Harsh SGC grades
 

I was looking through the PWCC auction that posted last night on eBay, and noticed several of the new SGC labels. Each one seemed to be significantly undergraded. A few posted below. Practically every one was tagged with an HE or PQ, which I used to make fun of, but I can't fault PWCC on these. How can that US Caramel Ruth be a 4.5? I realize you can't tell everything from a picture, but you can tell enough. I was considering sending some 19th century PSA stuff to crossover to SGC, but there's no way now.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/6C8AA...W-/s-l1600.jpg
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/j1AAA...lt/s-l1600.jpg
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/4jcAA...2R/s-l1600.jpg

a) there's no back scans; b) you can't see minor wrinkling from a scan.

Must be a surface wrinkle somewhere.

Brent says the upper corners of the Ruth have surface wear. Still, a hell of a card.

The auctions have back scans and they look fine. PWCC usually discloses hard to see imperfections, particularly on high-end cards like this.

I've always said SGC grades cards harshly but they'd be the company I would choose to send my cards to.

The E95 Cobb is really cool. Nice big borders on that one!

We see cards that look over and under-graded by all the TPG's
but it's funny you started this thread about the harsh grades.
When I saw this Tenney I was thinking how did it get a 7
with those corners especially the top left.
Attachment 327352Attachment 327353

The top right and bottom left corners on the Ruth. It also seems to have some surface wear and possibly a small wrinkle on the bottom right, maybe 1/10 of the way up. Honestly, the only one that jumps out at me is the E95 Cobb. But, as pointed out, there may be surface wrinkles not obvious in the scan. The WaJo might actually be overgraded, given the corner wear and toning spots.

The upper right hand corner of the Ruth is missing the top layer of the card. The Cobb has wear on all 4 corners and is missing part of the top left corner. The Johnson has some minor wear on all 4 corners. I have had cards nicer than those receive those grades or lower.

every card ever submitted has been undergraded, according to the submitter.

every card being offered for sale is undergraded, according to the seller.

Every card being offered for sale is overgraded, according to the buyer.

Wow, what a beautiful card!

US CARAMELS are classic

SGC seems tough to predict while PSA is harder overall from what I've gathered.


Near The Gulf of Mexico,

CV

Man, if you were a grader nothing except a 2018 card out of a pack would ever get a 9 or even an 8. Brutal assessment lol.

Man, I didn't like this whole sticker thing at first, but now I like it.:cool:

No, I just don't like pieces of the card missing. Cards getting above 6.5 should look like this

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/874/4...4736d69b_z.jpg

I’m loving the new SGC flips. And the SGC holders frame cards so beautifully.

Another example of SGC harsh grading.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-...r&LH_Auction=1

here’s the thing: these examples of “harsh” grading likely are actually examples of why TPG’s can save a collector from overpaying for an overgraded card. does anyone really think that SGC or PSA haphazardly slaps a 4 on a card that appears to be a 7 or 8? i see a card like that and i think there’s obviously a reason the card isn’t a 7or 8 and I just don’t or can’t see it in a scan. I couldn’t care less about the subtle difference between a 5 and 6. but when i see something like the examples in this thread, I’m happy there is professional grading.

While I dont think it would look out of place in a "5" holder. with all the border damage (possibly rubber band?) a 4 isn't a travesty of justice.

There appears to be touches of damage to all three corners and also small damaged spots along the right hand border especailly.

I personally find that PSA is the easiest of the three big ones, and beckett on averages percentage wise I have taken on older cards is the harshest of the three with SGC closer to Beckett in harsher grading than it is to PSA.

If I was going to grade a card to sell, I would likely send it to PSA thinking I am more likely to get a better grade, easier to sell and get more money. If it was a card I want to keep, I would likely send it to one of the other two as I think they are closer to how I would grade if I had a good pair of eyes still.

My opinion and experience are the opposite of yours. I only deal with post war Regular and a lot of regional and food oddball issues. PSA is number 1 for me, Sgc a close second. BVG is horrible and inconsistent with corner assessment on post war vintage they are usually overgraded by 1/2 to 1 full grade in comparison to the other 2 companies. A small percentage are accurately graded. sgc gives too many numerical grades to miscut cards that are out of square and miscut on the obverse. They also are not great with postwar hand cut issues- too lenient with missing borders and surface issues- my experience with postwar only


“I personally find that PSA is the easiest of the three big ones, and beckett on averages percentage wise I have taken on older cards is the harshest of the three with SGC closer to Beckett in harsher grading than it is to PSA.

If I was going to grade a card to sell, I would likely send it to PSA thinking I am more likely to get a better grade, easier to sell and get more money. If it was a card I want to keep, I would likely send it to one of the other two as I think they are closer to how I would grade if I had a good pair of eyes still.”

Rather than using the word "Harsh", maybe "tough" as in SGC grades tough would be a better choice of words.

Comparing the card I posted to others I have seen, I do still personally think the card has been graded tough, but as we all know, scans/pics don't always tell the whole story.

Maybe reading PWCC's assessment of the card is influencing my opinion but I have seen far worse looking cards getting the same grade or higher.

Does anyone know, since SGC came out with these new flips, have they also decided to grade tougher?

A stunner for the grade assigned. Shows like a NRMT card in almost every way with white borders and great centering for the issue. Easily the best '4' we've seen in our history. Very faint wear exists at the extreme corner tips but otherwise this card appears truly world class. Appears free of the wrinkles or creases that might explain the harsh technical assessment. As it sits this card is an outright steal for the technical grade

Sgc has decided that "centering all of a sudden counts" yet doesnt use qualifiers, resulting in the appearance of stricter grades. I've always like sgc because I could judge the card centering for myself, and they could assess the other aspects. Recently, I was told a psa 7 OC would cross to an SGC 30! Normally this might be a 7 or a 6 at worst.

There are reasons they aren't higher grade than they are. As I think has been said, some spider wrinkling or things that can barely be seen. And there are, many times, things that can be seen in hand but not on a screen which lower a grade. Until I inspect them in hand I would say they aren't that far off. Great looking cards.

Without seeing the backs of some of these cards, the point is very much lost.

The E95 Cobb and the US Carmel Ruth are both...CARAMEL issues. Without seeing the extent of caramel damage on the back, they may be very fairly graded. I have an E95 Chance that looks like a 3 or better all day long on the front, but SGC gave it a 1.5 because of the caramel on the back.

These are probably no longer in SGC holders and now preside in some Moser trimmed PSA holder or worse. Look for the 6-9s to find them.

Damn grading companies! They are picking up faults on cards. Could there be spooned out creases or laid down corners?

Reside, not preside

Harsh SGC grades?? Excuse me guys, but I have to go vomit now.....

you can throw up in those beer steins you’re trying to peddle on the BST.

Holy back-from-the-dead post, Batman.

Not that it should matter but the Tenney SGC slab is circa 2005-2008

From the pics
 

The cards look accurately graded from the pictures. The Ruth looks like it could be a 5 to me from the pic so a 4.5 is a tiny bit low but the others look right on point. And in hand it could easily look like a 4.5. The other 2 i honestly think PSA would have the same grades minus the .5 bumps. Cards have some definite issues. THe Johnson is nowhere close to a 7. They have nice to decent eye appeal but like i try to often point out eye appeal is not the same thing as technical grade.

I think the Johnson T206 is spot on to a little generous. Ruth looks under and Cobb no more than .5 under.

Musings of an old time collector
 

I do not question the explanations of why these cards received the grades they did. But, damn, these are nice baseball cards, which in the era I started collecting would be regarded as near flawless gems! Discussion about them would be centered on how beautiful they appear and the attributes they possess, as opposed to what they lack.

So in today's world we slab them (and yes, I recognize the need for TPG of SOME KIND), the result being we focus on the grade, not the beauty of the card. It makes me think this forces many collectors to miss the forest from the trees. One of my father's favorite expressions was to focus on the donut, not the hole.

I think many people would enjoy the hobby a lot more if they took their cards out of the slabs and displayed them as raw cards. Keep the slabs if you want a record of their technical grades, but if you display them raw without the ability to focus on what the grade signifies they lack, they might appear even more beautiful.

Collectors who paid PSA graded prices will not enjoy the huge drop in value that the cracked out versions of their cards will now fetch.

Considering card grading is a completely subjective and human task, and the grading companies grade thousands upon thousands of cards, it sure is hard to believe there can be inconsistencies!

No doubt.

Maybe a good business model for PSA would be to offer a service that takes a graded card out of the slab, and returns it to the owner unslabbed but with a notification of the grade. And then, when the owner wants to sell it, he/she can resubmit it for slabbing at the original grade. For this to work PSA would need to take very good photos of the card to ensure it is the same card (and maybe put some invisible marking on it). Inasmuch as the card would be resubmitted for re slabbing at the same grade as before, there would be no incentive to alter the card. And if the card was damaged, which the photos would show, the card would not receive the same grade. Assuming the card owner is prepared to take the risk, this might offer the best of both worlds, as well as create additional revenue for PSA.

I remember this from a 1950's NYC donut shop near my house
 

as you wander on through life brother
whatever be your goal
keep your eye upon the donut
and not upon the hole

None of the cards look to be "harshly" graded -a designation I wouldn't give when there is likely just a .5 or 1. difference between how reasonable people might grade the card.

I'm with you Corey that the hobby could really be a lot more fun if the emphasis was simply on acquiring a presentable card that we were proud to own. The numbers on the label, IMO, are worthless. But I suspect we are in the minority here, so it is not likely to be a popular idea.

I remember the reason that supporters of TPG's gave for why they liked slabbed cards is that before the advent of grading, the hobby was like the wild west and grading offered some protection. But after recent events the hobby sure seems like the wild west once again. And I think it's possible that third party grading solved some problems but created a whole host of new ones. Again, I am probably in the minority here. Nothing new with that.

I guess people such as you and I are a dying breed. I can't tell you have many shocked expressions I have heard from people incredulous that I don't slab the cards I have had before the advent of grading. I get it that if I want to sell them I will need to have them graded, and I also understand the risk one is taking by buying raw cards. But raw cards present so much better, and that recent visit I had to the Burdick collection when I saw all those cards in the albums displayed the way people used to display them brought back all those fond memories of the hobby of yesteryear.

Corey- the cards you have are incredibly rare and aren't as condition sensitive as others may be. It doesn't matter if the Just So Cy Young has a crease or a mark or whatever if it's unique and thus the finest known.

If I were still collecting I would prefer to leave my cards raw. I can grade just as well as any TPG; and while in the past I would often say I need the expertise of the graders to detect alterations that are not readily visible, we've come to recognize that that expertise is not there.

But as you said, when it's time to sell, you must slab 'em. That's the power that TPG's have over the marketplace. You can't transact without them.

You never cease to amaze on just how stupid you are. Anybody that worships Ernie Lombardi needs a psych job....Get a life dumb ass.....

“as you wander on through life brother
whatever be your goal
keep your eye upon the donut
and not upon the hole”

😂😂😂😂

Der Schnozz
 

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...MBARDI_NEW.JPG


...you mean I'm not the only one ?...whew , had me worried there...

..

Reminds me of the glass half full analogy.

The cards look accurately graded but their aesthetics outweigh the grades. My fave kind of cards. I would much prefer to have a low grade beautiful card than an ugly high grade one but then again I don't do the registry BS....IF I did then I guess I would take the higher number on a flip.

http://luckeycards.com/pe94crawfordorange.jpg

Fact old gold sgc encasing is no bueno