SGC Grading Challenge Video - can you guess the grade?

[parkplace33]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p46DRDlXHro

This is collaboration video with SGC on a challenge to guess the SGC grade. 6 cards, including vintage.

I found this video enjoyable. Interesting to hear from SGC why the card receives the grade.

[bobbyw8469]

Thanks for sharing.

[philliesfan]

Interesting watch. I did well with grading them. In fact, I was only 4 points apart from each contestant. I would have won the 5K. Oh well, they did not pick me to be part of it.
thanks for sharing.
Bob

[Fred]

Right off the bat I see a flaw in the game rules. If the person guessing the grade is off by one point (and they give an example of someone assigning a 10 and the SGC grader determines 9), then that point counts against the overall total. Whoa - wait a minute... what if the difference in value between a 9 and 10 for that card is $thousands$ while the difference in the grade between a different card in the contest (for example price differential between 5 and 6) is $hundred$, then the misgrade between the 9 and 10 would have a much higher weighted value in difference. Hmmm... seems odd to me from an analytical point of view.

I get it, it's just a stupid game/challenge. Could be fun but really didn't make much sense to me when you consider the $$$ values in actual card values.

By the way, why does that Jeff guy look familiar? It's like I've seen him in other videos that have been linked to in this forum.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Fred

Right off the bat I see a flaw in the game rules. If the person guessing the grade is off by one point (and they give an example of someone assigning a 10 and the SGC grader determines 9), then that point counts against the overall total. Whoa - wait a minute... what if the difference in value between a 9 and 10 for that card is $thousands$ while the difference in the grade between a different card in the contest (for example price differential between 5 and 6) is $hundred$, then the misgrade between the 9 and 10 would have a much higher weighted value in difference. Hmmm... seems odd to me from an analytical point of view.

I get it, it's just a stupid game/challenge. Could be fun but really didn't make much sense to me when you consider the $$$ values in actual card values.

By the way, why does that Jeff guy look familiar? It's like I've seen him in other videos that have been linked to in this forum.

Geoff Wilson is an internet star.

[Fred]

When you guys see that the contestants didn't grade the same cards, you'll probably do the same thing - cringe. Why weren't they doing an apples/apples comparison? Then they had two different graders doing the analysis for each batch of cards. WTF? Subjectivity and more subjectivity. I'd give the idea of the contest a 10. Actual contest relevance, after watching an apples to oranges comparison of cards, grade = 4. Actual contest relevance, after watching an apples/orange comparison between different grader = 4. Overall score is about 3 because, in my subjectivity, the entertainment value was on a somewhat interesting level, but the waste of time grade drops this to a 3.

The contestants seem to think that there should be different grading scales for different eras for the cards. Uh, that is just crap, all grading should apply to ANY frigging card regardless of era. It looked like the Jeff guy had a very high tendency to put more weight on centering.

[ClementeFanOh]

Thank you for sharing, I did watch the video. First thought is that the
participants seemed to have a really good time (which is part of the goal,
right?) I did not attempt to "grade" the cards myself, as trying to grade
based on video of a card was a non starter for me.

It has been noted (accurately) on these boards, that SGC is particularly
harsh on vintage cards in recent memory. These 2 participants were also
harsh on the older cards, and, based on their ages, got me thinking that the
graders are getting younger at TPGs, not older. So many collectors are used
to seeing cards that come out of packs minimally at 8.5, that I'm wondering
if those same folks now employed as graders, are subconsciously hard on
cards that were created in more primitive times. If a new grader at company
"x" is 27 years old, he probably started collecting around 17 years ago,
2005-06. He hasn't bought packs with cards that have rough cut borders or
gum/wax stains, and might have no context in how to approach evaluating
them. We (older collectors of older cards) have to hope they learn, I guess

Fun thing to watch, thanks again parkplace! Trent King

[hcv123]

Noticed Geoff and his associate as if didn't know how to grade vintage cards.

[perezfan]

Seriously.... both of the guest graders don't understand the concept of an original rough cut? And how long has this Geoff person (who calls it "fraying") been in the hobby?

Frustrating to watch but thanks for posting.

[insidethewrapper]

Can't believe these guys didn't know about how 1950's cards look ! Graded down because of the border cuts. That's the way they were cut back then. They know the shiny ones.

[YazFenway08]

thanks for sharing this. i thought it was fun to grade along. i am usually terrible at these but i also would have “won” compared to the two guest graders.

if those ‘56s would have really come in at 3s and 4s, i would have, from this point forward, only collected 3s and 4s.

and not to be a grumpy old dude…but the difference between a shiny 10 and a shiny 8.5 will never, ever make sense to me…and i love all interactions of both baseball and baseball cards. i am not anti-modern, i am just anti-silly

[Fred]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Can't believe these guys didn't know about how 1950's cards look ! Graded down because of the border cuts. That's the way they were cut back then. They know the shiny ones.

Just curious, when we look back at cards from different eras, we see some idiosyncrasies with different aspects of the production process (for example, rough cuts and size variation). Should there be a ding in the grade if a new and shiny card had a rough cut? If so, shouldn't the grading criteria for one era be assigned to all eras? I would think for consistency sake that all cards be graded according to the same criteria.

A lot of us have seen cards from the 50s that are truly NrMt in look/appeal but have a rough cut to them. In the end, if the TPG cuts the card a little "slack" because of the rough cut, then the ultimate judge will be the price people are willing to pay for the card. However that becomes a little skewed because not all people buy the card, they buy the number on the flip.

Ramble, ramble, ramble...

[Rad_Hazard]

That was an excellent video! I love the explanations from the senior graders at SGC, they are an absolute class act of a company.

Now, if someone wants to donate the Rusie and Keefe OJ's, I have a great spot for them...

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Seriously.... both of the guest graders don't understand the concept of an original rough cut? And how long has this Geoff person (who calls it "fraying") been in the hobby?

^This. That annoyed the hell out of me. Not even a basic understanding of Topps era cards??? SMH.

However, it was a good watch simply to gather a bit of insight into what the graders are keying in on. That made it worth the view.

[jcmtiger]

Didn’t get involved in this contest. Lol

[oldjudge]

My sense is that people will be guessing too high

[Leon]

Personally, I wish they knew how to grade cards better.

[Snowman]

Fun video, thanks for sharing. Those cards were not difficult to grade even by just watching the videos though. It was fairly comical listening to them grade the post war vintage Topps cards though. I had to face palm at the "Oh, this one has a lot of fraying on the edges. I'm going to give it a 3" when it's a NM-MT card lol. Now I know why PSA grades are so bad now. They're hiring guys who grade vintage like Geoff.