Updated: First Crap Interaction with the New SGC

[CardPadre]

ETA: I submitted a customer service request via email outlining the below details (without the greedy part) and received a call from SGC agreeing the $250 fee was not appropriate for this card in this condition and apologizing for the hard-line attitude I received from their employee. We came to an agreement on the encapsulation fee.




These greedy fukks.

I hate grading anyway and I only do it for cards I’m getting rid of to pay for new acquisitions. I send this heavily cropped Goudey Ruth for slabbing at a $1500 declared value (a little light on the value maybe, but not by much, I paid $1500 for it) for the $15 grading fee. Realistically I can maybe get $2k-ish for it.

This employee, Matt, gives me a call (I’ve never received a call from SGC before except when some of my cards went missing from their post office) and tells me the minimum GRADING FEE for this Goudey Ruth is $250…so greater than a $3500 valuation. I tell them there is absolutely no way it’s worth that but I would be agreeable to pay an $85 grading fee for a $1500-$3500 valuation.

Him and someone else go to “check comps” and he comes back and says a recent PSA 1 was $3700 so I have to pay the $250…and I literally LOL.

I have to assume this type of aggressive money grabbing tactic is a result of Collector’s purchase of SGC. It's so out of character for the SGC I’ve dealt with in the past, albeit infrequently. Serves me right for hating grading but grading anyway. My bad, but thought it would look really nice for someone in the black SGC slab (really nice might be an exaggeration, but pretty good).

Here’s the beauty in question…rant over, lol.

[markf31]

To be fair, I don't think they are that far off on their evaluation. But I do think the $85 you suggested would have been fair.

This sold recently for $3,150.


https://www.ebay.com/itm/PSA-AUTHENT....m43663.l10137

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by markf31

To be fair, I don't think they are that far off on their evaluation.

This sold recently for $3,150.


https://www.ebay.com/itm/PSA-AUTHENT....m43663.l10137

You are not close. My card has all the other borders cut off as well, in addition to ink stain and more creasing. BUT, I was willing to pay a $3100 valuation at the $85 fee...and they still demanded $250. So I have no idea what your point is.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

You are not close. My card has all the other borders cut off as well, in addition to ink stain and more creasing. BUT, I was willing to pay a $3100 valuation at the $85 fee...and they still demanded $250. So I have no idea what your point is.

My point was pretty evident. Their evaluation is NOT that far off given comparable recent sales of Authentic/Altered sales. Only a single Authentic/Altered graded PSA has sold for under $3,500 in Ebay's recent history. You can complain about your border all you want, but their use of recent sales supports their evaluation.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by markf31

My point was pretty evident. Their evaluation is NOT that far off given comparable recent sales of Authentic/Altered sales. Only a single Authentic/Altered graded PSA has sold for under $3,500 in Ebay's recent history. You can complain about your border all you want, but they're use of recent sales supports their evaluation.

That’s not even true. I’ve found 2 here and these cards are significantly different/better than what I submitted. And eBay isn’t everything in comps, could find more similar comps elsewhere if I had to.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

That’s not even true. I’ve found 2 here and these cards are significantly different/better than what I submitted. And eBay isn’t everything in comps, could find more similar comps elsewhere if I had to.

Dude, take a deep breath. You asked for input and Mark is giving you some points to consider. Why are you lashing out at him???

[brianp-beme]

There is a big difference in eye appeal between the two. The fact that a superior looking trimmed example with more of the borders intact sold for just over the pricing threshold (the huge pricing differences at grading card companies for the different levels of perceived value are just plain nonsensical) should not make this still neat card be considered also at this higher level.


brianp(arker)-beme

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

There is a big difference in eye appeal between the two. The fact that a superior looking trimmed example with more of the borders intact sold for just over the pricing threshold (the huge pricing differences at grading card companies for the different levels of perceived value are just plain nonsensical) should not make this still neat card be considered also at this higher level.


brianp(arker)-beme

And the level is $3500 anyway for the $250 fee, not $3000, so it's not even close on those comps, much less a worse card.

[Lorewalker]

Ugh...well Nat did write a big check and the upcharge at PSA is a HUGE revenue boost for them. I think $85 was the right fee to have paid. More of this to come...soon we will not be able to reach anyone there and will have to wait 4 weeks for a reply to an email. Maybe Nat will force them to answer calls and dedicate 3 people to the phones so it will take 4 days of successive attempts to get into the queue.

The only thing that is good about this...and I am reaching...is that it suggests that Nat might actually be planning on keeping the brand alive.

[ullmandds]

try cgc

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

try cgc

Yeah, that's a possibility. Won't present quite as nice in their slabs, but maybe if I have a broader submission to send and can include it...which I don't likely have in the near future. Not gonna send as just 1 card most likely.

[ezez420]

What is funny about this post is that you tried to submit a Goudey Ruth at a $15 charge rather than the $85 charge thus drawing attention to yourself.

So seems like you were the one that was trying to pull the fast one hoping to get away with them not catching. Doesn't matter what you paid in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ALBB]

But to the point of them wanting to charge more money to grade a particular card like that ...

with their thinking of - " this card is expensive and will take many hours of inspection "

.if somehow they graded it " A "...but later it was found to be a fake....

I dont think they are refunding you ( don't actually know ? ) , so you paid the higher fee and lost out

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by ezez420

What is funny about this post is that you tried to submit a Goudey Ruth at a $15 charge rather than the $85 charge thus drawing attention to yourself.

So seems like you were the one that was trying to pull the fast one hoping to get away with them not catching. Doesn't matter what you paid in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well it does matter if I bought it on a public marketplace and established a verified sold value for it that anyone had the opportunity to pay more for if they wanted. Do you submit all your really nice cards at a PSA 10 valuation? If so, how nice of you. Do you feel like a bad person when you get an upcharge, knowing how dishonest you were?

They have the right to increase fees and I’m asked to provide my own estimate of fair market value. Both things successfully happened. Their initial proposed raised fee was not reasonable, my value estimate actually was.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

We came to an agreement on the encapsulation fee.

What was the agreement? The $15 or $85? Or something else.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

What was the agreement? The $15 or $85? Or something else.

It was the $85 that was not offered to me in my initial upcharge phone call.

[packs]

I think there should be an encapsulation fee and an evaluation fee. It takes almost no effort to authenticate that card and there isn't any grading involved. It's just putting it in a case.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by packs

I think there should be an encapsulation fee and an evaluation fee. It takes almost no effort to authenticate that card and there isn't any grading involved. It's just putting it in a case.

The other part of the evaluation fee is the guarantee that SGC puts their name behind it. That is, if the card is determined to be not authentic or misgraded, SGC will need to shell out the compensation for the new owner of the card at the most recent market value. For example, if the card is graded in 2010 when it was valued at $200 and then sold in 2024 when it is now a $5000 card, SGC would need to compensate the owner based upon the $5000 value of the card even though it would be much more than any grading fee that the original submitter paid. In the situation that I had with SGC a few years back, I purchased a card that was graded 4, but after I sent it back to SGC questioning the grade, SGC agreed that it should have been graded a 2. I then received compensation from SGC on the difference in the market value between a 4 and a 2 at that time.

In this case, like most of the other posters in this thread, I agree that the $85 fee was the appropriate one in this situation.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by glchen

The other part of the evaluation fee is the guarantee that SGC puts their name behind it. That is, if the card is determined to be not authentic or misgraded, SGC will need to shell out the compensation for the new owner of the card at the most recent market value. For example, if the card is graded in 2010 when it was valued at $200 and then sold in 2024 when it is now a $5000 card, SGC would need to compensate the owner based upon the $5000 value of the card even though it would be much more than any grading fee that the original submitter paid. In the situation that I had with SGC a few years back, I purchased a card that was graded 4, but after I sent it back to SGC questioning the grade, SGC agreed that it should have been graded a 2. I then received compensation from SGC on the difference in the market value between a 4 and a 2 at that time.

In this case, like most of the other posters in this thread, I agree that the $85 fee was the appropriate one in this situation.

I thought SGC dropped their guarantee a few years ago.

At least, that's what I've read from Peter in a few posts over the last ~12 months.