SGC Grading Game [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

04-01-2005, 05:03 PM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyOK, as a little background, I just sent in a bunch of cards (mostly Colgans Chips) in to get graded at SGC, and long story short, I am a little perplexed at the result. So, I present to you a game...GUESS THAT GRADE. I have taken six random Colgans that I sent in and would like to hear your thoughts on what the grade would be. For reference, the backs are all centered pretty nicely for the issue, with only those that are slightly off on front centering are equally off on the reverse. But all things said they are all pretty much the same. Also, there are absolutely NO CREASES (Neither microscopic nor visible in any of these cards.) With that being said. LET THE GAMES BEGIN. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1112403359.JPG">

Archive

04-01-2005, 05:25 PM

Posted By: Jeff DrumOk, they all look to be in the SGC80-84 range, so if your luck is like mine they have all come back as 30/40 and 50s. Also, I have an SGC question, why will they not grade a Fleischman w/o the tab but won't grade a Hires Root Beer with the tab?

Archive

04-01-2005, 05:40 PM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyNot sure why SGC isn't grading Hires cards without the tab anymore. A year or so ago they graded one without the tab for me, a Larry Doby that came back a 7.5 (but was much nicer than that), but I have since sold it. Also, about the Colgans, just want to remind everyone that the scans provided are much bigger than the items are in life, and I am not sure why it appears there is a stain on the Sparks card, there is not one on the card. -Rhett

Archive

04-01-2005, 05:42 PM

Posted By: Hmm I Donno<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

04-01-2005, 05:46 PM

Posted By: jeff drumI think it is that they will not grade a Hires WITH the tab and won't grade a F-man W/OUT the tab.

Archive

04-01-2005, 06:06 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisMy guess: SGC 10 The corners all look pretty well rounded by use.

Archive

04-01-2005, 06:12 PM

Posted By: jay behrensdang, Hal beat me to the punch. They look like they shoudl be at least 84 or better. If they pulled 60s, I have a red boarder Colgan Speaker that pulled a 60 with chopping in the boarder. I'm guessing they came back low. It's real mystery why SGC hammers certain cards. Just wish they would send a report card along with each card so that you knew why a card got hammered. Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive

04-01-2005, 07:13 PM

Posted By: Dan Kotelest-b 70 -60 -60- 50-60- 80

Archive

04-02-2005, 02:26 AM

Posted By: Joe_G.Very nice Colgans, I'd say all at least SGC80.

Archive

04-02-2005, 07:00 AM

Posted By: leonSince you are asking they must not have been what you thought they should be. I will say 50's and 60's....because I've felt the same way before...maybe throw a 70 in for good measure.....again, better get out that magnifying glass and make sure there isn't a single wrinkle anywhere....if there is it can't be above a 50. And if there is a spec of minute clear residue on the back it won't get above about a 40.....sometimes it just gets rediculous how the grading goes, imo....

Archive

04-02-2005, 09:40 AM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyHINT: the range of the grades on the 6 cards were between a 50 (4) to a 92 (8.5). Now tell me which one got which grade, this is what perplexes me. -Rhett

Archive

04-02-2005, 10:03 AM

Posted By: jay behrensI'd sat that Chance got the lowest grade and either Odwell or Lange got the 92, but I am willing to be I am wrong. This is got a 60 <img src="http://attic2cash.net/cards/colgan.jpg"> Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive

04-02-2005, 10:09 AM

Posted By: leonThey all look the friggin' same. That's what I hate about the grading of Colgan's too. Jay- given the grades I have seen you should be fairly happy....that card deserved the grade, imo....but usually Colgans get hammered....later

Archive

04-02-2005, 10:14 AM

Posted By: jay behrensnot complaining about the 60 grade at all. Was just trying to give some sort of point of reference, though the red boarders are not a good comperable. Besides, I just wanted to show it off <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive

04-02-2005, 10:23 AM

Posted By: Not a Problem.Bye bye Perplex. Bye bye Unhappiness. Bye bye, and I guess. I guess that I'm not gonna miss Slab Haven. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> sung to the tune of: "Bye <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Bye <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Luv" <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

04-02-2005, 11:32 AM

Posted By: Todd Schultzsince I was getting ready to send in some Colgan's to SGC myself that I was lucky to obtain from Julie. My guess--L/R from top: 60-70-92; 50-80-88 Please let me know if you're looking to part with any of them.

Archive

04-02-2005, 01:13 PM

Posted By: HWHere are my guesses: 86 84 88 50 50 92

Archive

04-02-2005, 06:06 PM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyThe actual grades are as follows... Leach 84 (7) NM Parent 80 (6) EXMT Odwell 50 (4) VGEX Chance 80 (6) EXMT Sparks 70 (5.5) EX+ Lange 92 (8.5) NMMT+ I figured the Chance would get the worst grade of the bunch (I had anticipated about an 80 or so on it due to the centering. The Sparks card doesn't have a stain on it, that is my scanner or something. The other cards all seemed to me to be in about the same condition. Amazing that they would range from a 50 to a 92. I challenge anybody to find a difference between the Odwell and the Lange. I am not posting this to just complain, it doesn't really matter to me, I am working on this set and will not be selling any of these, unless I can pick up a nicer one, which seems impossible to me. I just can't believe people throw all of their trust in these companies that can be so totally off. Maybe I am not a big enough dealer, I am adding a scan of a card that got a 7.5 (86) from SGC, which was submitted from a larger dealer, in a huge group of cards. While I believe it deserves the grade, it just doesn't compare to 5 out of the 6 cards I showed earlier. I just don't know what to make of all of it, I feel that if a grading company doesn't understand a set then they shouldn't be providing their "expertise" to grade them. Oh well, -Rhett <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1112493910.JPG">

Archive

04-03-2005, 12:00 PM

Posted By: T206CollectorI suspect if you looked at it under a 10x loop and the proper lighting that you would find either a small wrinkle (front or back) or a very very minor spot of paper loss on the back. I have well over 100 SGC graded T206 cards and they are by far more consistent than the 40 PSA graded T206 cards I have. And the SGC cards that I think should be 60's or higher, get 40's or 50's because of very hard to see wrinkles or small dots of paper loss on the reverse.

Archive

04-03-2005, 12:49 PM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyBelieve it or not, I am not an idiot. I have looked at that card several times, and there is NO PROBLEM. I'm not saying that SGC doesn't know what the hell they are doing on every set, I am saying they don't know what they are doing with this particular set. It's not tough to get good at grading the most common prewar set in existence, they just shouldn't be grading cards they don't understand. In the same shipment that I sent them they graded this Buchner card a 4 (same grade as the Odwell Colgans). Does this make any sense to anybody else out there? Don't tell me SGC must be right , beacuse they make less mistakes than PSA, that logic doesn't make any sense. -Rhett <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1112553684.JPG">

Archive

04-03-2005, 01:55 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultzbefore you submitted them, Rhett. As I see it, the problem when people offer their opinions on what might have been missed is that it can can come off as patronizing or condescending when it wasn't meant that way. Obviously since I thought the Odwell looked like a 92 I would have to think that there is some minor defect not visible from the scan that would knock it down technically to a 50, since the centering and lack of rim/edge wear make it look nice. All I see is a small dot on his cheek (heck, maybe it's even a mole) and a little mark above the C in Columbus. With these I consider edge wear and front centering to be crucial, with everything else a distant second. I'm sorry, but for those reasons,I would not give the Evans more than a 70. I do believe the Colgan's you scanned appear inconsistently graded, and maybe I'll withhold senidng mine in, at least until I get a better feel for what the are seeing (and not seeing). Here are two that I won--the Zimmerman I bought on e-bay, and the Hooper is on its way back from SGC in the next couple days in an 88 holder. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/taslegal54/09e254zimmerman.jpg"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/taslegal54/09e254hooper.jpg">