SGC...Trustworthy?

[MartyFromCANADA]

I bought an E-91 American Caramel George Gibson in a SGC case, graded 40 a while back. Being fairly new to the hobby and having a bit of OCD, I sent it to PSA so the holder would be uniform with cards I had previously purchased in PSA holders. I sent a few for crossover, and they came back with atrocious looking mylar baggies in the holder.

Unhappy with the look of the cards in their new PSA homes, I decided to send them back to SGC. They have the custom gaskets, and I thought they would look neater in their cases and satisfy my OCD.

Well, today I got a look at the grades online. The E-91 Gibson, previously graded by SGC, is now, "too small to holder". How could this be when the card had already been graded twice without problems.

I called SGC and talked to a grader. He said, "it may have been a partial millimetre off, that's why it got a too small to holder". I told him the exact card had been graded very good previously by SGC, I received no good reason.

The point is, I paid a premium for a card graded by SGC to ensure the card was authentic and unaltered. This experience shows this grading/authentication system we put our trust (and money) into is seriously flawed. I am not a happy customer. :mad:

Has anyone else had a problem like this?

[pawpawdiv9]

Did you crack it out of the PSA before sending back to SGC?
If no, then wait a month or so, crack it out and re-submit it again.
Maybe the grader was being stricter, because it was in a psa holder? who knows, must been a bad day.

[Cozumeleno]

Has anyone else had a problem like this?

I have not, but it kind of underscores my thoughts on the grading industry as a whole.

I should admit, when I'm buying a high-dollar card, I prefer that it's either graded or in bad shape so I'm not spending a ton of money on it. I like the security of the holder. But, really, stuff like this just proves how subjective grading is as a whole. And it's not even the graders' faults, to be honest. One person can have an entirely different view looking at the same exact card. Someone may be having a bad day. The list goes on and on, really.

And who's to say that grading companies are always going to be 100% honest, anyway?

I'm not bold enough to say the grading industry is going to be in the can in five years, ten, or even 15. But the thing is that too often the number on the holsters is taken as gospel when, at the end of the day, it's no more than someone's opinion.

[kmac32]

Had a different issue with SGC but still an issue. All of my graded cards are in SGC slabs and I bought a 1921 Koester Bread of my Great Great uncle Elmer Miller in a PSA slab. Wanting uniformity in the collection, I cracked it out and submitted it to SGC thinking they would call it a 1921 Koester Bread. They slabbed it alright and called it a 1922 W575-1 card. I definitely was less than pleased as cards produced in 1921 all have the position designation of CF for these cards. When called and asked about why, the response was that W575-1 cards and Koester Bread cards appear identicle and unless there was clear evidence to the contrary, they will always call these cards 1922 W575-1 cards. Answer was clearly a pat answer and if you research Koester Bread, an inaccurate answer. Do not know if it would have made a difference but If I had submitted it in the PSA holder that called it Koester Bread, maybe they might have labeled it correctly as Koester Bread. On this issue SGC is clearly inconsistent.

[ullmandds]

i have had multiple cards over the years get rejected as altered only to get holdered later on.

[iowadoc77]

Paid a decent price for a 1935 national Chicle football high number PSA 6 and wanted it crossed to SGC. I was new at this and assumed I would get a similar grade. Came back authentic. Said evidence of trimming. Back to PSA so I could sell it because my set was SGC. Got a 6. Subjective is right. I do feel better about authenticity when card is slabbed. May be false confidence

[vthobby]

Here is a true story:

My buddy bought a PSA MINT 9 (O/C) 1960s HOF Rookie card. It was clearly miscut but it had sharp corners so the grade was appropriate.

With the OCD bug biting at his heals he sent it to Beckett (since they do not have qualifiers).........came back a BVG 6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He then broke it out and at a very large show he had me submit it back to Beckett. Came back as "altered".............

He then broke it back out and had me submit it to SGC and it came back an SGC 84 (7) which in reality was consistent with the PSA grade.

I then sold it for him at quite a loss due to the grading costs and low price it obtained as a 7.

Crazy but true!

Mike Pap

[swarmee]

I just had a PSA submission of 100 cards, where 2 cards were not holdered: one for evidence of trimming and one for being miscut. I had them put a ship hold on the order and requested that the cards be holdered with whatever qualifiers were needed (like AUTH and #(MC)) so that they could still be added to my registry sets. After the holdering, they just popped as a 4.5 VGEX+ and a 5 EX, neither being qualified.
That was a little shocking, but pleasant. I was surprised they didn't get a number grade in the first place, and I don't send in MC cards.

[bigfish]

You take a risk everytime you regrade a card. It s easy to point the finger at sgc. You did take the card out of the holder. You took a chance and lost.

I trust sgc 100 percent

[4815162342]

I just had a PSA submission of 100 cards, where 2 cards were not holdered: one for evidence of trimming and one for being miscut. I had them put a ship hold on the order and requested that the cards be holdered with whatever qualifiers were needed (like AUTH and #(MC)) so that they could still be added to my registry sets. After the holdering, they just popped as a 4.5 VGEX+ and a 5 EX, neither being qualified.
That was a little shocking, but pleasant. I was surprised they didn't get a number grade in the first place, and I don't send in MC cards.


That's nuts!

[MartyFromCANADA]

You take a risk everytime you regrade a card. It s easy to point the finger at sgc. You did take the card out of the holder. You took a chance and lost.

I trust sgc 100 percent

The card is still in the holder. PSA 3. And SGC had graded it previously 40.
My problem is with the discrepancy with the grading standards. As you know, every grade higher amounts to many dollars higher. I'm strictly a buyer in this hobby. I'm just trying to get nice looking cards for reasonable and honest prices. I put trust into SGC and they let me down with the inconsistent grading process. *I know this must happen with PSA, Beckett etc., and I am not trying to bit*h on SGC. The whole system is starting to feel a little sleazy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You're jumping to some conclusion about the state of grading based on ONE card?

[rednecksims]

Grading is an opinion. You paid for an opinion of that grader and got his/her opinion.

[MartyFromCANADA]

Sure grading is an opinion, but which grade would you expect to pay more for;2 or 4. Trimmed or 3. We pay more for the higher grade, "opinion". Many times significantly more. And yes I am concerned with the grading system over one card. This case represent a card being graded 3 times. I am sure they measured the card all three. Twice the card is measured to be the correct size and now partial millimeters small. Maybe they bought some bad rulers. All in all we trust these companies opinions, but with such big money being thrown around if feel they should be accountable in situations like this instead of blowing me off with a pretty bad excuse. (Funny; they still take my ten bucks just to measure a card and send it back)

[TanksAndSpartans]

I'm not seeing anything sleazy here. Sleazy to me would be if they just graded everything high to get more business. Based on an extremely small sample size (and therefore meaningless), it seems to me SGC is stricter on card size. What you were told about being a milimeter off doesn't exactly make sense to me as I thing these cards have a range they need to be in - did you measure it yourself?

[arc2q]

I think third party grading is a good thing and has been a positive improvement for the hobby. If you use grading services you have to accept the subjective nature of it. There will always be differences in human perception of an inherently subjective process like this. Accept that or don't bother getting cards graded.

It is an enormous improvement over the old days when any card sold by a card shop was either mint or near mint. I had a few cards still in the original plastic sleeves I bought from a dealer meet at a mall in the late 80s. All were hand-marked NM. Just to test I had one graded (a '59 Rocky Colavito I think). It came back a 3.5 (slightly off center, discoloration on the back, loss of gloss probably)

It was a lot harder for novices and kids in the 80s to buy cards based on trusting the judgment of a dealer who was economically motivated to inflate values. At least with TPGs the grader is reasonably indifferent and, thus, more trustworthy.

[rdixon1208]

Sure grading is an opinion, but which grade would you expect to pay more for;2 or 4. Trimmed or 3. We pay more for the higher grade, "opinion". Many times significantly more. And yes I am concerned with the grading system over one card. This case represent a card being graded 3 times. I am sure they measured the card all three. Twice the card is measured to be the correct size and now partial millimeters small. Maybe they bought some bad rulers. All in all we trust these companies opinions, but with such big money being thrown around if feel they should be accountable in situations like this instead of blowing me off with a pretty bad excuse. (Funny; they still take my ten bucks just to measure a card and send it back)

Get yourself nice binder, learn how to crack slabs, and free your cards and your mind.

[Bliggity]

Get yourself nice binder, learn how to crack slabs, and free your cards and your mind.

+1

http://i1383.photobucket.com/albums/ah316/dmblau/95a1d6d3-47e1-4ceb-9871-54ae3606956a_zpscrtdtnxt.jpg

[Peter_Spaeth]

Sure grading is an opinion, but which grade would you expect to pay more for;2 or 4. Trimmed or 3. We pay more for the higher grade, "opinion". Many times significantly more. And yes I am concerned with the grading system over one card. This case represent a card being graded 3 times. I am sure they measured the card all three. Twice the card is measured to be the correct size and now partial millimeters small. Maybe they bought some bad rulers. All in all we trust these companies opinions, but with such big money being thrown around if feel they should be accountable in situations like this instead of blowing me off with a pretty bad excuse. (Funny; they still take my ten bucks just to measure a card and send it back)

So vote with your feet and stop submitting. There isn't a card on earth that is going to grade the same way every time unless it's a completely obvious alteration job. Play the game, or don't, but bitching about it is pointless.

[CW]

Marty, you said you sent in your other cards to SGC so they're all in the same holders now. Did any of those other cards grade higher? Sometimes the game goes in your favor (or for a Canadian, in their favour ;) ).

Bottom line... you still have the actual card, regardless of the grade or type of holder.