one user, so that if a card is sold, you won't have the same card in registries for different users. Of course, one of the biggest things is size. It's like ebay which people hate. If you want to compete for best sets, you want to go to the place with the most competition. It's a lot better to say that you're #3 out of 30 sets that #2 out of 4 sets.

[Robextend]

I try and participate in the SGC set registry!! :)

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/usersets.aspx?user=1304

[Wesley]

Sorry about the results, Dan. I also suspect there is a bias when one company reviews a card that has been slabbed by a competitor. And this works also when crossing SGC card to PSA as well. After hearing this story, I don't think I would ever try to cross without noting a minimum grade.

[E93]

PSA never crosses them over due to minimum grade.

......

Now I am going to rip everyone of them out of their SGC holders and resubmit them to PSA raw. I will never use SGC again it is clear to me that they were biased on the grades due to them being in PSA holders just like PSA does to their holders.


Dan,
I know this sucks and I feel bad for your situation. It is impossible for any of us here to pass judgement without seeing the cards.

I am not clear here why you are willing to give PSA a pass on doing exactly what pissed you off about what you *think* SGC did. You are going to give all your business to PSA when, according to you, they do the exact same thing.

I use both SGC and PSA . My experience on crossovers has been that SGC is generally more fair. I can't remember PSA ever crossing anything over at the same level.
JimB

[tbob]

Dan- I think it's a damn shame. Barry is right when he says he wishes all grading companies use the same criteria, but they don't. Ask Steve M., or Peter T. or myself about how SGC brutalizes 1911 and 1912 Zeenuts with tiny writing on the blank backs, having PSA 5 and 6 MKs go to SGC 20 and 10, it's just the way they grade. Since I like the SGC holders better for the way cards fit and display and now that SGC is catching up in many collector's minds with the value of pre-war cards in their holders, I use SGC exclusively. The caveat is the expensive card in a PSA holder that you would like to get in to a SGC holder but you fear the drop in grade because of a mark on the back or a tiny bit of back paper loss which will cause the grade to plummet. It's a quandry.
The two suggestions made above which I feel are most worthwhile:
1) ALWAYS use minimum grades for a crossover and/or
2) NEVER submit anything to either PSA or SGC in a holder from another company, always break it out and submit it raw if you truly want that company's holder on it.
As Quan can tell you, years ago I was in the "Frank" camp and hated having cards slabbed at all but for protection purposes, display purposes and because of the card is worth much more slabbed, I gave in. I have 100% of my caramel cards slabbed and about 70% of my tobacco cards.
One last note on GAI slabbed cards- I don't use them anymore but I have some beautiful caramels slabbed in GAI holders and properly graded because at one time they were very good at correctly grading cards. I crossed some over and 50% stayed the same, 25% bumped up slightly, 25% bumped down slightly or more. I think the GAI slabbed cards from 2000-2005 get a bum rap, but that's just my personal opinion. :)

[botn]

Other than a head start, I'm still puzzled why SGC's registry lags so far behind PSA's in participation. Certainly it's in part due to availability, but the gap is so huge it can't be just that.

PSA has always dominated the market in sheer volume of cards graded and collectors and dealers supporting them. That is where everyone is perceived to be. The SGC registry does have some awesome sets registered and most likely those sets consists of cards which are more accurately graded.

I have had to use PSA because that is what is easier for me to sell.

[Bosox Blair]

Dan,
I know this sucks and I feel bad for your situation. It is impossible for any of us here to pass judgement without seeing the cards.

I am not clear here why you are willing to give PSA a pass on doing exactly what pissed you off about what you *think* SGC did. You are going to give all your business to PSA when, according to you, they do the exact same thing.



These are exactly my thoughts. Neither company is any worse than the other for this debacle.

The only thing I take from this thread is further evidence that the whole "crossover" thing is a fool's game.

It is for people who care more about holders than the cards in them. And people who care way too much about Registry standing.

Cheers,
Blair

[dancollins]

Let me start by saying I think many posters have some valid points and I think some are just in another world.

I really should have specified a minumum grade so I will take credit there. I think Brian from SGC made me feel really comfortable about it so I was not worried. Many posters said lets see some examples and they are right. Here are some examples you be the judge......

Now Severoid stayed a 3 while Wilie was downgraded to a 3

How does that make any sense?

Severoid is clearly a 3 and Wilie in my opinion is clearly vg-ex

[Robextend]

Dan,

I think the Wilie card is really a toss up at best. I am looking at the bottom left and right corners and they might be too beat up for an SGC 50. Nevertheless, sweet card, and I wouldn't argue if it was an SGC 40 or 50.

Rob

[dancollins]

Here are four more examples that were all taken down one full grade

Ball to a 4
McLean to a 4
Coulson to a 4
Danforth to a 3

You Judge

[T206Collector]

The 5s that became 4s probably have a solitary wrinkle or back crease. On the McLean specifically, what is going on on the left border on the reverse scan?

[barrysloate]

The Wilie is a strong 3, weak 4.

The Severoid is a 3 but not a great one...maybe 2.5 is more accurate.

[barrysloate]

In the next group of 4 they don't look too strictly graded. Best as I can see, the two 5's at the top have some corner fraying, and shouldn't have been 5's. The two below also look a little weak for their grade.

It's the difference between strict grading and lax grading. Why should each company have different standards? Makes no sense to me.

[rhettyeakley]

I have said it on multiple occasions that IMO all the grading companies are biased when they are grading cards previously graded by other companies.

If SGC had crossed or bumped the vast majority of these cards they are in essense saying "wow, PSA did a great conservative job gradng these cards the first time!" but by downgrading them all they are in essense saying "look at what a crappy job PSA did when they originally graded these, I hope you like that they overgraded them all". The same experience happens when the PSA and SGC names are switched as well. It isn't in the grading companies best interest to confrim what a great company their competitors are. The idea that bias exists in these situations is almost undeniable to me based on experience.

On multiple occassions a card submitted in a GAI holder has been rejected only to be resubmitted raw and then get the numerical grade...bias exists!

-Rhett

[T206Collector]

Why should each company have different standards? Makes no sense to me.

I think the best we can hope for is consistency within a company within a card issue. So, e.g., SGC grades T206 cards so much more consistently than PSA that it isn't even funny. That is why I stick with them.

[T206Collector]

Wilie in my opinion is clearly vg-ex

How can you say that if the damage on the lower right is so significant as to remove the corner of the box containing the name/team?

[dancollins]

Another member posted a picture of the PSA 5 Matty that didn't cross which is a 5 all day long.

This was not meant to turn into a PSA vs SGC thing but many people are doing so. I guees it simply comes down to everyones individual experience with either grading company, mine is definitely now PSA over SGC. With that said believe me I have many issues with PSA grading. Here are 2 cards the PSA one I still own and the other Cobb in the SGC holder I just sold. I see a clear difference in their grading favoring PSA by far in this one. Also here is a link to my T206 registry with a lot of the images and I think my T206 set is graded pretty correctly.

http://www.psacard.com/setregistry/publishedset.aspx?s=2289

[dancollins]

Another point I want to make is that while going through these cards when I got them back I do agree that some of them deserved to be downgraded but not 52. That is my problem and the point many is missing. 52 cards out of 103 is a bit over the top and it does clearly show bias. I ask the people that think SGC does no wrong to step back for a moment and see that they have inconsistent grading as well. Since many people talked so highly of SGC I figured I would give them a shot and it didn't work out for me. Now they will never get a hold of my T206's and T205's.

The real lessons learned is grading companies do not like giving crossovers and put a minimum grade on your submissions.

[smtjoy]

Thanks for the scans, my 2 cents-

Wilie- way too much corner damage for a 4, at best a 40/3
Severoid- ouch I think they both got it wrong looks like a 2.5 at best or most likely 30/2
Ball- I think this one is closer to a 5 than a 4 and would agree with PSA
McLean- too much corner wear, correct at a 40/3
Coulson- same as McLean 40/3
Danforth- very borderline, weak 4, strong 3, tossup

On crossovers I have sent over 250 1940 and older PSA cards to SGC for crossover and I have had about 25% get lower grades, while your percentage was higher I dont think off the charts from your couple scans shown.

[Robextend]

I have over 800 cards slabbed by SGC and I agree no grading company is perfect. I have had very few disagreements out of all those cards. Many times when I expect a higher grade then I get, it is often me who missed something. One thing about SGC is that you can always reach out to them and have them explain it.

I do use the crossover service, and when I do, I pretty much know what to expect based on SGCs grading methods.

Again I am sorry it didn't work out for you, but many times you need to examine the card beyond the slab it is in. In the examples you have shown so far, a good argument can be made for downgrades.

Rob

[T206Collector]

The real lessons learned is grading companies do not like giving crossovers and put a minimum grade on your submissions.

If you learned that SGC does not like giving crossovers you have shown no objective evidence in support of this lesson.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Dan,

You have made a few replies since I posted and others have pointed out the grading company differences.

But the underlying question to me is would you have posted or complained to PSA is the situation was reversed.

The cards you have all posted to me are either tweeners or definately should have been down graded.

I currently have about a dozen PSA 5s that have small creases in them. They will stay in PSA holders because SGC would not give them an EX and may even drop to VG with them.

Why not show the cards that got up grades not much talk from you about them.

Lee

[nolemmings]

Most of what I would like to say has already been covered, and I have no problem with what SGC did here. I would be upset if there was some wink and an a nod deal where larger submitters or those friendly with the SGC echelon get bumps on that basis. Let the cards stand or fall by themselves.

I would agree with Scott--only one of the cards shown looks harshly graded, and I'm going only on the basis of a scan that might not reveal everything.

While the bias thing might have some visceral appeal, it makes little business sense. SGC has to know it runs the risk of losing customers by downgrading many of their crossovers, who are unlikely to be pleased with such result. Moreover, it would be far easier to just take a batch of 100 cards and give them a straight cross with no real examination. It's not hard for me to imagine a blurry-eyed grader at the end of the day seeing an opportunity to cross 100 off his to-do list in about ninety seconds by just picking 5 to bump, four to downgrade and passing the buck on the rest. Who's going to question, or really even be upset? The fact that they changed grades on so many at least suggests to me that they took the time to look at each card.

Next, what is the point of "they lowered it by a full grade". Of course they did--they have no half grades under 60 that could apply. If it's not worthy of a strict cross, that's what happens. Either request min grade or roll the dice.

Finally, this whole notion in the original post that you could "live with" 10-15 cards being lowered, but now your collection is devalued by "thousands" is bogus to me. If the cards truly are 5s and you want them in SGC holders, crack them out and submit them raw. They will come back 5s and you'll be out 52x the grading fee of $6 or $7. No devaluation, no "bias". Of course, if they are accurately graded at less than 5, then why blame SGC? If the number on the holder is so damn important, send them to PSA for 52x their grading fee--again, you will not be out thousands and your faith in humanity will be restored.

[barrysloate]

This whole concept of graders having a bias when they see a card holdered by their competition is very troubling to me, assuming it is true.

Are they grading the card you submit to them, or are they playing politics? If it's the latter, then they are not doing their job, which is to grade cards, period.

[Orioles1954]

Of the last ten cards I crossed over from PSA to SGC (all 1933 Delong or Tattoo Orbit) the results were.....

4 came back higher in a SGC holder
4 came back the same in a SGC holder
2 were retuned because they didn't meet the minimum grade.

When dealing with a grading company, it's virtually impossible to have exact, 100% robotic results time after time after time. The sheer volume they deal with and that pesky human factor won't allow it. I grade hundreds and hundreds of cards a day at my job. I like to think I'm very consistent and one of the best in the business. However, there are times on a day to day basis where there is a slight variance. I think it's unreasonable to expect a complete, scientific approach to grading....it is what it is. For my money, I collect SGC.

[egbeachley]

52 cards out of 103 is a bit over the top and it does clearly show bias.

Or it clearly shows original overgrading.

[T206Collector]

What Nolemmings said is completely spot on.

[botn]

This whole concept of graders having a bias when they see a card holdered by their competition is very troubling to me, assuming it is true.

Are they grading the card you submit to them, or are they playing politics? If it's the latter, then they are not doing their job, which is to grade cards, period.

The same "bias" occurs when you review SGC graded material with SGC and PSA material with PSA. Most of the time you will not get the desired result of a bump. So do we conclude the submitter thinks his/her cards are nicer than than they are or do the graders get influenced by the number of the flip and hesitate to change the grade?

[Orioles1954]

When I attempt a *bump* at SGC, I often include a short and honest note about why I feel that particular card should be graded higher than it is. More often than not, it works.

[rhettyeakley]

I disagree w/ the notion that bias does not come into play when grading a previously graded card as I don't think it is bad for business in the long run. I'm not surprised by the reaction on this board in regard to their quickness to agree w/ what SGC does, even I find myself more in agreement w/ SGC on cards than PSA. It is clear that this board will never agree w/ PSA on almost anything so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Ask those that are PSA apologists and they will have just as many stories of PSA wholesale rejecting SGC cards to cross over--so it goes both ways.

However, I have seen it done too many times to disregard it as fallacy.

[Orioles1954]

Rhett,

That's why pliers and screwdrivers were invented.

[dancollins]

Thank you Rhett that is the point I have been trying to make.

[rhettyeakley]

James, I kid you not I can crack a PSA or SGC slab in 6.8 seconds flat (I had my wife time me!) so I totally understand. Ironically, those GAI slabs are tough SOB's in relation (and don't even get me started on the Beckett ones!).

[T206Collector]

Ask those that are PSA apologists and they will have just as many stories of PSA wholesale rejecting SGC cards to cross over--so it goes both ways.

However, I have seen it done too many times to disregard it as fallacy.

What I am looking for is evidence of a card submitted in an SGC holder that PSA graded higher than the SGC grade. SGC routinely upgrades PSA cards, where warranted. Anyone have any examples of a PSA upgrade from an SGC card that was submitted for a crossover?

[calvindog]

I once had a common 1956 Topps card in an SGC 86 holder which crossed to a PSA 8. Probably a $20 card. And it was the only upgrade I've ever gotten from PSA.

[Neal]

"Usually PSA is much more strict on its grades than SGC especially with T206."

This is just completely wrong. I once attempted a 40 T206 PSA cross over of PSA 4, 5 and 6 graded T206 cards and only 30 came back graded by SGC. (Of course, I put a minimum grade -- PSA is notorious for overgrading pre-war cards.) I could also give you countless examples/stories of PSA 5 graded T206 cards with wrinkles that SGC would never cross over. SGC is somewhat more lenient when it comes to moderate corner rounding and centering, but otherwise is the stricter company with respect to creasing, wrinkles, paper loss, glue residue, etc.

Your failure to put a minimum grade was a catastrophic mistake and the blame here should not be shifted to SGC. The fact that they have signaled a willingness to work with you on a group of them only confirms that their customer service is second to none.

Finally, the below T206 Cobb was submitted to SGC by me for a crossover. I submitted it in its PSA 4 case, with a "Min. 50" notation. SGC gave it a 60, which I always felt was the right grade. By doing so, they have affirmed for me that I need not crack my PSA cards out before submitted for crossovers.

<table style="width:auto;"><tr><td><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/c8iq6qseG7GwMm1-VyRt0g?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Ys7fw31kTDs/Rouvek_nEPI/AAAAAAAAAkU/hJIgcS4Lv4w/s800/CobbBatOnShoulderSGC60.JPG" /></a></td></tr><tr><td style="font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:11px; text-align:right">From <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/pmifsud3d/SGCGradedCards?feat=embedwebsite">SGC Graded Cards</a></td></tr></table>

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!

[T206Collector]

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!

That will be a PSA 4 every day of the week because of the corner rounding, but I have always felt (i.e., pre-PSA/SGC world) that a card like my Cobb is an EX, even with the slightly rounded corners, because it is otherwise clean, has no wrinkles, etc. But I know a lot of folks who collect 33 Goudeys in EX 5 condition do not chase the SGC 60s because they find the corners are often too soft from SGC.

But the point is, know your grader's standards before you dump a few hundred/thousand dollars to have your collection graded by them. Then you won't be surprised by the grades.

I've had SGC grade over 500 of my raw T206 cards over the past decade. Maybe once did I have to go back to them and suggest they under-graded a card. They get it right, folks, with a strong degree of consistency. But the only way you would know that is if you spent the time sending cards in, analyzing the grades, talking to the SGC folk, etc.

[Peter_Spaeth]

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!

I personally would grade it VG EX+ but it does not offend me to call it EX. SGC will grade T206s with even more corner wear EX though, and that bothers me.

[dancollins]

What I am looking for is evidence of a card submitted in an SGC holder that PSA graded higher than the SGC grade. SGC routinely upgrades PSA cards, where warranted. Anyone have any examples of a PSA upgrade from an SGC card that was submitted for a crossover?

I sure do here i s a card that was an SGC 70 I do not have the original scan... Jerry Totino might because I purchased it from him sent it to PSA for a crossover and it was bumped to a 6

[dancollins]

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!

I agree PSA had it right, maybe a 4.5 at best but nice Cobb

[Wesley]

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!



I agree. I didn't think either PSA or SGC awarded EX grades for corners rounded to that extent.

[ethicsprof]

sorry to hear about the troubles, Dan.

i must say that every time i've spoken with SGC's customer service, things have worked out well.

best,

barry

[T206Collector]

I agree. I didn't think either PSA or SGC awarded EX grades for corners rounded to that extent.

SGC will. My past set had a number of examples of this. The corners have to get worn to my Bender to merit an SGC 50:

<table style="width:auto;"><tr><td><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/T5c32Hn0DzJcPoL6fnzHug?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Ys7fw31kTDs/RouveE_nEKI/AAAAAAAAAjs/nFVjKs4qsw0/s800/Bender%20Portrait%20SGC%2050.JPG" /></a></td></tr><tr><td style="font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:11px; text-align:right">From <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/pmifsud3d/SGCGradedCards?feat=embedwebsite">SGC Graded Cards</a></td></tr></table>

[dancollins]

T206 Collector you should go work for SGC or buy stock in their company you defend them like someone would their Mother or Girlfriend :D

[tbob]

I've seen cards from both companies with corner problems but otherwise nice getting PSA 5 or SGC 60 grades. I just hate that SGC is death on any kind of backwriting no matter how small (even on blank backs). Maybe PSA has the right idea when they grade PSA 6 MK instead of the grade tumbling to an SGC 10 or 20. Just venting... :rolleyes:

[dancollins]

I've seen cards from both companies with corner problems but otherwise nice getting PSA 5 or SGC 60 grades. I just hate that SGC is death on any kind of backwriting no matter how small (even on blank backs). Maybe PSA has the right idea when they grade PSA 6 MK instead of the grade tumbling to an SGC 10 or 20. Just venting... :rolleyes:

They really hammer Old Judges

[Peter_Spaeth]

Similar to Bender?

[Robextend]

T206 Collector you should go work for SGC or buy stock in their company you defend them like someone would their Mother or Girlfriend :D

In all fairness when someone starts a thread with the title, "Very Very Disgusted with SGC - Beware" you have to expect a reaction. I am also a believer in SGC, however I feel objective and when they get it wrong I will say it. I don't think your issue warrants a rant matched by the thread title.

[dancollins]

Similar to Bender?

That card is definitely vg-ex look at the corner wear. No way in the world that card is EX

Nice looking but not an EX

[dancollins]

In all fairness when someone starts a thread with the title, "Very Very Disgusted with SGC - Beware" you have to expect a reaction. I am also a believer in SGC, however I feel objective and when they get it wrong I will say it. I don't think your issue warrants a rant matched by the thread title.

Well Rob we all have opinions thanks for yours!!!

[jbsports33]

I just had some cards graded as well and yes SGC can be tough, but you have to understand both PSA and SGC kind a have a different perspective with grading cards - I still deal with both and for the most part no issues. I would love to get better grades and sometimes I feel SGC maybe off a bit, but I still accept the fact they look at way more cards then me!

Jimmy

[T206Collector]

T206 Collector you should go work for SGC or buy stock in their company you defend them like someone would their Mother or Girlfriend :D

I know. I probably should.

I used to have a lot of value tied up in SGC. Putting aside my autographed pre-war cards, I only have a couple dozen SGC graded cards any more. I have about 200 raw T206 cards.

But having "been there" and "done that" I still find it surprising that people "follow the leader" to PSA. It only took me a couple of years of really bad customer service and inconsistent T206 grading to make a clean break.

You ought to have a sit down with the SGC folk at your local card show. Get to know them. They are really great people, very responsive to customer issues.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Another grade I don't agree with. The point is, both companies grade differently, despite the superficial similarity in numbering.

[dancollins]

I was furious this morning and I am glad I posted because some of these posts were so comical they actually put me in a good mood!!! :D


The funny thing is that if I would have sent 105 T207's to PSA that were in SGC holders for crossover and the same result happened I guarantee many of these posts would be much different. People would be saying see I told you PSA sucks... Here is my real opinion I think SGC and PSA both suck. Unfortunately for our hobby cards are worth more in the holders. Some posters are saying well who cares what they are graded they are the same great cards. That is a line of crap, whether you want to admit it or not collecting these cards are also an investment with the money they cost, so in an industry dominated by "grading" it absolutely matters. I used to be 100% anti grading.

[T206Collector]

Similar to Bender?

That Lajoie actually looks like the one I had in my collection -- and may very well be. In any event, no -- the Bender is missing an entire corner (top left), while the Lajoie has a bit more in terms of corner definition on all four. There is, obviously, no black line -- and I had an SGC 60 Schreck that looked a lot more like my Bender and used to get me a little worked up.

[FUBAR]

my opinion on re-slabbing is that i wouldn't do it, i don't care whose slab it is in as long as it is one of the big three. To each their own, but it seems a little narcissistic!

Dan

While i agree it sucks, but "ya roll tha dice, ya takes your chances" with getting a re-grade. When something is subjective like grading, you have to accept the consequences.

Point is, you still have great cards.

[calvindog]

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/3084954078/" title="1908 Detroit Free Press PC 773-4 by calvindog65, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/3084954078_91616db3e7_o.jpg" width="475" height="882" alt="1908 Detroit Free Press PC 773-4" /></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/4581299311/" title="1911-14 Martens Bakery D304 (No Team) by calvindog65, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4581299311_df6170edc6_o.jpg" width="900" height="761" alt="1911-14 Martens Bakery D304 (No Team)" /></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/3210097170/" title="1911-14 General Baking D304 (No Team) by calvindog65, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3449/3210097170_3bac820a2f_o.jpg" width="900" height="735" alt="1911-14 General Baking D304 (No Team)" /></a>

[jcmtiger]

Here is a vg-ex Cobb, compare to the ex Cobb.

Joe

[jcmtiger]

How many think this card is overgraded?

Joe

[T206Collector]

I used to be 100% anti grading.

And I used to be 100% pro PSA. You can probably do some archival searches on here from a 6 or 7 years ago where I was trumpeting the virtues of PSA. But then I learned the differences between the two companies and how they saw T206 cards and I had my whole collection crossed over to SGC -- with eyes wide open.

[barrysloate]

No question Dan that the hobby lives and dies by grading. Too bad it evolved that way, but that's the way it is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And I used to be 100% pro PSA. You can probably do some archival searches on here from a 6 or 7 years ago where I was trumpeting the virtues of PSA.

Probably because you owned CLCT stock. :D:D

[barrysloate]

Jeff- that D304 Martens Hal Chase isn't even close to a 3. It's not even a nice 2. But it's a beautiful 1!:)

Joe- that N172 Brouthers looks more like a 6.

[dancollins]

Here is one more example this is my Plank that I purchased in last years REA auction..... SGC had this one wrong I crossed it over to PSA and excepted the downgrade and the image will show you why. I don't feel it hurt the value at all a Plank is a Plank

[dancollins]

Here is a vg-ex Cobb, compare to the ex Cobb.

Joe

That Cobb should be a 5+++

[Tcards-Please]

Dan,

Did you crack out the cards that received a bump from SGC or are they staying in their slab?

On a side note, it would be nice if SGC could adjust the pop report since those cards do not reside in the slab. Unless Dan returns the flips, I'm not sure how that would happen though.

r/
Frank

[calvindog]

I'm missing Joe P. right about now.

[dancollins]

I popped all of them including the ones that were bumped. Its all or nothing with me!!! I unfortunately prefer a set to be graded all by one company.

[barrysloate]

Dan- in the case of the Plank, the 20 it got from SGC is an intermediate grade that PSA doesn't have. It's equal to a 1.5. PSA couldn't give it a 2, so it had no choice but to give it a 1. A 1.5 seems reasonable to me. It's beat up but still has decent eye appeal and no major problems other than wear.

[dancollins]

By the way the pop reports are off beyond belief. Just from crossovers alone they are way off. Its not like SGC alerted PSA that I crossed over 105 cards.

[dancollins]

Who is Joe P ?

[wonkaticket]

If I took these grades seriously I would be way more bald than I already am...:)

Collect the things inside not the things holding them and you will save your sanity...try and make sense of this grading game and you will lose your mind.

Cheers,

John

P.S. Paul please send in my Cobb this week... :)

[wonkaticket]

I'm missing Joe P. right about now.

Well said, LOL Joe would have loved this one.

[sox1903wschamp]

Who is Joe P ?

Probably this threads worst nightmare :). RIP Joe!

[Jacklitsch]

Dan says:

"I sure do here is a card that was an SGC 70 I do not have the original scan... Jerry Totino might because I purchased it from him sent it to PSA for a crossover and it was bumped to a 6"

Was this before or after PSA instituted half grades?

If before the only choice PSA had was a 5 or a 6. Card clearly doesn't deserve a 5 so PSA had to grade it a 6. To do otherwise would have been evidence of its bias.

[Anthony S.]

Who is Joe P ?

Joe Palaez.

[4815162342]

Dan- in the case of the Plank, the 20 it got from SGC is an intermediate grade that PSA doesn't have. It's equal to a 1.5. PSA couldn't give it a 2, so it had no choice but to give it a 1. A 1.5 seems reasonable to me. It's beat up but still has decent eye appeal and no major problems other than wear.

PSA has a 1.5 grade.

[dancollins]

Dan says:

"I sure do here is a card that was an SGC 70 I do not have the original scan... Jerry Totino might because I purchased it from him sent it to PSA for a crossover and it was bumped to a 6"

Was this before or after PSA instituted half grades?

If before the only choice PSA had was a 5 or a 6. Card clearly doesn't deserve a 5 so PSA had to grade it a 6. To do otherwise would have been evidence of its bias.

It was last year after the half grades came out

[T206Collector]

...seeing front scans of PSA/SGC 1 cards that look minty mint to which people respond that the card was obviously undergraded is quickly developing into one of my Net54 pet peeves.

People -- card grading is not designed to organize cards on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of beauty or eye appeal. It is designed to capture the flaws in a card and alert potential buyers of those flaws in a way that was impossible prior to the advent of grading, i.e., to avoid me finding a back crease in my friend's 1933 Tris Speaker on the way home from a card show, when he thought the card was EX.

To be sure, people who sell their mint looking 1s for crap looking 1s prices are missing the boat. But that doesn't mean that the mint looking 1s should be graded any higher.

Buy the card -- not the holder; but use the number to help guide your purchase.

[collectbaseball]

In regards to the PSA 4 Wilie T207, why did it not receive an OC qualifier from PSA originlly? It has like 95/5 centering.

[glchen]

In all fairness when someone starts a thread with the title, "Very Very Disgusted with SGC - Beware" you have to expect a reaction. I am also a believer in SGC, however I feel objective and when they get it wrong I will say it. I don't think your issue warrants a rant matched by the thread title.

I think Dan deserves some slack here for the rant. He just lost thousands of dollars in grading and the value of his cards. If that happened to most of us, I think we'd be similarly upset. (And Dan has already admitted he should've put a minimum grade for crossover down. However, I'd still be upset if I were him. I recently got in a dispute w/ Chase bank where I lost $70 in overdraft fees because of a mistake where Chase Mortgage didn't communicate with Chase Online, and I was steaming because of that. And that was only 70 bucks!)

[dancollins]

One thing that would keep grading consistent is if the companies kept pictures of cards they graded from sets and used them as a guide when grading. That would actually help them stay more consistent.

T206Collector..... If people bought cards based on appearence instead of the grade no one would know what anything is worth. Unfortunately the grades ultimately determine the value of the cards. We all know grading is very subjective but to a point that is a cop out that bails out the grading companies. People pay money to have cards graded and therefore the grading companies owe it to the hobby, collector, and card industry to do a better job at being consistent especially when the value between grades is so substantial.

The one thing that I do like about the grading companies is they did at least set some standards as to what vg-ex and ex and so on should be. I remember back 12 years a go everything was raw and every dealer claimed everything to be way better than what the cards were.

[barrysloate]

Thanks Daryl. I still don't know all of PSA's half grades.:o

If that is the case, the card would merit a 1.5, IMO.

[dancollins]

I think Dan deserves some slack here for the rant. He just lost thousands of dollars in grading and the value of his cards. If that happened to most of us, I think we'd be similarly upset. (And Dan has already admitted he should've put a minimum grade for crossover down. However, I'd still be upset if I were him. I recently got in a dispute w/ Chase bank where I lost $70 in overdraft fees because of a mistake where Chase Mortgage didn't communicate with Chase Online, and I was steaming because of that. And that was only 70 bucks!)

thank you Gary!!!

[FUBAR]

The OJ that was posted, in my opinion, is way over graded. should be a 4, those corners were rough

[Robextend]

I think Dan deserves some slack here for the rant. He just lost thousands of dollars in grading and the value of his cards. If that happened to most of us, I think we'd be similarly upset. (And Dan has already admitted he should've put a minimum grade for crossover down. However, I'd still be upset if I were him. I recently got in a dispute w/ Chase bank where I lost $70 in overdraft fees because of a mistake where Chase Mortgage didn't communicate with Chase Online, and I was steaming because of that. And that was only 70 bucks!)

Of course I have been in situations like that as well, however I would not take it out on someone if it wasn't well deserved. From the few T207 examples I saw, I don't believe anyone should be disgusted with SGC.

The only good thing is that here is that there is a lesson learned. Always use the minimum grade method when you do not want to drop grades.

Dan - Didn't mean to sound unsympathetic., either way you still have great cards.

[calvindog]

I feel bad for Dan only in that he tried to cross cards over and it didn't work out the way he wanted -- and may have cost him money.

I feel less bad for him when he claims that SGC "ripped him off." Because SGC didn't rip him off.

[Pup6913]

I sure do here i s a card that was an SGC 70 I do not have the original scan... Jerry Totino might because I purchased it from him sent it to PSA for a crossover and it was bumped to a 6

The centering and diamond cut (look at the top) does not deserve a 6. That card seems to have been graded acurately or a bit high IMO by SGC. Looks like some cads I have that are 4's and 5's.

Crap the pic did not come with it. Refer back to post of the UZIT t206. Nice card none the less

[T206Collector]

T206Collector..... If people bought cards based on appearence instead of the grade no one would know what anything is worth. Unfortunately the grades ultimately determine the value of the cards. We all know grading is very subjective but to a point that is a cop out that bails out the grading companies.

Um... I buy cards based on grade and eye appeal. If you buy cards purely on grade then you are lucky because you'll never have to look at a scan again.

People pay money to have cards graded and therefore the grading companies owe it to the hobby, collector, and card industry to do a better job at being consistent especially when the value between grades is so substantial.

You know who agrees with this? Everyone at SGC.

The one thing that I do like about the grading companies is they did at least set some standards as to what vg-ex and ex and so on should be. I remember back 12 years a go everything was raw and every dealer claimed everything to be way better than what the cards were.

That's really the point of 3rd party grading -- to help identify the hidden flaws so that dealers can no longer claim that cards are higher than they really are.

[GasHouseGang]

This whole thing seems so silly when you read it. If you want a card to cross then don't submit it in another company's holder. If you want to get the proper grade you are hoping for you have to include a little note and state why you believe your card deserves a certain grade. :rolleyes: COME ON! These companies are supposed to be grading cards as non biased third parties. I realize they provide a service, but should you be able to complain and then they will change the grade? If so, then the system is broken and these companies are not objective 3rd parties!

[calvindog]

Agree, completely. Collectors seem to think that if they just pay their bills to third party graders or -- gasp! -- they send them lots of cards, then all objectivity should be tossed out the window when the grades are handed out. If you want to put your own grades on your own cards I'd suggest starting your own third party grader; or perhaps submit your cards to PRO.

[tinkereversandme]

I would like to see those same cards submitted to PSA, ungraded to see what grades would return. I wonder what level of consistency there is a second time around.

As a gambler, I recognize one in the poster (who didn't get a minimum, and dared to crossover), I'm sorry (even though I am a pro-SGC guy) this happened but I never understood the purpose of crossing over.

Also, as one poster mentioned. What would the point of sending them back in to SGC if they can't get it right the first time? Cards sent in the same condition don't get better by flight.

Larry

[steve B]

No, the cards wouldn't get any better, but as long as it's people doing the grading the grading will be inconsistent.

Maybe the grader didn't sleep well or argued with his wife,(Or she argued with her husband) and wasn't in a good mood.

Or maybe there was a special card going through that day and he didn't get the assignment.....

Borderline cases will seem better or worse depending on someones mood, or merely on different perceptions different days. Try taking a stack of maybe 150 cheap cards like late 70's in less than near mint. Now go through them and pick out the nicer ones. make two piles, the vg-ex and the ex. Leave them somewhere for a couple days, and sort them again. I'll bet you end up with a few that move from one stack to the other. For more fun try it at different times of the day. Say maybe right after a nice lunch and at 4:30.

Getting it 100% consistent is pretty hard And the workload can't make it any easier. I tried going through some fairly modern cards looking for the absolute best ones. 81 topps, looking at centering and corners mostly. I found I got sloppy after 3-400 cards and pretty hopeless after only 600.

And all that is why they're willing to do reviews

Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

I've only used the crossover service with SGC a couple of times,and I had sent GAI slabbed cards to them.I did state that if they wouldn't get the same grade or higher,to just send 'em back.One came back same grade,others got bumped a grade higher,to my suprise.

I buy cards in SGC,PSA,and BVG holders.In doing this,I have noticed that the PSA graded cards seem inconsistent-some seem graded accurately,others clearly overgraded.For this reason,I will never try to cross my PSA to SGC.And with BVG,I actually feel the cards that I have that they've graded seem right on the money.

With all that being said,I'm sorry you had a bad experience with all of this,and I hope you find a way to work it out.

Sincerely,Clayton

[BCauley]

I've thought about crossing over but I'm too lazy and never get around to sending in anything. I do have some stuff waiting for a trip to SGC, some of which was taken out of a PSA slab as soon as I got the card.

I use the grade up top by the company pretty much as a guide. When I look at an auction or listing on here, I'll see the grade in the title and I have a general idea as to what it will look like. However, it all comes down to eye appeal for me. If I see a PSA 3 that in my eyes looks better than a 4, that's great. I'm taking the one that looks best to me and the one I want in my collection.

Professional grading is not an exact science. Maybe the grader hadn't had their cup of coffee yet in the AM or maybe it's getting late in the PM on a Friday. Graders are human. I only look to be happy with the card and to heck with what the flip says.

[jp1216]

My last SGC sub included about 10 crossovers. One GAI got bumped up, Both BVGs got a bump up and out of 7 PSAs (0 got bumped up, 3 got bumped down, and 4 crossed).

[cfc1909]

Joe P. is Joe Pelaez and one of the best friends I ever had-I miss him terribly.


about your cards-SGC grades the cards to their standard whether they are in PSA slabs or raw. They will work with you if you talk to them -your buisness is important to them.
I hope this works out for you

[Bridwell]

Hi Dan,

Just got home so missed all the 'exciting' discussions on this. Sorry for your bad experience. As you know, I also have a T206 PSA Registry set and am close to a T207 PSA set.

This year I've bought over 60 SGC T207's and sent them to PSA. I decided to crack all of them out of the SGC cases first. I've seen the bias that both PSA and SGC have on crossovers. They each want to appear to be tougher than the other, so are super tough on crossovers. If you crack the cases first, then the grades will come back better I believe.

My result was 25% were downgraded by PSA, 25% upgraded by PSA and 50% the same. One big problem with T207's is the glossy surface, that is prone to light cracking. Sometimes a grader grades down because of that and sometimes they don't. T207's have a lot of minor flaws compared to T206's so it's tougher to get anything higher than a 5 (or 60).

Ron R

[smtjoy]

One thing Dan, since your cards are going back to PSA I am hoping you will post scans of the 6 cards you posted to see how they are graded this go around. Good luck and I think it should be interesting.

I am not in the camp that follows "the grades ultimately determine the value of the cards" or I would not have paid double for the SGC 30 vs the 40 shown below. I buy the card not the holder, in this case I could not pass on a 30 with a NM front with a little bit of paper loss on the back even at twice the price of the 40. To each his own thou.

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n182/smtjoy/Vintage%20Cards/E98Clarke40.jpghttp://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n182/smtjoy/Vintage%20Cards/E98ClarkeBlue30.jpg

[Abravefan11]

These are the only two cards I have submitted for cross and I did so because I can't stand the way the BVG holder looks. I submitted both to SGC with a minimum grade of SGC 60. One came back an SGC 60 and the other SGC 70.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/Syl1SuGTZJI/AAAAAAAAAlE/1t7cPrlXkt8/s576/T206%20Frank%20Bowerman%20SC350%2030.jpg
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/Syl1-16ZL5I/AAAAAAAAAlI/LfTxU_zmoLM/s576/T206%20Peaches%20Graham%20Polar%20Bear.jpg

[frohme]

Sorry for your bad experience, Dan,

I've submitted only a few handfuls more (raw) T207s to SGC over the last 4 years combined than your recent crossover hassle. My experiences are mostly in line with previous posters regarding different aspects of their grading standards - especially SGC's harshness for tiny marks and glue residue on the back. It is a shame that the variance exists, but so be it.

Like Ron R, I've just caught up on the thread, and while he and I differ on choice of grading company, I think we'd probably agree on approach with each based on our individual experiences. Based on previous board discussions, I decided to crack out the few cards I wanted moved to SGC from various TPGs before sending in for grading - I had generally positive results.

Those involved in our (offline) pre-REA discussions of some of the grades on the high-grade T207 lots know my feelings about the relatively loose standards for the grades on some of those 7's and 8's. I understand those were graded much earlier in life - they'd not pass muster at those levels today ... IMO. Ironically, I expect to be finding out just how the crossover experience is, though, as I was fortunate to be in with others on one of those lots and have now completed the T207 set (sans Lewis no-emblem). The final card/cards should be the highlight of the my entire set, but I just "know" I'll be disappointed with that experience ... and I should just leave well enough alone and enjoy the set as-is.

Again - I wish your experience had been better and I'll take full care when submitting the impending crossover. Whoever it was that suggested a "cursory review before even beginning the grading" was the big takeaway from this thread for me - great approach.

--
Mike

[mark evans]

In my view, this thread demonstrates the subjectivity in the very nature of grading. While improvements could probably be made to improve consistency within and among third-party grading services, in the end the subjectivity simply cannot be avoided.

Nevertheless, I believe the hobby is far better off for the grading companies, at least those that are generally trusted, as they, in conjunction with the internet, greatly facilitate long-distance transactions.

The problem, as I see it, is that too much value is ascribed to differences in grades.

[tbob]

Scott- I remember that E98 blue Clarke well :( It's cards like this with beautiful fronts and a tiny bit of back paper loss which are always welcome in my collection. Very nice pickup and a great card.

[dancollins]

great posts!!!

[Fred]

Wow, that's a lot of posts for this thread. I just want to know how many of the grades change after you re-submit them back to PSA, raw.

[Jantz]

Jantz get serious

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

You employ SGC to assess the condition of your cards, which they did. And when you get grades lower than what you expected, what do you do?

You make your first thread ever on the main board and blast SGC for doing exactly what you paid them to do.

Not long ago, a board member started a thread asking other members what they thought they contributed to the board.

So with this first thread of yours, what have you contributed?

By the way, I have looked at your T206 set. You are a very fortunate individual.


Jantz

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

This thread is a great example of one of the problems with our society. People doing things under their own free will but when it goes wrong they always try to find someone else to blame and don't take responsiblity for there own actions.

By the Dan you do a nice job of avoiding the questions and only acknowledge the posts that give you a little positive.

It is time to suck it up and move on, you made the decision to submit the cards to SGC under your own free will.

Lee

[Rich Klein]

Probably everyone is a bit at fault here

1) Dan for not realizing that he could ask for a minimum grade. He may never have done this before. In addition, why did he want to move these cards to SGC from PSA. I think there is little doubt that Dan is looking for a profit motive; but ultimately HE needs to take responsibility for not reading or knowing about a minimum grade request. I find myself agreeing with the Behrens brother that he is not accepting his responsibility

Having said that: the problem is "its called fine print" and Dan missed it -- man up to that and you'll get more respect from the other posters. I am, however, sympathetic to his issue - and there is nothing like seeing grades from one company drop when they go to another company (That is amongst the major companies; obviously GEM and PRO. etc, == most of us expect drops from THOSE companies if and when they cross)

2) Brian from SGC could have mentioned, although he does not need to, that there is a minimum grade caveat. It appears from some of these posts, that a quick disucssion BEFORE these cards were submitted that this whole imbroglio could have been avoided. Perhaps this could also serve as a good learning tool for Brian. (I will say that I have met Brian at Leon's dinners and he is certainly a good rep for SGC). And I know things get harried at shows, BUT sometimes taking another 30 seconds, especially with a new client to see exactly what they want, is time well spent. Better to have all the ducks in order (or whatever that horrible metaphor is) rather than have a situation like this pop up. We've all been guilty of that, but the extra 30 seconds can sometimes save you hundreds of hours on the back end

Regards
Rich

[Peter_Spaeth]

Whatever else comes out of this thread, Dan's pic of the pile of cracked SGC slabs is priceless. If third party grading ever goes down in flames, the pic would make a great epitaph.

[calvindog]

Rich, I understand that in order for everyone to feel good about what went on with Dan it is important to spread the blame around. But the only mention of crossover submissions on SGC's submission form is as follows:

Crossover Cards from other grading services are reviewed for SGC certification. The minimum grade for a crossover must be equal or less than the original grade. SGC will not accept crossover with a higher minimum grade than originally assigned. When submitting crossover you must state a minimum grade you will accept for each crossover.

How can it be considered fine print when the only mention of crossovers on the form is the above information? Regardless, what experienced collector doesn't know the details of crossovers? And isn't the above info clear enough? Should it come in audio or video form as well on the form?

Everyone here has empathy for Dan as he really got hammered due to a clearly honest mistake. But there is something to be said for the fact that Dan was handled by SGC the way any of us are when submitting cards to SGC. There were no mentions of 'special' deals which only the HOF members or high volume submitters get. Didn't that piss everyone off when we read about one board member getting special treatment when submitting his entire collection for a review at PSA?

I'm not saying that any of the third party graders are without fault -- because they all are in certain areas -- but I can't really see any blame on SGC for this one.

[Pup6913]

Whatever else comes out of this thread, Dan's pic of the pile of cracked SGC slabs is priceless. If third party grading ever goes down in flames, the pic would make a great epitaph.

Hasn't GAI already done this once, or is it twice:confused:

[Peter_Spaeth]

"When submitting crossover you must state a minimum grade you will accept for each crossover."

So how did Dan do a large submission with NO minimum grade?:confused::confused:

[Rich Klein]

Submitting a minimum grade is MANDATORY for a cross-over. Rather this is a box that has to be submitted or noted. Yes; Dan SHOULD have noted what he wanted -- but I'll also say, and I thought I read this about Michael's booth work (I could be wrong) in this thread, that a few seconds from Brian, other than accepting the order, might have saved this whole scenario.

Even Brian saying something like: "You do understand that your grades may all be lower than what they are in the PSA slabs based on what our graders see" is perfectly acceptable.

Jeff L.

I tend to agree with you on this:


If I had to put a blame percent:

Dan 90-95%; SGC 5-10%. At some point, like my original sentence said; DAN HAS to take responsibility

Regards
Rich

[barrysloate]

The best we can hope for from the grading services is consistency- both in grading cards, and how submitters are treated. Jeff did remind us about one major collector of PSA cards who resubmitted his massive collection for half grade bumps, and was literally given the royal treatment as hundreds of them got bumps and not a single one a downgrade. Everyone agreed that was simply not fair (I know anyone can resubmit for a half bump but when you give them 5000 cards you get the VIP treatment).

All that happened to Dan, as frustrating as it was to him, is that SGC gave his cards a close look and believed they were overgraded. Again, it would be nice if the criteria for grading were standard, but each service has its own view on how cards should be assessed. If there's one thing we learned from this thread it's that the crossover game is a risky one, without the proper safety nets in place.

[tedzan]

Barry......et al

Well stated Barry.... and, your prior post (#124) sums up this situation very succinctly......

"No question Dan that the hobby lives and dies by grading. Too bad it evolved that way, but that's the way it is."


BUT GUYS....it doesn't have to be this way....you have "CHOICE".

Choose to enjoy life, by returning to the age old, time-tested hobby of collecting BB cards in their natural state....

UN--freakin--GRADED


I guarantee you, you will enjoy this hobby much more....spend less $$$$$....and, even live longer :)


This message is from the handful of Net54er's that have an aversion for Graded cards....and, is posted in honor of
our departed Joe P....who would've said it better than me.

[barrysloate]

Joe P. might have said it better...but we wouldn't have understood a word of it.:)

[glynparson]

Dan you certainly picked an issue I would not have recommended for crossover to SGC. It is my experience they are much tougher on these cards T207 then PSA. These cards tend to have cracks and/or wrinkles which SGC will almost always hit you much harder for then PSA. I tend to think SGC is more lenient on corner wear across the board on mid grade T cards. The fact is there are certain issues and or flaws that SGC will grade harsher then PSA and vice versa. If you do resubmit to PSA please let us know how you do.

[tbob]

Everyone here has empathy for Dan as he really got hammered due to a clearly honest mistake. But there is something to be said for the fact that Dan was handled by SGC the way any of us are when submitting cards to SGC. There were no mentions of 'special' deals which only the HOF members or high volume submitters get. Didn't that piss everyone off when we read about one board member getting special treatment when submitting his entire collection for a review at PSA?


Jeff, you make a good point because I was one of the many who got ticked when C******* got special treatment from PSA.

[thegashousegang]

Whew - finally caught up on this thread. Nothing much to say that hasn't been mentioned already, except that if you are going to send in that many cards to be graded, how could you not have done your 'homework' beforehand...especially if money was the underlying motive.

[timn1]

"BUT GUYS....it doesn't have to be this way....you have "CHOICE".

Choose to enjoy life, by returning to the age old, time-tested hobby of collecting BB cards in their natural state....

UN--freakin--GRADED


I guarantee you, you will enjoy this hobby much more..."
______________________________

I hope I'll live longer too, but in any case, I love to crack 'em out, and I love buying 'em raw even more!

Tim

[Jacklitsch]

"Jeff, you make a good point because I was one of the many who got ticked when C******* got special treatment from PSA."

Are we not allowed to use his name or has Leon programed it in as a curse word that auto defaults to *********?


:rolleyes:

[glchen]

Whew - finally caught up on this thread. Nothing much to say that hasn't been mentioned already, except that if you are going to send in that many cards to be graded, how could you not have done your 'homework' beforehand...especially if money was the underlying motive.

I think what happened was that Dan met Brian of SGC, and Brian, in effect, said that "we'll take care of your cards." Dan, probably incorrect assumed that meant that most of the cards would crossover at the same grade, so no homework or minimum grade was needed. It was an incorrect assumption, which has obviously cost Dan thousands of dollars. As people have said, Brian might have mentioned minimum grade for crossover to Dan to avoid this, but he was under no obligation to do so. And that's how we ended up with this super-long thread.

[tedzan]

"BUT GUYS....it doesn't have to be this way....you have "CHOICE".

Choose to enjoy life, by returning to the age old, time-tested hobby of collecting BB cards in their natural state....

UN--freakin--GRADED


I guarantee you, you will enjoy this hobby much more..."
______________________________

I hope I'll live longer too, but in any case, I love to crack 'em out, and I love buying 'em raw even more!

Tim

LOVE your above, Tim. Lot's o' LOVE going on here :)

Thanks for quoting me.

P.S......Anyone want to buy 600+ cracked plastics (flips are still intact and some are labelled "6's, and even a few 8's") ? ?


TED Z

[Leon]

"Jeff, you make a good point because I was one of the many who got ticked when C******* got special treatment from PSA."

Are we not allowed to use his name or has Leon programed it in as a curse word that auto defaults to *********?


:rolleyes:

It's not a curse word. I don't even dislike the guy, Jim Crandall. He collects differently and really only collects by number, from what I remember, but to each their own. I harbor no ill feelings towards almost anyone in the hobby...except 1 rooster molestor :rolleyes:.

[rman444]

Perhaps Dan could confirm whether or not Brian mentioned anything about minimum grades when the cards were submitted?

[4815162342]

Everyone hates PSA... until it's time to sell.

[T206Collector]

Everyone hates PSA... until it's time to sell.

You forgot to add "....their 1960s Topps baseball card collection."

[tedzan]

As much as I dislike graded cards....when it is necessary to have any of my cards graded, I submit them to SGC.
Brian Dwyer, Derek Grady, Mike Goldberg and the rest of the crew at SGC are the best.
I've had a bad experience (or two) with PSA in the past and that turned me off.

I don't do crossovers, it is a risky business....and, especially when you are going from PSA to SGC.
Crossing-over graded cards to gain a slight edge (and perhaps more $$$$) is not my style.
I guess I'm just a "dinosaur" collector.

But, to each his own.


T-Rex TED

[Jacklitsch]

It's not a curse word. I don't even dislike the guy, Jim Crandall. He collects differently and really only collects by number, from what I remember, but to each their own. I harbor no ill feelings towards almost anyone in the hobby...except 1 rooster molestor :rolleyes:.

I'll see if I can beat Barry here...it's "molester".

I can't believe some of the things he posts but that's another story.

To quote my buddy Brian..."be well"

Steve

P.S. You do know my post was tongue in cheek? :cool:

[barrysloate]

Missed it Steve.:(

Being the spelling cop is a tough job...it's 24/7.

[ScottFandango]

SGC loves this thread...it perpetuates the stereotype that they are more difficult, when in fact, they seem to miss or not care about paper loss and/or pencil marks as much as PSA cares....

You would have been MUCH better served cracking them out yourself and submitting raw....there is no way SGC would grade them equal or higher, as it would be admitting they grade easier than PSA....its a pride thing

CROSSOVERS ARE A LOSING PROPOSITION...

why the grading company would take the risk of breaking out a valuable card is beyond me...you would theink they wouldnt anything to do with this service....

who knows, maybe they are rough in removing cards and now the grades are true????

[aelefson]

Hi-
Everyone should collect how they want to collect but I 100% agree with Ted Z. Raw is the only way I have ever (and will ever) collect. I have never even bought a single graded card and I hope I never do. I do understand why most folks collect graded cards (protection, authenticity, competition through the set registries) but it will never be for me.
That being said, several posters have already aired the point I wanted to make. Grading is subjective, so grades will change on resubmittal whether through another grading company or the same grading company. It is only human beings doing the grading afterall.
Yours in collecting,
Alan Elefson

[Exhibitman]

You forgot to add "....their 1960s Topps baseball card collection."


Hee, hee, thanks for the laugh this afternoon!

[HRBAKER]

I guess I'm just unlucky, SGC has never and I mean never missed paper loss or pencil marks on any of my submissions. I disagree with the assessment that they are more lax on both of those than PSA.

[Robextend]

I guess I'm just unlucky, SGC has never and I mean never missed paper loss or pencil marks on any of my submissions. I disagree with the assessment that they are more lax on both of those than PSA.

+1

[teetwoohsix]

The title of this thread should've been "I Forgot To Use The Minimum Grade Option,And Now I'm Pissed".

[T206Collector]

SGC loves this thread...it perpetuates the stereotype that they are more difficult, when in fact, they seem to miss or not care about paper loss and/or pencil marks as much as PSA cares....

You're kidding, right? You have any evidence of this? Because my experience in having my 40 PSA graded T206 cards crossed over was precisely the opposite.

You would have been MUCH better served cracking them out yourself and submitting raw....there is no way SGC would grade them equal or higher, as it would be admitting they grade easier than PSA....its a pride thing

For what possible reason would SGC would want to hammer PSA graded cards as over-graded? If they did that, most cards would not cross over and would instead still reside in PSA slabs. They would be better served crossing everything over so they could populate collections.

why the grading company would take the risk of breaking out a valuable card is beyond me...you would theink they wouldnt anything to do with this service....

That's true, unless you recognize the value in a grading company having more valuable cards in its slabs. If all the Wagners in the world were in PSA holders, SGC would clearly be motivated to cross over as many as possible. That they would try to downgrade any on purpose as a result of some purported grading standard ego misses the point -- and the primary motivation of grading companies -- entirely.

You have to assume the following:

1. SGC virtually only crosses cards over if they meet the same grade or higher in their opinion; otherwise the submitter of the card will take the card back un-crossed over.
2. SGC is primarily motivated to encapsulate as many cards in the universe as possible.
3. If SGC hammered PSA on its grades, they would not satisfy its primary motivation because 1 and 2 above would fail.

That SGC would let its purported "ego" get in the way of encapsulating as many cards in the universe as possible is a model for bankruptcy and is certainly not the way that they conduct business, in my experience.

[dancollins]

No Brian never mentioned about minimum grade but he didn't have to I am no stranger to grading. I guess though I felt comfortable submitting with him and maybe that gave me a false sense of security. At this point to be honest anymore I could care less. I might even just leave them raw now?? Except for the Lowdermilk.... As I mentioned before I do not believe either grading company is consistent by any means. Many of the posts in response to mine bails the grading companies out a little bit. SGC did lose my business however I will take some responsibility for the issue, and I don't care what anyone says there is bias and scrutiny when a grading company sees another grading company’s holder. Grading is subjective to a point but a vg-ex is a vg-ex and an ex is an ex. They need to do a better job both SGC and PSA. For the people that say SGC is consistent do you really believe that? If you do taking one look at those beautiful under graded cards that Wonkaticket posted yesterday should make you think twice.

[T206Collector]

For the people that say SGC is consistent do you really believe that? If you do taking one look at those beautiful under graded cards that Wonkaticket posted yesterday should make you think twice.

It's like you never read my responses. A beautiful sharp cornered card with no imperfections visible on the scan deserves to get a PSA 1/SGC 10 if there is a huge swatch of paper loss on the back. Even beautiful cards get hammered by grading which is exactly the point of the grading in the first place, i.e., to point out that the beautiful card has a hidden defect.

Wonka's cards are awesome for the grade, but if you had each of the SGC graded beauties in your hands and brought them to a show to discuss the grades with the good folk at SGC (who, by the way, have actually come onto Net54 today to address your complaint), you would get a consistent response just about every time. Heck, if Wonka thought the grades were inconsistent, I think he'd spend the $8 to have each of those beauties upgraded, by either SGC or PSA.

[tbob]

"Jeff, you make a good point because I was one of the many who got ticked when C******* got special treatment from PSA."

Are we not allowed to use his name or has Leon programed it in as a curse word that auto defaults to *********?


:rolleyes:

Steve- ok, rather than type "He Who Must Not Be Named," the missing letters were randall. :o

[tbob]

SGC loves this thread...it perpetuates the stereotype that they are more difficult, when in fact, they seem to miss or not care about paper loss and/or pencil marks as much as PSA cares....


Scott, I normally agree with you but I don't here. I have never had SGC miss a single spot of paper loss, no matter how tiny, or the lightest and smallest of pencil or ink markings. They are like bloodhounds in their pursuit of flaws, at least that has been my experience. I've seen PSA 5s with paper loss before but not SGC cards. At least that's been my experience.
tbob

[sox1903wschamp]

Scott, I normally agree with you but I don't here. I have never had SGC miss a single spot of paper loss, no matter how tiny, or the lightest and smallest of pencil or ink markings. They are like bloodhounds in their pursuit of flaws, at least that has been my experience. I've seen PSA 5s with paper loss before but not SGC cards. At least that's been my experience.
tbob

Piling on a bit here but I am with Bob, my experience is they (SGC) NEVER miss paper loss and I am okay with that.

[dancollins]

I just got through reading Brian's post from SGC, Brian has many great points. The one thing that I would suggest is that SGC maybe handle a large crossover like mine differently. He stated that giving a preliminary grade and calling the customer would bottle neck the operation and he is right however on a larger crossover when you are talking about thousands of dollars in cards something different should be in place. Many of you have been down right rude in your responses to me. If anyone crossed a set and received that many downgrades you would have a bad taste in your mouth no matter what grading company it was from. I have also read many comments saying well PSA over graded them to start with and they probably deserved the downgrades, but in the next sentence you here grading is subjective so my point is maybe many peoples opinion is subjective? So my take away is I didn't protect my self by putting a minimum grade on it. The only downside is if you use a registry for your sets like I do that wouldn't work either because then I would have had half and half. So all around just a crappy situation. I do think SGC should put something in place to change how they handle large crossovers because if I would have received a phone call saying hey half your cards will get downgraded I would have said leave them in their holders thanks but no thanks or at that time dug into why and received detailed info and would have not had a bad taste in my mouth.

[William Todd]

I have read the many posts on this thread with significant interest. I have a completely graded set of SGC T207's (sans Lewis no emblem) and have collected and graded them over some time. I have sympathy for what happened to Dan.

Grading is so subjective that it became the reason why I sold my T206 set in lots in REA last spring. Many cards I bought raw over the years and many I bought graded. PSA tends to bring the highest price, yet I dont really know why.

It has to be hard for the graders to detect all there is. So the buyer needs to be careful and buy the card. Baseball card collecting is quite a joy, but the grading process is all about the money.

I think SGC is a fine operation and would send any raw card to them for their expert evaluation. Crossing over is a gamble and should have a minimum grade so one isnt surprised.

[dancollins]

All in all it does show integrity on the part of SGC that they have addressed my concern on the board PSA would never have. I am not gonna run around and be an SGC hater now but I will be cautious of my moves in the future. I am glad I posted about this because I think this crossover issue received some much needed attention. No matter what anyone says I still do think there is bias in crossovers because of the competitor's holder. I have sent at least 30 to 40 SGC graded T206's to PSA for crossover in the past and had at least 80-90% of them rejected for minimum grade and now I had a similiar issue with SGC. All I ask from the grading companies is to clean that issue up so the collectors are not the one paying the price.

[calvindog]

Dan, you were pissed about what happened to you and you had a right to be; I'd have been pissed (probably more) too. You lashed out and it certainly is understandable. And for what it's worth, I also believe that there is bias when third party graders are presented with cards from their competitors. It may not be overt or even a conscious decision, but it does seem to always work out that crossovers at same grade (or higher) are in the minority.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Dan on the other thread Brian said this:

"We will never assume that a customer will accept a lower grade. Any cards that are lowered as part of the crossover service are done so because the customer has consented to it."

So did you consent?

[kcohen]

I last read this thread at about post #35. What did I miss?

[ScottFandango]

I guess I'm just unlucky, SGC has never and I mean never missed paper loss or pencil marks on any of my submissions. I disagree with the assessment that they are more lax on both of those than PSA.



i have had many SGC 10 that would only become PSA authentic, due to paper loss...

also since they dont designate pencil mark like PSA (MK qualifier) you will usually get a card to go from SGC 30 to PSA 3 MK.... A BIG DIFFERENCE

[ScottFandango]

just to make it clear, i dont think crossovers work either way

i think PSA would be just as stingy on SGC cards that someone wanted to cross...

also, most of my experience comes in low grade pre war, and there is a big difference when you include a qualifier or not (pencil marks)...

that is why i think the PSA outsells SGC in similar low grades, because you dont know if the SGC card has pencil mark or not!!!!!!

[HRBAKER]

i have had many SGC 10 that would only become PSA authentic, due to paper loss...

also since they dont designate pencil mark like PSA (MK qualifier) you will usually get a card to go from SGC 30 to PSA 3 MK.... A BIG DIFFERENCE


There is a R303 on ebay now that has paper loss on the front (it appears) and is a PSA 4! I have seen many a PSA card with paperloss graded much higher than Authentic. Maybe your unlucky too!

[dancollins]

Unfortunately I did consent because I did not specify a minimum grade. It was actually wrote on the form "any numerical grade" I guess the reason I was so pissed off and lashed out like I did is because we do all know the issues with PSA and I would have never ever ever and never have submitted a crossover to PSA without a minimum grade and I was expecting a non bias opinion from SGC and I do not feel I received one. Again when I looked through the cards that they downgraded I could see there point on several of them but there were quit a few that I did not see the grade as being accurate, and with SGC's customer service blowing PSA's away I guess in my mind I am holding SGC to a higher standard and I don't feel I received that standard. All of the grading companies have different standards in grading and I see that especially now and another thing I think most people do not realize is that each grading company may grade specific sets differently and that is my experience. No matter what by mentioning this experience may help us all and may make the grading companies at least discuss this issue internally to better themselves. Well at least SGC will, PSA probably dont even read this board.

[BCauley]

Ugh. Each day I go to work in the morning I say that when I get home that night I'm going to get stuff ready to mail out to SGC. The past few days I get on and see this thread which then reminds me that I forgot to do it again and am just too tired to be bothered with it right now. :confused:

[T206Collector]

Dan,

I give you a lot of credit for how your opinions and statements have evolved in this thread. You're cearly a smart guy that got totally "F'ed" by the system -- you thought you assumed some risk, but not this much. You're totally justified in wanting to kick someone's teeth in. I would, too. But, in the end, I think you understand that it was unfortunately your risk to assume under the circumstances. Certainly lessons to be learned by all here.

[Bridwell]

Dan had mentioned earlier that he likes to collect a registry set and have the whole set in matching holders. I do, too. The cards look great that way and they rate well on the registries. A set of half SGC and half PSA looks bad, in my opinion. I don't blame him for trusting that SGC would grade his cards fairly, and without bias. He was willing to live with some downgrades so he didn't specify minimums. I agree with Dan and others who think there was bias by SGC.

SGC and PSA act like two neighborhood kids, trying to prove one is tougher than the other.

Ron R

[T206Collector]

I agree with Dan and others who think there was bias by SGC.

SGC has no incentive to undergrade PSA cards. It would only hurt their business to do so.

[Al C.risafulli]

My feeling is that if you submit a card in a holder, you're doing it with the knowledge that the grader can't see the edges, and can't examine the card as close up as they could if the card was raw. As such, your grader might go a little more conservative.

I have no concerns that PSA or SGC are biased against one another's holders. They want the cards IN their holders - not out of them.

-Al