What's this SGC rumor????

[spacktrack]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

This is one of my complaints with SGC. IMHO, SGC needs to establish a qualifier with their grading system. A couple of years ago, I purchased a 1941 Playball card that had four obvious glue marks on the back from when it was placed in a scrapbook. The card looks great on the front but the seller did not disclose a picture of the back during the auction. I did not complain as I won the auction with a good price. But, I was disappointed with SGC.

I'm not aware of any qualifier out there that denotes glue on the back of a card. If the card looked great on the front, but had glue on the back, I'm sure SGC graded it low (10-40 maybe) which would signify some other issue going on with the card.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

This is one of my complaints with SGC. IMHO, SGC needs to establish a qualifier with their grading system. A couple of years ago, I purchased a 1941 Playball card that had four obvious glue marks on the back from when it was placed in a scrapbook. The card looks great on the front but the seller did not disclose a picture of the back during the auction. I did not complain as I won the auction with a good price. But, I was disappointed with SGC.

I am against the qualifier and I am glad SGC does not use one.

If I am buying any card from EBAY I want to see a scan of the back. PSA, SGC, raw...doesn't matter. If the card looked great on front and received a low grade from SGC, wouldn't you have to assume something is afoot with the back and request a back scan??

[dwr11]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Both companies make grading mistakes but SGC makes fewer, and I think most collectors realize that. And that counts for something.

Of course SGC makes fewer mistakes than PSA - they grade just a fraction of the cards PSA grades each month.

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by Robextend

I am against the qualifier and I am glad SGC does not use one.

If I am buying any card from EBAY I want to see a scan of the back. PSA, SGC, raw...doesn't matter. If the card looked great on front and received a low grade from SGC, wouldn't you have to assume something is afoot with the back and request a back scan??

I assumed that there was something wrong with the card such as a wrinkle etc... (the card was a 1941 Playball SGC 40 Tommy Henrich and I won with a $10 bid so I wasn't too worried about getting a scan of the back) However, I did not assume that there would be glue stains on the back with that type of grade. The qualifier is one thing that I like about PSA so we will have to agree to disagree.

[barrysloate]

They grade more total cards, but not sure they grade more vintage cards. And I'll have to assume PSA employs more graders. Look, I haven't done a scientific study, I'm just speaking from my observations. I feel SGC is more accurate and consistent, that's all.

[bbeck]

Originally Posted by dwr11

Of course SGC makes fewer mistakes than PSA - they grade just a fraction of the cards PSA grades each month.

Great point. If SGC had the massive volume of PSA, I am sure many more mistakes would be found. Just a basic ebay keyword search shows over 6,000 SGC cards for sale and over 98,000 PSA cards for sale. PSA would have to be superhuman to produce fewer or the same amount of miscues as SGC.

[Big Ben]

So if SGC grades fewer cards, and I have no reason to doubt this, than I think that there is no excuse for SGC to not have a better data base for collectors to look up cards before they decide on a purchase. jmho

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by bbeck

Great point. If SGC had the massive volume of PSA, I am sure many more mistakes would be found. Just a basic ebay keyword search shows over 6,000 SGC cards for sale and over 98,000 PSA cards for sale. PSA would have to be superhuman to produce fewer or the same amount of miscues as SGC.

Christ, people forget that PSA has been AROUND A LOT longer hence more graded cards are available.

I would like to compare year by year over the last 5 years and I would bet the numbers are A LOT closer then many think.

James G

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

I assumed that there was something wrong with the card such as a wrinkle etc... (the card was a 1941 Playball SGC 40 Tommy Henrich and I won with a $10 bid so I wasn't too worried about getting a scan of the back) However, I did not assume that there would be glue stains on the back with that type of grade. The qualifier is one thing that I like about PSA so we will have to agree to disagree.

I hear ya, on very low dollar cards I sometimes don't need a back scan either.

I guess I wouldn't mind the qualifier so much, but I have seen so many examples of PSA adding a "OC" where IMO it really shouldn't have been warranted. Basically I would rather have an SGC 80 over an SGC 96 (OC). Just my preference, I understand the other side of it too.

[botn]

Originally Posted by bbeck

Great point. If SGC had the massive volume of PSA, I am sure many more mistakes would be found. Just a basic ebay keyword search shows over 6,000 SGC cards for sale and over 98,000 PSA cards for sale. PSA would have to be superhuman to produce fewer or the same amount of miscues as SGC.

And on this SGC friendly board SGC may have never made a single mistake.

[k-dog]

Crack out and re-submission has proven that a card graded today can grade differently at any given time in the future. If SGC is having personnel, management and customer service issues...I see that as a much bigger problem than whether or not a card will grade 20 or 30!!!

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by Robextend

I hear ya, on very low dollar cards I sometimes don't need a back scan either.

I guess I wouldn't mind the qualifier so much, but I have seen so many examples of PSA adding a "OC" where IMO it really shouldn't have been warranted. Basically I would rather have an SGC 80 over an SGC 96 (OC). Just my preference, I understand the other side of it too.

I understand where you are coming from. There are times in which I have purchased PSA cards with the "OC" qualifier on vintage HOF players as I really didn't mind the "OC" interpretation.

[alanu]

I used to not like the PSA qualifiers, but I've gotten to the point where the more information I have on why a card receives a grade the better. Sometime on SGC cards I don't know if it's been downgraded for marks, centering etc. Would like to see a "PL" (paper loss) qualifier too.

With that said, I like both PSA and SGC and have had really good customer service with both.

[peterose4hof]

I would like to point out that while it is true if you search "SGC" and "PSA" on Ebay, PSA has about 10 times more items (on average). However, if you refine your search to only including listings that are for pre-war baseball, which I believe is the focus of the majority of the collectors here, the ratio is only 2:1 in favor of PSA.

[bbeck]

Originally Posted by botn

And on this SGC friendly board SGC may have never made a single mistake.

How true. SGC can do no wrong with many on this board. I own many cards from both companies but saying that SGC has graded close to the amount of cards in total volume that PSA has in the past 5 years? If that is the case SGC needs to hire a receptionist again.

[whitehse]

The question still remains..........Whats the rumor?????

[cobblove]

I have been having cards graded sence 1998 by PSA, When SGC first came out I used them just as much as PSA bc they were exciting and new, They also had the .5 grade thing. So all is good for the next 10 years for me and then SGC just seems to just D#*K me around. Up untill the last year I used them maybe 2-4xs a year. After the last national I told them I would never use them again. Was not pleased with my customer service at the national and I now shifted towards BVG as well. I sent them 80 cards this national all PRe 1970. Im going to give them a chance which I feel they diserve. They graded all my cards exactly how I felt they should grade.
PSA and BVG for me!!! SGC never again!!

[4815162342]

I feel that the tide is turning.

[alanu]

Concerning BVG, I haven't used them for pre-war and I like BGS for new shiny stuff, but have had some problems with buying higher grade (EX-MT or better) 1950-60's cards and trying to cross them to PSA or SGC, they often come back "evidence of trimming"

[vintagetoppsguy]

When I search "PSA" on eBay, then filter by "Cards" then "Baseball," here are the results:

151,101 Total
40,928 1981-present
99,086 1942-1980
11,760 Pre-1942
1,165 Not Specified

When I search "SGC" and apply the same filters, here are the results:

16,175 Total
1,465 1981-present
8,906 1942-1980
5,895 Pre-1942
121 Not Specified

Here's what that tells me. There are a lot of people submitting modern CRAP (1981 to present) to PSA. The majority of PSA's business is 1942-1980 and I attribute this to the set registry. Pre-War submissions are pretty close (which another member already pointed out).

[jp1216]

I never really liked BGS/BVG in the past. Slabs were bigger, thicker and (IMHO) blurrier. Tough to see the card inside the slab - if you know what I mean.
But, I've crossed a total of 4 cards (all pre-war) from BVG to SGC over the years and every one of them got a +1 bump. Best card was a BVG 1 Cy Young that ended up in a beautiful SGC 20 slab.
No one ever likes to send in cards to a company 'with issues' or change. Think GAI a few years ago. But I'd still trust and use SGC right now.

[cobblove]

"Concerning BVG, I haven't used them for pre-war and I like BGS for new shiny stuff, but have had some problems with buying higher grade (EX-MT or better) 1950-60's cards and trying to cross them to PSA or SGC, they often come back "evidence of trimming"""

Crossing over is the best thing grading companies can do to creat doubt with competitors. Cracking out with cause different results

[alanu]

Originally Posted by cobblove

"Concerning BVG, I haven't used them for pre-war and I like BGS for new shiny stuff, but have had some problems with buying higher grade (EX-MT or better) 1950-60's cards and trying to cross them to PSA or SGC, they often come back "evidence of trimming"""

Crossing over is the best thing grading companies can do to creat doubt with competitors. Cracking out with cause different results

I originally did crack the first card I crossed over and it came back from both PSA/SGC as "evidence of trimming". The others I kept in the slabs just in case they would come back with the same problem.

[bcbgcbrcb]

A while back, I crossed over a BGS 1 (not BVG) Koufax RC over to SGC (while still in the Beckett holder) and received either a 30 or 40, I forget which. If anything I would say that BGS does not take their grading standards lightly to give out generous grades and is every bit as accurate as SGC.

[cobblove]

+! on BVG!

I have more horror stories from SGC than I do from PSA and BVG combined.
SGC 96 1956 #120 Bill V. Football Trimmed.
SGC 92 1979-80 Topps Wayne Gretzky Trimmed.
To name the recent ones.
PSA has 1 that was trimmed from recent.
None by BVG as of this year.

[bbeck]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Christ, people forget that PSA has been AROUND A LOT longer hence more graded cards are available.

I would like to compare year by year over the last 5 years and I would bet the numbers are A LOT closer then many think.

James G

If you have access to that information I would love to take that bet (and I believe most unbiased observers would also). PSA can be researched, they are public. I have no favoritism towards either company but I would venture when you take all submissions into account PSA would be a runaway winner in the last 5 years.

[cwazzy]

Originally Posted by bbeck

If you have access to that information I would love to take that bet (and I believe most unbiased observers would also). PSA can be researched, they are public. I have no favoritism towards either company but I would venture when you take all submissions into account PSA would be a runaway winner in the last 5 years.

What he said.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Both companies make grading mistakes but SGC makes fewer, and I think most collectors realize that. And that counts for something.

I have no doubt that what Barry means is that SGC has a lower percentage of grading mistakes than PSA, and I completely agree with this based on my experience.
Val

Originally Posted by cwazzy

What he said.

So you finally agree they are the worst

Just busting your nuts Chris. Every chance I get

[barrysloate]

That's correct Val. Thank you.

[cwazzy]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

So you finally agree they are the worst

Just busting your nuts Chris. Every chance I get

Hey PSA has never lost my cards.

And for the record I like them both. But I like PSA a bit more when it comes time to sell.

[hunterdutchess]

Psa gets the most bang for the buck for selling but I really do not care for the qualifiers. Here is a recent 53 Bowman Mantle with a oc that sold:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1953-Bowman-...d#ht_637wt_902
Then look at this card that does not have a oc:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1953-Bowman-...#ht_1630wt_902
The psa 7 oc has more of a boarder and the back is centered unlike the psa 5. So I ask how in the heck does the 7 get a oc and the 5 does not?

[thejuanscards]

Hi guys, FYI, I ended the auction for that mis-graded 1969 Mantle card from page 3 of this thread. I can't sell it like that. I am sending it back to PSA for re-grading, and according to their policies, some cash. Has anybody else had an experience with returning a card like this? Their guarantee states that they will regrade the card for free, and will pay me the difference between the value of the grades (either SMR value or fair market value - their choice). So, in this case a 6 SMR is $165, and a 3 SMR is $40 based on their scale. But, 3's usually sell for closer to $100, so any idea? Am I going to get a check for $125 or $65 in the mail with the returned PSA 3 card? Or is this wishful thinking? Appreciate it, John

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by hunterdutchess

So I ask how in the heck does the 7 get a oc and the 5 does not?

You can request "No Qualifiers" on the PSA submission form. They'll comply with your request (not all qualifiers are eligible), but they'll knock the grade down a couple of points.

This Mantle is a good example. It looks like it would have graded a straight 7 if the centering was better. Since it is O/C, the grader took off a couple of points knocking it down to a 5.

I think that is fair.

[hunterdutchess]

Thanks for the info, I did not know PSA did that.

[bobbyw8469]

I did it with several cards. PM me.

[martyp]

Originally Posted by thejuanscards

Hi guys, FYI, I ended the auction for that mis-graded 1969 Mantle card from page 3 of this thread. I can't sell it like that. I am sending it back to PSA for re-grading, and according to their policies, some cash. Has anybody else had an experience with returning a card like this? Their guarantee states that they will regrade the card for free, and will pay me the difference between the value of the grades (either SMR value or fair market value - their choice). So, in this case a 6 SMR is $165, and a 3 SMR is $40 based on their scale. But, 3's usually sell for closer to $100, so any idea? Am I going to get a check for $125 or $65 in the mail with the returned PSA 3 card? Or is this wishful thinking? Appreciate it, John

I bought a PSA 7 card with a crease (it may have reapeared after being soaked) and showed them where PSA was grading on sight. They put the card into a PSA 4 holder and they mailed me a check.

[alanu]

Originally Posted by thejuanscards

Hi guys, FYI, I ended the auction for that mis-graded 1969 Mantle card from page 3 of this thread. I can't sell it like that. I am sending it back to PSA for re-grading, and according to their policies, some cash. Has anybody else had an experience with returning a card like this? Their guarantee states that they will regrade the card for free, and will pay me the difference between the value of the grades (either SMR value or fair market value - their choice). So, in this case a 6 SMR is $165, and a 3 SMR is $40 based on their scale. But, 3's usually sell for closer to $100, so any idea? Am I going to get a check for $125 or $65 in the mail with the returned PSA 3 card? Or is this wishful thinking? Appreciate it, John

I think they will only pay you if you purchased the card slabbed. If you are the one who sent in the card raw and are re-sending I don't think they will pay you the difference.

[Griffins]

Originally Posted by alanu

I think they will only pay you if you purchased the card slabbed. If you are the one who sent in the card raw and are re-sending I don't think they will pay you the difference.

that was my experience. If you were the submitter it becomes a "mechanical error" and they will simply correct the slab.

It is my understanding that if a card is a 8oc (for example) and it would grade a straight 7 they will automatically do that, if it would be 2 grades or lower they will add the qualifier. Requesting no qualifiers will not automatically get you a 2 grade drop- if the centering is at the level of a card 3 or 4 grades lower they'll give you that.
Requesting no qualifiers will not rid you of getting an "mk" if the card is marked or has an erased mark.