SGC Registry

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>If you haven't seen the new SGC Registry it is a MUST!!<br /><br />As an example here is my Ullman set. Hit Gallery View and click each scan.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sgccardregistry.com/gallery.aspx?cat=1&set=468&userset=1170" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.sgccardregistry.com/gallery.aspx?cat=1&set=468&userset=1170</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Wow, that is cool. BTW, nice Ullmans! I did add to one of my sets this morning, & it updated automatically. Suppose they got tired of the manual entry. Looks like I need to watch the tutorial.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>brock</b><p>Thats really cool, also nice set.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>WOW!!! SGC did a fantastic job with the displays of each collector's collection. Just another reason why SGC is head and shoulders above the competition. Their new set registry was definitely worth the wait. I enjoyed looking at my set in the "Way I Collect" with the new format. Great job, SGC!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Carl Lamendola</b><p>I guess all the time I spent scanning in images paid off...If you get a chance take a look at the new registry -- its really cool !!!<br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>James Gallo</b><p>WOW this is great stuff. <br /><br />I love it and uploaded like 5 pictures in 1 seconds.<br /><br />I know there were some that were bothered by the upload time for pictures and this should fix that with ease.<br /><br />A nice improvement and something that no one has done before as far as I know.<br /><br />Kudos to SGC for doing another thing well and right.<br /><br />James G<br><br>Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Trevor Hocking</b><p>Ok now that is soooo cool!!!! I have never had the desire to scan all my cards but now I have to because that is just too cool. SGC keeps ahead of the curve as usual. Very very nice job guys and thanks for keeping it fresh and fun!<br /><br />Trevor

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe_G.</b><p>The new system looks very neat but I don't like how all scans are sized to the same maximum height or width. In my case, the N173 cabinets are scaled down to the same size as the N172s; it looks strange. Also, I wonder what the optimal scan size (quality) would be to minimize distortion when they "re-size" the images to fit the new format?<br /><br />If I re-submit my cards, I may opt to leave the holder out to make it easier to see the card.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br />Joe Gonsowski

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I think it's pretty cool. Thought I would share one of my favorite sets. The only issue I have so far is that the scans end up a little blurry for some reason.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.sgccardregistry.com/gallery.aspx?cat=1&set=615&userset=1411" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.sgccardregistry.com/gallery.aspx?cat=1&set=615&userset=1411</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>It looks absolutely fantastic! Congrats SGC!<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill</b><p>I just looked at my T206 Set Registry and I could not believe how nice the website looked. Great job SGC. Thanks,Bill<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sgccardregistry.com/gallery.aspx?cat=1&set=239&userset=286" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.sgccardregistry.com/gallery.aspx?cat=1&set=239&userset=286</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>Hey Bill, Hey Paul...helluva nice set!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jimi</b><p>I absolutely love it and I will have fun tonight updating my sets. But did anyone notice that SGC has put two place values after the decimal under the "Grade" category under each person's set registry? So an SGC 84 would be listed as an 84.00. Does this perhaps mean that SGC is changing its grading like PSA just did with their half grades in the near future?<br><br>Jimi

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>I think the 84.00 is to make the number consistent with the set superiority average number (its also broken down into hundreds)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>I think that this is a really nice looking design. However, the scans are very fuzzy - Im actually inclined not to post my cards because they look worse than they should due to the small file size that is being accepted for uploads on the pictures.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>The improvements to the SGC registry are awesome. I have been lazy with scanning my cards, but the new photo gallery is so cool that I am inspired to get to work.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Hi Wesley! Now get to work (scanning) <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DMcD</b><p>The new SGC set registry format is very cool in that all the cards are presented more or less at once and in a grand way. The downside, as JK and others have mentioned, is that the scans are "blurry", kind of pixellated to my eye. Attached is a screen capture of part of my D304 registry set with the originally submitted scan superimposed. That scan would appear in all its glory on the previous registry version by clicking on the little camera thingamajig. The card, as seen now, is pretty wishy-washy by contrast. Perhaps along with the nifty new gallery feature SGC could put back the camera thingies on the list view.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/Jan08/SGCcompare.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Prizner</b><p>I think SGC will correct the problems w/ the blurry scans.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott T</b><p>This is exactly the kind of "polish" my low grade T206 collection needs!<br><br>Scott <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>Very impressive and imaginative application! As a user, the first item on my wish list for enhancements would be to have the option of double-clicking any one of the scans (whether in List View or Gallery View) and have a large high resolution copy of that scan come up, perhaps in a separate window. I would also like to be able to save images as JPEG files on my hard drive.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe_G.</b><p>I'm not sure how easily SGC will be able to fix the "blurry" issue. As I stated above, they re-size whatever you send them to fit the new format. It would help if they could give us guidelines on how to best minimize scan quality degradation during their re-size process. For example, if we wish to scan a normal size slab, is it best to scan at a multiple of 75dpi (150 dpi or 300 dpi) such that re-sizing is at 50% (or 25%) etc. ?? Most of my Old Judges were scanned at an odd-ball 114 dpi and now look very blurry after they re-sized them.<br /><br />In my mind, the registry should allow the user to share pictures that are clear and high quality.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br />Joe Gonsowski