Quote:
Originally Posted by butchie_t
I am the original submitter. The reply from them is what I received. I was told it had evidence of trimming. I disagree. I wanted to know the specifics as to how the grader came to that conclusion. No details other than the trimming comment.
B. T.
|
Submitters are only paying SGC to provide its opinion concerning a card’s
overall grade. That is it. This does not include notes, reasoning, bases, debates, arguments, etc.
I’ve never met a person who didn’t think his/her cards were under graded. Just go look at the B/S/T section. Count how many “under graded” and “looks much better,” blah-blah comments you see.
Can you imagine how much slower the process would become, and how much more expensive as well, if a grader, who graded a card a month ago, had to pull up his/her notes and look at the scanned database photo and then answer an e-mail or telephone call? It wouldn’t stop.
The grader wouldn’t have time to grade cards. Including detailed notes and comments on the front-end would also slow the process down and reduce how many cards that grader could grade each day, which would add to backlogs.
Every Tom, Dick and Harry would call or email asking why their card was graded a 4.5 and not a 5.0. It wouldn’t end.