PDA

View Full Version : Crossovers From SGC's Perspective


spacktrack
05-19-2010, 01:46 PM
In light of the some comments made on a recent thread on this board, and the history of similar comments written and spoken throughout the hobby, we wanted to make a post outlining our feelings on crossovers. It may be a bit long, but the issue of crossovers has taken on such a life of its own that we felt it was best to spell out our feelings in detail.

First and foremost, when a customer submits crossovers to us, we enjoy the opportunity to evaluate their cards, which have already been graded by another company. Crossovers are generally one of the first chances we have at earning someone’s business. The customer is making an effort to switch their cards into our holders, and with that, it can be assumed that they will continue to purchase SGC graded cards—which supports our dealers and the secondary market. Most importantly these new customers will submit more cards for grading and hopefully participate in our Registry. Anyone in business knows how difficult it is to secure new customers so when the opportunity presents itself we do anything we can to create repeat business.

It is often said that grading companies have a bias against cards that come in already graded by another company. The people who share this belief most likely had a negative crossover experience; in other words their cards graded lower than expected or failed to cross. Admittedly we do not always get every crossover grade right, but to suggest that it is done on purpose or because of a bias goes against every principle of business. There was a time, many years ago that we could not fathom anyone sending us a PSA graded card for crossover due to their dominance in the market. Eleven years later we have customers who send in crossovers willing take lower grades if the card deserves a lower grade. Today PSA still enjoys a significantly larger percentage of the market share compared to SGC; it would not be in our best interest to push away a potential customer for a petty bias. There is also a notion that the grading companies compete to see who is tougher on grades. The argument over which company is tougher or tighter is sometimes purely speculative and more often open to interpretation. We are pretty certain that the people at PSA don’t lay awake a night thinking about our grading standards, however we can assure you that we don’t think about theirs

Our graders are grading each card on its merits. Our motives can’t be stated any clearer; we want to get as many cards into our holder as we possibly can. Prior to a crossover submission, customers often ask what the percentage of cards that successfully cross is and they are all told the same thing—we do not keep crossover statistics because we know they are meaningless. The percentage will be between 0% and 100%; there are example of each extreme and everything in between. The cards are what the cards are and the grades are what the grades are. In fact we have crossed over cards (and rejected) from companies you have never heard of as well as cards from our chief competitors. If a card meets the standards that we have outlined for a given grade, we will cross it. We will upgrade where warranted, and we will downgrade if we feel the card was originally overgraded and the customer has given us that permission. As much as we try as a grading company to avoid putting overgraded cards out into the marketplace, we also try to avoid undergraded cards leaving our office. All cards have to stand up on their own merits and we do the absolute best that we can to ensure that cards are graded accurately and consistently in accordance with our standards.

With respect to the issue of minimum grades, we ask that each customer outline his or her requirements on any crossover. As a practice, it is assumed, unless otherwise noted, that crossovers are submitted for same grade or higher. 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. It may seem bizarre to some that a customer would accept a lower grade, but they do. Often times it is simply for continuity of their collection. There are also instances where customers are familiar with our standards and know that the card has a specific flaw that will cause it to not grade out at an equal level.

Every time we evaluate a card submitted for crossover we take a number of risks. We risk that a card is damaged or a flaw is discovered that could not be seen through plastic. We risk that our findings will cause a customer not to use our services again because he or she feels we were too harsh on a card by rejecting it for minimum grade or for evidence of alteration. Some customers choose to “shoot the messenger” when we point out flaws or alterations that were missed or ignored by the original grading company. It’s a tough position to be in when delivering bad news/grades to a customer knowing that they may never use your services again. At the end of the day, we have to grade all the cards in accordance with our standards and hope that the customer sees our reasons for assigning the grades that we do and has overall confidence in our product.

Basic business principles dictate that the happiness of the customer is paramount in any business. We would not run the risk of angering customers or turning them off to our services and product by refusing to cross cards that are worthy of the grade. Can anyone on this board provide a plausible explanation why SGC or any other company in the service industry that relies on discretionary spending would risk alienating future spending and compromising goodwill by purposely doing their job poorly? The thread from yesterday and some of the posts contained within suggest just that.

We are always available to explain our grades to help customers better understand why a card graded the way it did or why it failed to cross at a certain grade. Our offers to review cards are made with the hope that they bring clarification to the process along with the potential for changes in grade if warranted. We do not keep records of why every card grades the way it did, so the only way for us to initiate a conversation about grades is to have the cards back for another look. Sometimes there are changes made to the original grade. Graders are human, and we employ multiple graders. At least two will look at every card, but when a card is sent back, generally they will all conference to see what they feel about the card as a team. More often than not, though, the review process allows us to point out flaws that are not immediately evident. Erased writing that only shows up at the right angle, a wrinkle hidden in the back of the card stock, glue residue from scrapbook removal, or corner wear that is too much to warrant a higher grade. There is always a reason why a card grades the way it does. If it’s not apparent and it’s cause for concern, all you have to do is ask.

Hopefully this helps alleviate some of the concerns and apprehensions about the crossover process. As always, please feel free to contact us at SGC to clarify anything we can about any of our services.

Sean Skeffington (x101) and Brian Dwyer (x114)
SGC - 1-800-742-9212

scottglevy
05-19-2010, 02:06 PM
Gents,

Thanks for posting SGC's perspective.

In the instance that the customer indicates that they will only accept the same or higher grade from SGC, SGC breaks a card out of the previously graded (think PSA) slab presumably because they expect to cross it and THEN realizes there was an issue that would cause the card not to grade as expected when the crackout was initiated, what happens?

Regards,
Scott

spacktrack
05-19-2010, 02:14 PM
Each case has its own set of circumstances, but we will always work with the customer to make sure they are made whole. You may remember that earlier this year, we broke a Fan Craze card out of another company's holder only to discover ball point pen was added to the surface. In that case, we graded the card Authentic, given the alteration, and made up the difference in value.

barrysloate
05-19-2010, 02:19 PM
Brian- in the example you cited, you made up the difference in value based on the other company's grading error. So in the end your company was financially penalized for their mistake. Somehow that doesn't seem right.

benjulmag
05-19-2010, 02:22 PM
Brian,

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response. I agree that it would be irrational for a business trying to attract new customers to let petty bias come in way of "calling it as you see it", and that often you bear the brunt of the "shoot the messenger" mentality. That said, based on substance of the previous thread, it would seem that maybe SGC, to minimize the prospects of future disgruntled customers, should revisit its practice of making sure customers are aware that they have the option to have the card stay in the original holder and not be downgraded. Something seems to have slipped through the cracks with the previous poster and perhaps with more attention to communication future occurrences could be avoided. Maybe one way to accomplish this is before you execute a consented downgrade, you a second time correspond with the customer to reconfirm that he/she is okay with that. Sometimes people might change their minds when they realize that such an outcome is no longer a hypothetical possibility but instead an imminent real occurrence. Also too SGC should be particularly careful not to inadvertently give a prospective customer a false impression of what to expect. I recognize that SGC is not intentionally trying to do that, but sometimes in the zeal to attract new business, poeple can say things that can be misinterpreted. I'm not saying that happened in this instance, only that you should be particularly sensitive to the issue and err on the side of overly pessimistic assessments. It's always nicer when a customer is pleasantly surprised with the results. Whenever I send things to my conservator, he always downplays what to expect. Maybe that is why I keep going back to him. :)

smtjoy
05-19-2010, 02:24 PM
That exact thing happened to me on my last sub. I have a card in a PSA holder that I had min grade 40 on. The card looked good for a 40 so was cracked out, upon futher checking the card was determined to be trimmed at the bottom.

Brian called and explained the situation and offered vouchers for the cards full value and for the card to be sent back slab auth or raw. A few days later I recieved my sub including the card in an auth holder along with my voucher. Top notch experience all the way around.

drdduet
05-19-2010, 02:26 PM
"We will upgrade where warranted, and we will downgrade if we feel the card was originally overgraded"

Maybe I'm being a little too literal here but the rest of the summary clearly tells me that a crossover card is graded by SGC and that an "upgrade" or "downgrade" is simply an indirect result of the SGC grading process. Your statement, while I don't believe it meant to be, sounds as if the upgrade or downgrade is the primary objective of SGC.

Regardless, the message I received is that SGC will grade the card based on SGC standards and quality regardless of what it is in or where it comes from. An upgrade or downgrade is an indirect result.

Thank you Brian for your summary.

barrysloate
05-19-2010, 02:26 PM
That's tremendous customer service that SGC provides, but again, they are paying out of pocket for PSA's mistake. That's brutal.

kmac32
05-19-2010, 02:26 PM
In general, I like SGC grading and have had only one situation Where I was unhappy with the service. I had a Koester's bread Elmer Miller that I cracked out of a PSA slab for submission. The card came back labled as a W575-1. Looking in hindsight, should have submitted it while still in the PSA slab. The grade this card should have received was not the issue, it was the classification. Not happy with the result and the explanation from SGC was borderline at best. With all that said, My collection is all in SGC holders and will continue to be in SGC holders.

Kmac

T206Collector
05-19-2010, 02:37 PM
Thank you Brian for taking the time to come on here and give us a full and detailed explanation.

glchen
05-19-2010, 02:56 PM
Brian,

Does the declared value or the grading tier under which the card is submitted have any effect on how a card is graded or how many graders or which graders (i.e., more experienced graders) look at the card?

Exhibitman
05-19-2010, 03:17 PM
FWIW, I had a question raised by SGC on a submission where they wanted to make sure I was OK with cracking out the card and putting it into a lesser SGC slab. Their customer service is first-rate.

spacktrack
05-19-2010, 03:31 PM
Brian- in the example you cited, you made up the difference in value based on the other company's grading error. So in the end your company was financially penalized for their mistake. Somehow that doesn't seem right.

Barry--yes, it does stink, but it's part of the business for us. We view crossovers as a very important element of our business. We know it's a legitimate service and a way for customers to submit cards. There are a few instances where we are left "holding the bag", but stepping up and making things right is the best way to handle it. Try and explain to a customer that a crease that was missed before the card was cracked out wasn't put there by someone at SGC accidentally.

Brian,

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response. I agree that it would be irrational for a business trying to attract new customers to let petty bias come in way of "calling it as you see it", and that often you bear the brunt of the "shoot the messenger" mentality. That said, based on substance of the previous thread, it would seem that maybe SGC, to minimize the prospects of future disgruntled customers, should revisit its practice of making sure customers are aware that they have the option to have the card stay in the original holder and not be downgraded. Something seems to have slipped through the cracks with the previous poster and perhaps with more attention to communication future occurrences could be avoided. Maybe one way to accomplish this is before you execute a consented downgrade, you a second time correspond with the customer to reconfirm that he/she is okay with that. Sometimes people might change their minds when they realize that such an outcome is no longer a hypothetical possibility but instead an imminent real occurrence. Also too SGC should be particularly careful not to inadvertently give a prospective customer a false impression of what to expect. I recognize that SGC is not intentionally trying to do that, but sometimes in the zeal to attract new business, poeple can say things that can be misinterpreted. I'm not saying that happened in this instance, only that you should be particularly sensitive to the issue and err on the side of overly pessimistic assessments. It's always nicer when a customer is pleasantly surprised with the results. Whenever I send things to my conservator, he always downplays what to expect. Maybe that is why I keep going back to him.

Corey--it appears to us that the issue with the poster on the other thread is not that SGC failed to follow his instructions, it is that he was not pleased with the outcome. As mentioned, we have customers who take downgrades for any number of reasons. The original poster mentioned himself that continuity in his collection was a goal.

To your point about checking before a downgrade...The reason for minimum grades is so that the order can proceed through grading with clear instructions for the graders. If an order had to be reviewed by a grader, a preliminary grade given, a phone call made to the customer for approval of the grade, and then back to grading, it would bottleneck the operation. We will call in circumstances where us or the customer is not clear on the instructions.

As for false impressions, we rarely send a grader to accept submissions at a show, so no promises are ever made about the outcome of a submission because it would be foolish to do so. We always say that the cards will be graded the best way they can.

We understand your points--just outlining our take.

spacktrack
05-19-2010, 03:33 PM
Brian,

Does the declared value or the grading tier under which the card is submitted have any effect on how a card is graded or how many graders or which graders (i.e., more experienced graders) look at the card?

All cards are graded the same way. The more expensive cards may have more time spent on them, but all of our graders are experienced. We have had the same grading team in place for roughly ten years with a brief departure of Derek Grady before his return to the company.

benjulmag
05-19-2010, 04:08 PM
Brian,

Thanks for the reply. I understand your point about the adverse impact upon your operation from the making of confirmatory calls before executing downgrades. That is a business decision whether the inconvenience/inefficiencies caused by such a practice is worth the potential reduction in bad publicity such as the thread we just had. I wasn't saying you did anything wrong, only that sometimes businesses find it in their interest to go above and beyond to try to avoid customer disappointment. There have been times in my business that, despite having a consent to take a particular action, when I learned that it would have an unexpected adverse impact, I sought a second consent before going forward. My business is different from yours though, so I hear you that this may not be practical for SGC. I'm sure you must find it frustrating to so often be on the receiving end of the "shoot the messenger" mentality, and in some cases to be lambasted for simply being better than the competition by detecting previously unnoticed defects.

glchen
05-19-2010, 04:38 PM
Thanks, Brian. Appreciate the response.

Peter_Spaeth
05-19-2010, 05:22 PM
"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 does this mean Dan consented? And if so what is he complaining about?:confused:

yanks4
05-19-2010, 05:26 PM
Brian`s well thought out and thorough post is exactly why many of us use SGC exclusively....A couple of years ago I sent a number of cards for cross over and because the graders were not sure about a large percentage crossing over I received a call from Bryan to ask me wether I might accept possible downgrades...He did this I believe to save me my time and money...They could have just sent them back marked didn`t make minimum grade........Frankly since then I look at PSA cards very carefully......

Pup6913
05-19-2010, 05:52 PM
[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;809741

So does this mean Dan consented? And if so what is he complaining about?:confused:[/QUOTE]



Of course he did thats why he didn't bother with the minimum grade on the crossed cards.

edhans
05-20-2010, 06:41 AM
A thoughtful, thorough and well written statement of SGC's position. Your product and service is far and away the best in the industry. Thank you Brian.

Jacklitsch
05-25-2010, 04:15 PM
Don't know whether this will add to the discussion but...

Back in 2006 a former board member and I conducted an experiment. I took 10 SGC "AUTH" T206 cards, cracked them out, and submitted them to PSA. The bet was on the over/under as to what PSA would do. My buddy was so sure that PSA would reject most, if not all, that he agreed to pay the grading fees of more than two passed muster.

The results: (Remember all 10 were graded "AUTH" by SGC)

2 PSA 4 (Including a McGraw)
3 PSA 5 (Including Speaker) and
1 PSA 6

6 out of 10 received numerical grades. :eek: