More expensive crossovers from PSA to SGC

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>joe</b><p>Ok, I have seen these posts before but here goes. I have a red T206 Cobb and a N172 Brouthers graded by PSA. All my Detroit T206 and N172 Old Judges are SGC graded. Should I cross these over and how do I do it on higher priced cards?<br /><br />Thanks Joe <br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1216241448.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1216241497.JPG"> <br><br>Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>SGC's website is unclear on crossing over cards valued over $500. They accept them, you just have to submit them at the appropriate level.<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>In general - If any card is a 'registry' card - I wouldn't cross it.<br /><br />Check out the pop reports and the set registry - if people are going to compete for your card.... leave them with PSA.<br /><br /><br />If you decide to cross with SGC -<br />I wouldn't crack them out.... give SGC a minimum grade that you are happy with.<br />Thats just my opinion.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Joe:<br /><br />I think the PSA grades might be pretty generous. I think they might equate to an SGC 60 or 70 on the Brouthers and an SGC 30 on the Cobb because of the staining. I guess it depends on whether you are looking at maximizing your return in the future or having an all-SGC graded collection.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>If the grading is generous - I wouldn't cross them.<br /><br />sounds like you basically would be paying money to lower the resale value.<br /><br /><br />excuse the humor.... but it reminds me of the dealer in Vegas Vacation - - - <br />"Here's an idea: Why don't you give me half the money your were gonna to (spend on the crossover), then we'll go out back, I'll kick you in the nuts, and we'll call it a day! " <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>Then Cousin Ed will say. "I haven't seen a beatin' like that since somebody stuck a banana in my pants and turned a monkey loose."<br /><br />Some classic lines in that flic.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lance</b><p>Jim,<br />Didn't mean to offend. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>quan</b><p>honestly i don't think the brouthers would make it. all the corners appear to be rounding, i'd say it's EX at best. the cobb 4 has a good shot depending on what that line on the bottom left corner is.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p><br />I think both cards may look slightly worse in the scan then in person. It appears the scans coloring may be slightly off going by the color of the PSA labels.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>" Yet another reason to hate PSA. Though I didn't agree with a few, most were correct.<br />Out of 23 submitted for cross-over, 11 were rejected because PSA had over-graded. I was pretty disappointed to say the least. "<br /><br />Lance,<br />Why is this a reason to hate PSA? Did they promise crossovers or the same grading scale? I am not a PSA defender or apologist, but this seems like a silly reason. I guarantee PSA has rejected just as many SGC crossovers for Minimum grade. It is just the way it goes. There are times when cards are overgraded or undergraded. But the companies also place greater emphasis on different aspects of the cards as well.<br />Best,<br />JimB<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>"the companies also place greater emphasis on different aspects of the cards as well."<br /><br />Jim - that is an incredibly important statement to these discussions. Each company has things they grade harsher or more leniently then the competitors. The most talked about is PSAs leniency regarding back PL. It is assumed oftentimes that a card with back PL shouldn't ever get more then a 3, but PSA clearly disagrees with that in their grading scale; it's not that the cards slip by the graders, they just use a different scale. I'd suggest glue residue on the back of a card as something that PSA grades more harshly then SGC. With PSA it's an automatic 2.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Sherman</b><p>Lance, were you trying to bump them or keep the grades the same? I find it kind of odd of the 23 none made it. Almost as if they were "low end" for the grade to begin with. Just my 2 cents, ok just re-read and only 11 were rejected, sorry

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>When I have crossed cards to SGC from PSA, I have had SGC bump some and downgrade others, while most crossed at the same level. This is with me submitting them in holders. <br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lance</b><p>I was just trying to get them in SGC holders for my set...same grade. Not 1 card bumped and 11 of 23 failed to cross. These cards were from 2 to 6's in grade.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>joe</b><p>Thanks for the input. I think the Cobb could crossover with the same grade. The N172 of Brouthers probably not. Here is an SGC NM 7 of Hanlon. <br /><br />Joe<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1216257295.JPG"> <br><br>Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve Dawson</b><p>I hope it's OK to piggyback on this thread...<br /><br />I've been wanting to cross this card over to either SGC or PSA. What are the prospects for it to get an equal grade from either of them?<br /><br /><img src="http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h8/steved80/E90-2Wagnerfront.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h8/steved80/E90-2Wagnerback.jpg"><br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Steve - great card! SGC doesn't have a grade that corresponds to a 2.5, so it would probably only make an SGC 30. I don't see anything obvious that would stop it from a PSA 2.5.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>IMHO- Brouthers won't cross except if you want it an SGC holder with a lesser grade. On the Cobb, I think it will cross as a 50 unless that tiny wrinkle in the left hand lower corner is an enamel chip. SGC is death on enamel chips. <br />The E90-3 Wagner looks like an SGC 30 or PSA 2.5, I agree.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Matt said: "The most talked about is PSAs leniency regarding back PL. It is assumed oftentimes that a card with back PL shouldn't ever get more then a 3, but PSA clearly disagrees with that in their grading scale; it's not that the cards slip by the graders, they just use a different scale. "<br /><br />I haven't looked at PSA's written grading scale. Do they explicity say that paper loss is ok for certain grades and not for others?<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>king - good question. They don't explicitly talk about PL in their scale. Here is a selection that could be interpreted as talking about what some would call PL:<br /><br />"A PSA NM 7 is a card with just a slight surface wear visible upon close inspection."<br /><br />While the meaning there is certainly ambiguous, I would suggest that all the examples we see of them grading a card with PL higher then a 3 suggest the rule, not the exception. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Thanks Matt. While I (and others) may think that paper loss on the back does not grant a VG-EX grade, I can definitely see your side of the argument in that PSA hasn't said paper loss automatically gives it lower than a 4. So while the complaint that PSA's grading standards are not correct or are not up to our standards may be a valid one, it seems invalid to complain that they are misgrading according to their standards. <br /><br />I wonder how people graded paper loss on the back in the 80s and before? My guess is it was something like: "grades NM, with a slight blemish on the back".<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p>Just for comparison, this Brouthers, with an insignificant small tobacco stain on the reverse, is an SGC 50. It's got a great photo. I would certainly pay more for this card than I would for the PSA 7 Brouthers, FWIW.<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/uffda51/18871890n172oldjudge/N172%20Brouthers.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Alan U</b><p>It's funny how in the one Brouther's photo there is a ball and the other one, from the direction he's looking, it looks like he's waiting for the ball to be tossed into the photo.<br /><br />edited for spelling<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>The 2nd Brouthers photo always looked to me like he was playing the clarinet.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"Just for comparison, this Brouthers, with an insignificant small tobacco stain on the reverse, is an SGC 50. It's got a great photo. I would certainly pay more for this card than I would for the PSA 7 Brouthers, FWIW."<br /><br />I echo the sentiment in Bruce's comment. Technical grades on N172s and some other 19th century cards still don't reflect condition-desirability to collectors. Image is of paramount importance to most, not a minor corner ding or back damage.<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason</b><p>When I collected OJ's I used to primarily go for picture quality. I absolutely hated faded pictures and didn't care what grade they got.