SGC is, with their new labels, balancing valuation with PSA. HARSH. Watch Video...

[luciobar1980]

Man, these cards are all on the harsh side.

The Hack Wilson especially, was sold as a raw EX-MT by Probstein:

(https://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-Goudey-211-Hack-Wilson-Brooklyn-Dodgers-HOF-EX-MT-Condition-/382521824347?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=CKGOk%252BHU%252BjflZineTL5R50%252Fxcdw%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc)

, and I still can't disagree with them. An SGC 4.

Why is the Tris Speaker an A and not a 1? On the form I indicated "no", I don't want you to encapsulate an A card.. am I missing something?

1960 Topps McCovey I thought was a 6 all day. SGC 5.

The RObinson is the only one in the ballpark of what I expected.. this card was previously a BVG 5.5. SGC 5.

(Sorry for having the camera off-center for most of the video.):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0Hw_GbmVmU&feature=youtu.be

[Leon]

There are some things that a magnifier will pick up which will show you why they are graded the way they are, would be my guess. Great looking cards.

[luciobar1980]

Ok, that's all well and good, as I even joke about not having a magnifying glass on me. Even still, I honestly believe SGC is trying to rebrand and reposition themselves with the new flip and harsher grading.

But, can someone once and for all explain why the Speaker is an A and not a 1, when I said NOT to encapsulate an A card on their form?

[SetBuilder]

Surface gloss is one of the factors in grading. So it's not just corners and centering, but the surface quality. Harder to gauge than most variables.

[bensie]

Ok, that's all well and good, as I even joke about not having a magnifying glass on me. Even still, I honestly believe SGC is trying to rebrand and reposition themselves with the new flip and harsher grading.

But, can someone once and for all explain why the Speaker is an A and not a 1, when I said NOT to encapsulate an A card on their form?
Because they made a mistake?

[luciobar1980]

Because they made a mistake?

Did they? Because I honestly was unsure about it. Does it mean they think the card is altered, or not necessarily? It has pinholes but I cant imagine it's been altered (attempt at improvement) to be honest.

I'm sure there is something I'm missing on these cards, but that being said, still harshly graded IMO.

I'll be curious to hear more opinions when people start getting back SGC cards in the near future.

[luciobar1980]

I am almost ashamed to say it, but would a partial refund be a possibility/reasonable from Probstein on the Hack Wilson? They graded it EX-Mt, came back a 4.

[calvindog]

I am almost ashamed to say it, but would a partial refund be a possibility/reasonable from Probstein on the Hack Wilson? They graded it EX-Mt, came back a 4.

Woops double post.

[calvindog]

I am almost ashamed to say it, but would a partial refund be a possibility/reasonable from Probstein on the Hack Wilson? They graded it EX-Mt, came back a 4.

You thought it was a 6 so you obviously agreed with Probstein. And you paid a full 6 price. While I loathe Probstein, you expect him to guarantee what SGC will subjectively grade his cards?

Edited to add: if you were willing to pay a 6 price for a raw card, why not just buy an SGC 6? Wouldn't have cost you a penny more, you could have saved grading and postage fees and all that anxiety of waiting for your cards to be returned. Why take a chance of paying for the cost of a 6 when you believed the card was only destined for a 6 at best?

[swarmee]

I am almost ashamed to say it, but would a partial refund be a possibility/reasonable from Probstein on the Hack Wilson? They graded it EX-Mt, came back a 4.
Either send back for a full refund, or eat it. You're probably outside your return window anyways. And if you do return it because it didn't grade what you expected, please leave your eBay handle so people who want to can add it to their block lists.

[luciobar1980]

Was just bringing it up hypothetically. The Wilson is probably the most I’ve ever spent on a raw card, because it looked great. I did agree based on the auction pics, and still a bit baffled by the grade. That doesn’t mean that probstein couldn’t theoretically stand behind the grade they assigned. Ya know, the fact that the overwhelming majority of their cards are graded and this one wasn’t almost makes me suspicious that they saw something that I didn’t and still can’t see. Hmmm

You thought it was a 6 so you obviously agreed with Probstein. And you paid a full 6 price. While I loathe Probstein, you expect him to guarantee what SGC will subjectively grade his cards?

Edited to add: if you were willing to pay a 6 price for a raw card, why not just buy an SGC 6? Wouldn't have cost you a penny more, you could have saved grading and postage fees and all that anxiety of waiting for your cards to be returned. Why take a chance of paying for the cost of a 6 when you believed the card was only destined for a 6 at best?

[luciobar1980]

Dude, F off.

Either send back for a full refund, or eat it. You're probably outside your return window anyways. And if you do return it because it didn't grade what you expected, please leave your eBay handle so people who want to can add it to their block lists.

[luciobar1980]

Geez, It’s almost like some people are just waiting for the chance to jump at your throat. The internet.

[Orioles1954]

I think it really depends on the grader at that respective company. Some are tough while others are more lenient. With the amount of volume these companies receive I honestly don't think there is a consistent standard.

[orly57]

My rule of thumb is that if a raw card looks really good, it has probably been popped out of an unfavorable holder. But if you must take a chance, a second rule of thumb is to pay for it as if it were two grades lower than you think it may be.

[luciobar1980]

Yeah, it looked so nice and I put some faith in Probstein.

My rule of thumb is that if a raw card looks really good, it’s probably been popped out of an unfavorable holder. But if you must take a chance, a second rule of thumb is to pay for it as if it were two grades lower than you think it may be.

[bensie]

Yeah, it looked so nice and I put some faith in Probstein.
So crack it out and send to psa if sgc is too harsh.

[Dewey]

Geez, It’s almost like some people are just waiting for the chance to jump at your throat. The internet.

This thread is either the internet hating on you or it is free, yet wise, advice regarding your assumptions about buying raw cards online. You decide.

[luciobar1980]

Everyone is taking my words and distorting them so I’ll just stop.

[vthobby]

Lucio,

What stands out to me the most (and I am being critical) is that you ask for honest opinions on your cards.......yet.........the video takes a full 80 seconds to even get to the first card...........then when you get to the Wilson, you spend a whopping 10 seconds on showing us the actual card. Well not really since you show us literally nothing significant to base our opinion on.

If you REALLY wanted our honest and subjective opinions why didn't you just re-shoot the video and actually show us something we could comment on? You admittedly tell us your camera skills were poor but you still show us the video which does not help at all.

The Wilson appears to be a very interesting card to discuss, analyze, and to give our opinions on but you don't help us at all. An Ebay page is a pretty basic tool. A nice video would have been great.

Just IMO, my 2 cents, peace,

Mike

PS In other words, your thread could have been very interesting but the tools you provided us to assist were lacking. I appreciate your effort. Nice cards BTW.

[luciobar1980]

Sorry, the video was not really meant to be a detailed look at the cards. I just thought it would be fun to show my actual reactions. I’ll post a few pics tomorrow. I’m sure there is something I’m missing on the Wilson, I should have looked over it better before sending it in for grading, I admit that.

[vthobby]

Ok, this is my opinion on the Wilson only.

Without any other defects like OC, Staining, Print Defects etc......,this card is a straight 6. I think you thought the same thing in the video?

However, it does have some slight staining on the borders, and the print dot on the front up top to the right. Print circle? I understand that 1933 Goudey's do have these issues occasionally but to me this card is a 6 PD or a 6 ST which technically puts it 2 grades below a 6. Hence the 4 grade.

I believe if this as sent to PSA it would be a 4 or a PSA 6 (ST) or PSA 6 (PD).

Now why did Probstein call it EX/MT? Because on the surface it does exhibit a strong EX/MT appearance. Of course the ST or the PD could be subjective based on personal opinion or tolerances. To each his own I guess.

Thanks for posting, Mike

[GregZakwin]

Ok, this is my opinion on the Wilson only.

Without any other defects like OC, Staining, Print Defects etc......,this card is a straight 6. I think you thought the same thing in the video?

However, it does have some slight staining on the borders, and the print dot on the front up top to the right. Print circle? I understand that 1933 Goudey's do have these issues occasionally but to me this card is a 6 PD or a 6 ST which technically puts it 2 grades below a 6. Hence the 4 grade.

I believe if this as sent to PSA it would be a 4 or a PSA 6 (ST) or PSA 6 (PD).

Now why did Probstein call it EX/MT? Because on the surface it does exhibit a strong EX/MT appearance. Of course the ST or the PD could be subjective based on personal opinion or tolerances. To each his own I guess.

Thanks for posting, Mike

Add to that three of the four back corners have noticeable fraying without putting it under light or high magnification and on the back above the 211 there is a small bit of the top border that is flaking off.

That McCovey is nearly missing an entire border. Never gonna 6.

[NYYFan63]

Yeah, it looked so nice and I put some faith in Probstein.


My experience is to be very careful when buying ungraded cards from Probstein. He has a 30 day return policy, which is great. But he doesn’t provide a very good description like PWCC does if it is a nice ungraded card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1952boyntoncollector]

Again, all of this difference of opinion shoes the value of third party graders...man all of the returns that would happen before them on disagreements on 'EX' etc..

however, isn't a PSA 6 (st) still considered 'EX' So a PSA 4 with no qualifier can still be the same as PSA 6 'EX' with non mentioned qualifier when selling a raw card....so isn't in fact any EX card with a qualifier still considered an EX?

I have not seen anyone ever say their raw card is a 'EX-st-mk' etc...they just say EX... They just say look at the pictures etc and dont mention an 'EX with qualifier, and thats when i email them during the auction to say anything up with the card as i cant tell by the pictures...

[Pat R]

FWIW it looks like Beckett gave the Wilson a 4 in a raw review before
it was "cleaned up" a little.

328148

328141328142

328143328144

328145

328146

[KCRfan1]

Great looking cards!

Despite the grades, if you ever decide to sell them, some potential buyers / buyers will look past the grades and focus solely on the card itself.

They'll buy the card, not the holder.

Niced cards will still bring the price.

[ullmandds]

I just got some results from my latest sgc submissions...and am quite disappointed on a few as well!! I finally got my cj wajo graded...and was not happy!!!

[Throttlesteer]

I think all TPG are trying to tighten up. Nobody wants the reputation for being the softest. What I've learned is, the toughest grades are on this forum.

[luciobar1980]

Oh wow! How do you know this/how did you find that out? I mean that's definitely the card.

FWIW it looks like Beckett gave the Wilson a 4 in a raw review before
it was "cleaned up" a little.

328148

328141328142

328143328144

328145

328146

[luciobar1980]

Yeah, I really think this is the case, and why not start tightening up to coincide with the new labels?

I think all TPG are trying to tighten up. Nobody wants the reputation for being the softest. What I've learned is, the toughest grades are on this forum.

[luciobar1980]

I'd be curious to see the card! Post pics if you can!

I just got some results from my latest sgc submissions...and am quite disappointed on a few as well!! I finally got my cj wajo graded...and was not happy!!!

[Pat R]

Oh wow! How do you know this/how did you find that out? I mean that's definitely the card.

Just 10-15 minutes of research.

[661fish]

I hope they don't go like PSA or I will just have to keep my 53 Bowman set raw.

[luciobar1980]

Can someone else comment on the Tris Speaker? The seller was bbcemporium and it was part of what they called the "Delaware Find", which was an original owner collection. For that reason I really can't believe it was trimmed. Furthermore, when I submitted, I said "NO", please do not slab any cards deemed "A". It's crazy that I still don't understand this. Do they this card is altered? It does have small pinhole if that makes a difference. In the auction listing they said:

"Since the card has pinholes, it will receive an automatic grade of 1 from all major third party authenticators. For this reason, we are not having these cabinet cards graded and will offer them ungraded. We stand 100% behind their authenticity and will provide a full refund if a PSA or SGC deems otherwise."

https://i.imgur.com/zbbQenRh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/eY1tdeJh.jpg

[luciobar1980]

Would you mind posting a link as I cannot find the thread or posting this all came from.

Just 10-15 minutes of research.

[luciobar1980]

SO.. you guys would not be perturbed in my shoes? Probstein calls it a 6.0 when it was previously a 4.0 raw reviewed Beckett, I get it graded by SGC and it comes back a 4. It's all on me huh?

[PiratesWS1979]

You said in your video the Speaker would be a "1" or Authentic because of the pin holes. Are you disappointed in the grade or the fact they encased it, because a screwdriver will solve the case real fast.

On the Wilson, if it came back a "5" would you still be mad? If you think it's high just crack and resubmit it.

The '33 Hack Wilson is notoriously off centered and this one is near perfect...JUST ENJOY IT!!

[Pat R]

Would you mind posting a link as I cannot find the thread or posting this all came from.

It wasn't in a thread or post just some old fashion card research.

I should add that I was being facetious about it getting cleaned
up a little as it looks like it had a serious cleaning and was
possibly bleached after the Beckett review.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I just got back a small group of nonsports. I thought the grading was harsh, but very consistent in that their ranking of the cards matched mine very closely. It is what it is and I am fine with it as these are just for my collection anyhow.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Another nice thing about SGC on the NS side is that they are willing to do the research to grade cards PSA would just kick back as not already in their database.

[bensie]

SO.. you guys would not be perturbed in my shoes? Probstein calls it a 6.0 when it was previously a 4.0 raw reviewed Beckett, I get it graded by SGC and it comes back a 4. It's all on me huh?

:confused: uh, yes, it's all on you. You got greedy and took a gamble, hoping to flip a card and make some extra cash. Who knows where probstein got that card. How are they supposed to know it was raw card reviewed?

It's like they say, you can't cheat an honest man. You made a bad purchase here. Caveat emptor, chalk this up as a lesson and move on.

[luciobar1980]

Ok, touche'. It's possible (and probably likely) Probstein had no idea. Saying I got "greedy" and assuming I was going to flip the card? That's all on you bud and what you are bringing to the conversation.

:confused: uh, yes, it's all on you. You got greedy and took a gamble, hoping to flip a card and make some extra cash. Who knows where probstein got that card. How are they supposed to know it was raw card reviewed?

It's like they say, you can't cheat an honest man. You made a bad purchase here. Caveat emptor, chalk this up as a lesson and move on.

[luciobar1980]

Well, if you read it carefully they say it would come back a 1, and that they stand behind it behind authentic, not that it would come back authentic. But that's not a big deal. I'm more just confused WHY this came back as A and not a 1, and always have been confused about this.

Does the A mean they think it is altered as in Trimmed/Recolored or would the pinholes themselves be considered an Alteration??

You said in your video the Speaker would be a "1" or Authentic because of the pin holes. Are you disappointed in the grade or the fact they encased it, because a screwdriver will solve the case real fast.

On the Wilson, if it came back a "5" would you still be mad? If you think it's high just crack and resubmit it.

The '33 Hack Wilson is notoriously off centered and this one is near perfect...JUST ENJOY IT!!

[luciobar1980]

I will! It's a beautiful card, no matter the technical grade. :)

You said in your video the Speaker would be a "1" or Authentic because of the pin holes. Are you disappointed in the grade or the fact they encased it, because a screwdriver will solve the case real fast.

On the Wilson, if it came back a "5" would you still be mad? If you think it's high just crack and resubmit it.

The '33 Hack Wilson is notoriously off centered and this one is near perfect...JUST ENJOY IT!!

[irv]

SO.. you guys would not be perturbed in my shoes? Probstein calls it a 6.0 when it was previously a 4.0 raw reviewed Beckett, I get it graded by SGC and it comes back a 4. It's all on me huh?

You have to remember Probstein, and whoever else is in the business of making money.
Most people talk up/describe things in their favor when they are selling automobiles, their house, atvs, dirt bikes, boats just to name a few.

I have never dealt with Probstein and likely never will based on what I have read here about him, but that is me.

With that being said, I agree, your 4 looks like it was graded tough.
I have never sent any of my cards in to get graded, and now, seeing the grades you received, I am even less likely to do that now?

[KCRfan1]

Lucio,

I assume you already know this, but just in case.....all of the major Ebay and auction sellers submit very large quantities of cards for grading.

If a card comes back graded lower than what they believe it should be, the card will likely get cracked and sold raw.

You have some great looking cards!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Just 10-15 minutes of research.

False modesty. I have never seen someone as adept at tracking down a card's history as Pat.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Buy raw with caution especially from graded card sellers. It's as simple as that.

[ronniehatesjazz]

SO.. you guys would not be perturbed in my shoes? Probstein calls it a 6.0 when it was previously a 4.0 raw reviewed Beckett, I get it graded by SGC and it comes back a 4. It's all on me huh?

You’re acting outrageous man. You bought a raw card and it graded lower than expected. Disappointing but not really a big deal. As for the A vs 1, I’m surprised you don’t know that any alteration, including pinholes, should get an A and not a numerical grade. I believe this is the policy for both psa and sgc. And going off on people who are calling you out on your nonsense is ridiculous.

[swarmee]

Actually, a single pinhole at SGC would normally grade a 1.5 Fair. PSA has it as a 1 Poor.

My guess is that there was some filling of the holes, which would then be an alteration. You should be able to get the new grader's notes or call them and ask. You seem to think everyone on this board knows exactly what you and SGC are both thinking at the same time. We don't. Call SGC and find out.

If you wrote, "Don't slab unless numerical graded" then SGC should not have slabbed your card, but still charged you the fee. Maybe you wrote it wrong or they read it wrong. People make mistakes. As was said, it costs the same either way. If you don't like them in the slabs, they're easy to remove.

And yes, you're flipping out for no reason. Most eBay sellers will consider someone asking for a partial refund a scammer. That's why I recommended that you don't do that. You should calm down. This isn't the US Open Center Court and I did not penalize you for a game and a point.

[Republicaninmass]

Could be a filled pinhole


Any raw card, or graded card purchase is a roll of the dice. I've had graded cards come back as trim, trimmed cards come back graded

[Big Six]

I agree that the OP took a big risk buying raw...and that the cards are still great cards. And I’m blown away by Pat’s research...but, I know SGC doesn’t automatically grade pin holes with an A. I can assure you Mr. Grove has a hole.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180909/b2d58b7ff97c47d54019a18585488166.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RedsFan1941]

call SGC and pose your questions to them about the “A” grade and why they slabbed it when you apparently asked them not to. whining on a message board is much more satisfying, I guess.

[luciobar1980]

Who's whining? You? Grow up.

call SGC and pose your questions to them about the “A” grade and why they slabbed it when you apparently asked them not to. whining on a message board is much more satisfying, I guess.

[luciobar1980]

Man, people really channeling their own stuff into my words. Can you point out to me where i acted outrageous? Some people take any opportunity to get on their high horse.

You’re acting outrageous man. You bought a raw card and it graded lower than expected. Disappointing but not really a big deal. As for the A vs 1, I’m surprised you don’t know that any alteration, including pinholes, should get an A and not a numerical grade. I believe this is the policy for both psa and sgc. And going off on people who are calling you out on your nonsense is ridiculous.

[bensie]

Man, people really channeling their own stuff into my words. Can you point out to me where i acted outrageous? Some people take any opportunity to get on their high horse.
The tone of pretty much every one of your posts in here is outrageous. You're coming off like a petulant child, and that's why people are taking the piss. Not trying to be mean, but you should really re-read this thread and pretend someone else wrote your posts.

[luciobar1980]

Can a person be annoyed? Petulant child? Give me a break. You reread my posts.

The tone of pretty much every one of your posts in here is outrageous. You're coming off like a petulant child, and that's why people are taking the piss. Not trying to be mean, but you should really re-read this thread and pretend someone else wrote your posts.

[The Nasty Nati]

FWIW it looks like Beckett gave the Wilson a 4 in a raw review before
it was "cleaned up" a little.

328148

328141328142

328143328144

328145

328146

From these photos there appears to be a small chunk missing in the white border of the card on the right side. A few inches above the Goudey copyright. That along with the corners being a little soft, make this card in my opinion a 4. Nothing wrong with a 4 though. Solid grade for a Goudey, especially a nice centered one.

[steve B]

From my experience, SGC is pretty good about answering questions. This card is also a 4 but looks better. The only real problem I saw was a tiny flake of surface off the top left corner. Less than the amount I've seen worn off corners on other 4s.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=7483

I asked at the Shriners show a few years ago why it was a 4. It took the guy at the booth very little time to find the tiny wrinkle about halfway up the left side. So small it doesn't quite reach the line around the picture.

The other couple grades I asked about were similar, some small hard to see thing I'd missed. Overall, the experience made me better at examining my cards before sending them.


"A" isn't always altered. Of the few cards I've had rejected, one had factory but very rough cuts top and bottom, another didn't make the minimum size.
With the amount of space between the card and gasket on the Speaker, I'd bet it's undersize. Undersize can be factory, but I don't think any grading company will grade stuff that's undersize with a number. I think that's mostly because most collectors associate undersize with trimmed, and don't understand the difference between a factory cut edge and a trimmed edge. Another of my mistakes was a card trimmed on all four sides, that was full size. I just plain missed the trimming while I was looking for which cards to send in.

[1952boyntoncollector]

it does appear the newer SGC grades are getting good results at auction (same as what PSA holders seem to be getting).


As far as pinholes A, 1, 1.5...i always thought as those cards all in the work of art category......the grade part doesnt really matter...many As go for more than 1.5s etc....its just how the card looks to you......it doesnt bother me at all if there are different grading criteria with 2 companies on the A-1.5 ...

[luciobar1980]

K, spoke to Peter at SGC who spoke to the grader who remembered my T3 Speaker very clearly. He said in the pinholes there is a tiny bit of blue color/paint so this is treated as Altered. I surmise that this was paint transferred from wherever it was pinned up at some point. So no trimming or anything else which would have bothered me much more. Anyways, super happy with this card as I think it's one of the most attractive in the hobby!

As far as the Hack Wilson, he couldn't offer any info.

From my experience, SGC is pretty good about answering questions. This card is also a 4 but looks better. The only real problem I saw was a tiny flake of surface off the top left corner. Less than the amount I've seen worn off corners on other 4s.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=7483

I asked at the Shriners show a few years ago why it was a 4. It took the guy at the booth very little time to find the tiny wrinkle about halfway up the left side. So small it doesn't quite reach the line around the picture.

The other couple grades I asked about were similar, some small hard to see thing I'd missed. Overall, the experience made me better at examining my cards before sending them.


"A" isn't always altered. Of the few cards I've had rejected, one had factory but very rough cuts top and bottom, another didn't make the minimum size.
With the amount of space between the card and gasket on the Speaker, I'd bet it's undersize. Undersize can be factory, but I don't think any grading company will grade stuff that's undersize with a number. I think that's mostly because most collectors associate undersize with trimmed, and don't understand the difference between a factory cut edge and a trimmed edge. Another of my mistakes was a card trimmed on all four sides, that was full size. I just plain missed the trimming while I was looking for which cards to send in.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

You’re acting outrageous man. You bought a raw card and it graded lower than expected. Disappointing but not really a big deal. As for the A vs 1, I’m surprised you don’t know that any alteration, including pinholes, should get an A and not a numerical grade. I believe this is the policy for both psa and sgc. And going off on people who are calling you out on your nonsense is ridiculous.

I would argue if he had gotten it in hand and disagreed with the grade then yes a refund would be in order. But to get it in hand, like the card and submit it pretty much puts the onus on him, not Probstein.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Just got back another small batch of mostly nonsports. Once again, very consistent grading, but just brutal, in most cases a full grade lower than I expected. Perhaps SGC is trying to rebrand itself as a stricter grader, and if they succeed I suppose the market will take that into account when assessing cards in the new holders. Anyone remember the mythical PSA "grader of death"? I feel like I ran into him again haha. I think the flips look fine by the way. And again, they went the extra mile and graded cards that PSA had kicked back.

[luciobar1980]

Just got back another small batch of mostly nonsports. Once again, very consistent grading, but just brutal, in most cases a full grade lower than I expected. Perhaps SGC is trying to rebrand itself as a stricter grader, and if they succeed I suppose the market will take that into account when assessing cards in the new holders. Anyone remember the mythical PSA "grader of death"? I feel like I ran into him again haha. I think the flips look fine by the way. And again, they went the extra mile and graded cards that PSA had kicked back.

Yup, my thoughts too.

[Lorewalker]

Just got back another small batch of mostly nonsports. Once again, very consistent grading, but just brutal, in most cases a full grade lower than I expected. Perhaps SGC is trying to rebrand itself as a stricter grader, and if they succeed I suppose the market will take that into account when assessing cards in the new holders. Anyone remember the mythical PSA "grader of death"? I feel like I ran into him again haha. I think the flips look fine by the way. And again, they went the extra mile and graded cards that PSA had kicked back.

I suppose this could be good for SGC but not sure if being too tight helps those who are submitting. Probably easier to sell a card that is graded too harshly than one that is not but if both PSA and SGC are tightening up that does not leave people much of a place to turn.

[Throttlesteer]

Overall, it will shift the population distribution to the left. I'm curious how they will address reholdering.

[irv]

I've always thought, since I joined the site back in 2016, that SGC graded cards more "tough" than PSA.

I am not sure how many do it, but I remember reading of one on here who purchases SGC cards then resubmits them to PSA looking for a higher grade.

The last one, IIRC, was successful where an SGC 5, for example, came back a 6 or higher from PSA. $$$