[Rich Klein]

As I have wirtten, this was probably a good idea by SGC which was not 100 percent thought out. That happens in any business all the time.

What SGC missed on this, was an opportunity to engage their community on a non-properitary issue which would have saved a ton of this dialogue.

Instead of creating their flip which because of the plain design looked at first grasp to have been one that a 2nd tier company could have created, there was a chance to get other collector's opinions, explain the facts of why the flip needs to be changed and create a contest.

Could you have imagined if they had created a contest in which the three/four designs were created and someone would randomly win 10 free grading vouchers. Man, the positive pub of the contest would have overwhelmed this community,

And how much deep down does 10 vouchers really cost the company (not really very much in terms of dollars), so think about this,

WE could have felt we had some say in the matter. SGC could have explained the computer program needs which is not a proprietary issue as it does not involve the actual product of grading or encapsulating cards (Which needs to be propietary) and become a win-win

There were some posters who pointed out that SGC is not ranked as high as either BGS for post-1980 cards or PSA for overall cards graded.

Look PSA got how much great pub last year for their race to 100,000 and for the card they created at last year's National. SGC should look into PR aspects such as that and that will could move them up the ladder.

That's why I offered my column as a way for theim to generate publicity because while companies make mis-steps, SGC could and should learn from this to engage their community a ton more.

Riegards
Rich