Crossover Issue

[dancollins]

I have to tell the board about this.

First of all I know many of you personally and I also know that many people on the board prefer SGC over PSA for various reasons. I have almost 1000 graded tobacco cards including a complete PSA graded T206 set minus Wagner and Doyle.....

I had 103 PSA graded T207's and I recently was at a show and took them to SGC to cross them over because I felt they looked better in SGC holders and also anytime I buy a SGC T207, PSA never crosses them over due to minimum grade.

When I submitted these to SGC I did not ask for minimum grades I just left it open figuring they would do a great job. I got my cards back and let me tell you I am disgusted.

Out of 103 here is the results:

52 Downgraded and most of them were either 5's that went to 4's or 4's that went to 3's. (Full grades)

5 They felt were trimmed and left in the PSA holder

43 Remained the same

3 Yes only 3 were bumped and only by half a grade


Now before people start saying well that makes sense because of PSA grading and bla bla bla. Let me explain.

I generally prefer PSA over SGC and I am constantly sending cards there. Usually PSA is much more strict on its grades than SGC especially with T206. I also went on Ebay and did some random research and found that they were tougher on my cards than many other SGC graded examples I found. I contacted Brian at SGC and he said to send some of them back to have looked at again. I am not sending 52 cards back. That is rediculous and you would think they would have called me and said hey half of your cards are about to lose a full grade. Now I am sitting here with my partial T207 set being devalued by thousands. I could have lived with maybe 10 or even 15 being downgraded not 52!!!!!!!

Now I am going to rip everyone of them out of their SGC holders and resubmit them to PSA raw. I will never use SGC again it is clear to me that they were biased on the grades due to them being in PSA holders just like PSA does to their holders. It is sad that these two grading companies get in a pissing contest with each other at the collectors expense. I thought SGC was a much better company than this but they have proved their worth to me.... In my opinion beware...

Dan Collins

[botn]

Hi Dan,

That is a bad break. Sorry to hear this has happened to you. I generally always use a minimum grade when using the cross over service because grading is subjective at best. I really do not like using a cross over service as I like the cards I submit to be assessed in their raw state so they get a fresh look.

Absent seeing scans of the cards which got downgraded it would be impossible for any of us to draw any conclusions as to SGC's determination.

Best of luck on getting this resolved.

Greg

[carrigansghost]

If these cards had never been in a holder before and you were just seeing them for the first time in the SGC holder, would you disagree with the grades they received? I think more than likely not.

Rawn

[collectbaseball]

I don't know a whole lot about the whole sub, re-sub, crack and re-sub, review, crossover, crossing over a cracked resubbed Dick Towle-d reviewed crossover of a re-cracked card game (I have never sent in a card to be graded; I have bought graded cards, though), but if you were so concerned about protecting your investment I don't know why you wouldn't submit them with a minimum grade, or raw (unless you suspected them of being altered in the first place).

I know both companies have their quirks and perhaps you landed on the wrong side of one of them (e.g. SGC is more lenient on centering and PSA more lenient on stains).

I think if Joe P were still around he'd say something like:

Aren't they still the same exact cards???

..... Relax .....

Enjoy them.

[Tcards-Please]

Dan

Sorry to hear about your experience. I can certainly understand your frustration as I too have had cards lose a full grade. It would be nice to see some pictures of the SGC graded cards to judge for ourselves. Be sure to let us know what the PSA regrades are as it will be interesting to see how they do the second time around.

r/
Frank

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by dancollins

They were biased on the grades due to them being in PSA holders just like PSA does to their holders.

[Jantz]

This has got to be the most radical attempt I've ever seen to get a Christmas card from Joe Orlando!

[dancollins]

Jantz get serious

[bobbyw8469]

I can totally understand your frustration! I won't get into my incident with SGC here, but let's just say I can relate. In addition to losing thousands of dollars of value, I am sure you also paid a pretty penny to get them all graded. Did the custom inserts they used even fit (some of my 1952 Berk Ross have a gap, some fit perfectly)?? Talk about annoying!

[barrysloate]

It's unclear to me that the cards were penalized because they were submitted in PSA holders. I don't know what effect, if any, that has on the graders. What troubles me most about this, and about grading in general, is that after you complained about the grades, SGC asked you to send half of them back for a review. Why do they have to go through this procedure all over again? Why not get them all right the first time? If grading really is so subjective then what's the point?

Crossing over cards for a regrade is like walking through a minefield. I'm sorry this happened to you, but my opinion is when you buy a card in say a PSA 5 holder, that is what it is at that point in time. Once you send it for a regrade or a crossover, all bets are off.

[bobbyw8469]

Well said Barry....if I believe a grader got it wrong, I get a second opinion. I do it for dentists as well (as one has said I need 3 crowns, and the other said my teeth are fine). I have only sent cards in review a few times (I have NEVER had any cross) enough to tell me that that avenue is NOT the way to go. I have had cards come back that I was 100% POSITIVE look better than the grade on the card. I got my dremmel tool out and resubbed. Had a 1961 Fleer Bob Cousy turn from a '5' into an '8'. Has a 1956 Mantle "Authentic - trimmed", become a '4 (MC)'. I don't do that often, but I do know that those guys are FAR from perfect!!

[benjulmag]

While I understand how you can be frustrated, this seems like a correctible problem -- resubmit them raw to PSA (as you said you plan to do). Presumably SGC did not damage the cards, so if in fact they were downgraded for reasons other than to do with their actual condition, PSA should reslab them with their original grades. And if PSA was not to give a card its original grade, then that would suggest the card was overgraded to start.

I think one of the reasons many collectors prefer SGC is because of the perception they are more strict then PSA. So maybe it's possible the downgrades had nothing to do with bias against PSA? But if you feel it was, going forward maybe the thing to do is not to submit them for cross over in the other company's slab? Also, couldn't you have told SGC that if they knew they were to downgrade the card, to leave the card in the original PSA holder?

Bottom line, as a previous poster said, is that the cards themselves are unchanged. So, if they were inappropriately downgraded, presumably they can be upgraded. I realize the whole thing might be a pain to get back to that point, but at least the option is there.

[barrysloate]

Of course, if he sends them back to PSA raw there is no way he is going to get the exact same grades. They could end up higher or lower, who knows. And if they are lower he has spent a fortune on grading and will lose because of the downgrades. What a pain in the butt.

[Matt E.]

When I read stories likes this it only reaffirms my faith in SGC and why I primarily buy SGC.

Like you I have received lower grades when crossing expensive cards. Usually T205's from PSA to SGC. Each time they had a reasonable explanation why my card received the grade it did (Seems like I usually get bit by erased writing)

Not bashing PSA here, just my two cents.

Dan, Sounds like your beef is they did not call you.

Barry, By having SGC look at them again could be considered good customer service.

EVERYBODY KNOWS SGC GRADES TOUGHER THAN PSA
Matt

[Bicem]

PSA sucks.

[egbeachley]

I imagine the review was to help Brian explain why they got the grades they deserved and wasn't an attempt to regrade.

To say SGC was wrong is ridiculous. The other posibility is that PSA was wrong. Or maybe they were both right based on their particular standards.

I expect they were both right since PSA has loosened their standards over the years.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by dancollins

Usually PSA is much more strict on its grades than SGC especially with T206.

I find the opposite - I've seen way too many cases of PSA cards that I felt were overgraded as compared to SGC cards. Maybe that's all that happened here.

I do think a phone call, especially with an important issue on such a significant submission, would have been appropriate.

[dancollins]

Both SGC and PSA are very inconsistent at best! I would have had put minumum grades on them but I like having a whole set type all graded by the same company. I see problems with both and I am fully aware of PSA issues, I figured SGC would do better. I have bought, sold and upgraded hundreds and hundreds of graded tobacco cards and I have always noticed that PSA was stricter on condition. BOTH SGC and PSA do not cross very often.... Last year I purchased a T206 Chase blue portrait from another member on here it was an SGC 80/6 with a piedmont fact. 42 back and I sent it to PSA and they would not cross it due to minumum grade. I popped it out sent it back raw and got a 6.5 That is just one of many many examples I can give. Bottom line is I feel as though I was ripped off by SGC and Barry is absolutely right they should have done it right the first time. If it were 10 or 15 I could have lived with that not 52. I just spent 2 hours popping all of them out and I can see some of their downgrades but many were just flat out under graded and this has been a very costly lesson and horrible experience. Grading is actually very annoying but the cards are worth more in those stupid holders.

[D. Bergin]

So in the end these cards will have been graded three separate times, been handled and busted out of plastic cases a couple times over and will somehow be the exact same cards they were before they ever saw a holder to begin with?

I imagine I'm a lot clumsier then everybody else in the world.

[calvindog]

So Dan you believe that SGC, by not bumping more of your cards up or keeping them the same grade purposely defrauded you?

Your mistake was that you didn't ask for a minimum grade.

One quick story: I began representing Dave Forman a couple years ago and when he came to my office the first time I gave him four GAI graded cards (graded years ago) to cross: a T206 Matty dark cap graded 6.5, Diamond Stars Mel Ott graded GAI 7, Play Ball Greenberg graded GAI 7.5 and 53 Bowman Color Reese GAI 7.5. Three of them came back graded a half grade lower and one stayed the same (the least valuable card). As soon as I saw the grades, I flipped out and accused SGC of ripping me off. Ok, the last part is a lie.

Moral of the story: if you don't want SGC's opinion on your cards, don't submit them to SGC. Try submitting cards in GAI and SGC holders to PSA and see how well you do. My guess is you'll think they 'ripped you off' too.

[barrysloate]

Matt- is SGC reviewing them as a courtesy, or are they charging Dan a grading fee for each one? That isn't clear to me. If it's a courtesy look then I agree that is a good thing.

[dancollins]

One other piece of info about this was last year I sent roughly 10 SGC graded T207's to PSA at different times and none of them crossed. What is the problem with these grading companies? Both of them do the same things. Part of the reason I sent them to SGC is because everyone on here brags on SGC so much......... Everyone has their opinion on grading companies but I challenge anyone on this board to send a bunch of their graded cards to either PSA or SGC for crossover and see your results. I promise you and would bet on it that no one would be satisfied with results and would feel the same way I do about it.

The reason I am posting about this is to warn others so they don't waste a bunch of time and money like I just did and end up with the picture below.

[dancollins]

They were going to do it as a courtesy but it is a waste of time and pointless unless about 30 of them get higher grades. Already popped out and I will never use SGC again

[dancollins]

calvindog you are missing the entire point...... If this happened to you I am sure you wopuld be pissed off and posting about it. If I had submitted them and asked for a minumum grade I would still be in the same boat I would have half graded by PSA and half by SGC and I like them to be in the same holders when I am putting together a set. Everyone rants and raves about how damn great SGC is and they are not. They are no better and no more consistent than PSA. I guarantee if I sent them into SGC raw again they would be totally different grades just to show a few SGC lovers on here I would if it wouldn't cost hundreds of dollars and all that time. Bottom line is in most years I spend 6 figures on cards and they lost my business for good. Last point if the person who graded these had half a brain he would have realized at some point that more than half the cards were down graded and the average person wuold be pissed off about that and should have called me. That would be customer service.

[bobbyw8469]

Dan, I am like 0 for whatever on crossovers....anytime I leave a card in someone elses slab it gets rejected. Talk about the ultimate insult, I even had GAI of all freaking people reject an SGC slab and say THEY overgraded the card! This was when GAI was "reputable" way back in the day with Danny Fisher, Justin Preddy, et al. Now, I wouldn't want ANY GAI card in my personal collection, nor would I touch one with a 10 foot pole!

Yeah they have all the time in the world to just call you because PSA and their lax standards of grading, over graded your cards. I never cross PSA to SGC for this reason much less buy PSA anymore. About 80% of the PSA cards I have tried to cross end up lower or are altered.



Bottom line is in most years I spend 6 figures on cards and they lost my business for good. Last point if the person who graded these had half a brain he would have realized at some point that more than half the cards were down graded and the average person wuold be pissed off about that and should have called me. That would be customer service.


Man this sounds famliar. Didn't one of the Board members just quit that sounded just like this

[scottglevy]

Andrew,

The difference is that Dan is the 'real deal' not a pretender. Just take a look at his set registry if you have any doubts. I never knew that one man could own so many high grade Lenox back T206s

Regards,
S

Scott I was referring to the money comment. I have no doubt he is legit more so than another.

[3-2-count]

Dan sorry to hear your experience was a bad one. I do have one question though. Why didn't you take the initiative to call SGC yourself on such a sizable cross over submission with specific instructions? I can tell you this, if it were me I would have had notes on my submission form to cover my butt and also placed a call into them prior to on something this size.
They're very easy to get ahold of. You should in my opinion take much of the responsibility in this instance. Again, just my opinion.

[ullmandds]

That sucks Dan...I recently sent 42 cards to SGC for a combination of grading, crossovers, etc. When I got the cards back I was perplexed at some of the grades. Some were undergraded, some were what I thought to be overgraded...some didn't cross.

IT's really unfortunate our great hobby has come to this. The grading companies have got us by the balls...and there is not a thing we can do about it!

But I think you are wrong saying PSA grades tobacco cards tougher than SGC...this is totally wrong...and in my opinion the opposite is true...and if SGC sucks...than PSA is the antichrist!

[dancollins]

Tony I submitted them in person at a show to Brian and he reassured me they would do a great job grading but you have a point that I should have took some other steps. None the less I am not happy and I am relaying my story to people so something doesn't happen to them like this and many members with previous posts have nothing better to do but find a reason to argue.

[FrankWakefield]

I love the photo of the mass slab grave.

Dan, if you'd never graded them in the first place with PSA, nor the second time with SGC, nor again with PSA; AND if you'd have devoted all of that grading money to buying more cards, then you'd have one fine pile of cards right now. Maybe the lesson was to bust 'em outa the PSA slabs before submitting to SGC, maybe the thing to do was not fool with slabbing. And if you're content when you get them all back into PSA slabs, then obviously that was the right thing for you. Wish you well with it all.

[3-2-count]

Dan I totally understand. My objective is to not argue here. Gets you no where. I just think it's very important that others know that when submitting a cross over submission, especially a large one like yours you'd better make it very clear to the submitter your "goal". If you throw caution to the wind without it you take a chance of getting hurt just as you did. I hope it all works out in the end for you. As others have mentioned you still have the same great cards so that's a plus, right??

[Peter_Spaeth]

From my observation SGC is less strict about corner wear but more strict about surface wrinkles, paper loss, marks, etc. I don't think you can fairly complain given that each company has its own criteria and you did not specify minimum grade. It is my opinion that recognizing you have significant cards, SGC would want your business and would not deliberately screw you on your submission. That said, all grading is a crapshoot.

[T206Collector]

"Usually PSA is much more strict on its grades than SGC especially with T206."

This is just completely wrong. I once attempted a 40 T206 PSA cross over of PSA 4, 5 and 6 graded T206 cards and only 30 came back graded by SGC. (Of course, I put a minimum grade -- PSA is notorious for overgrading pre-war cards.) I could also give you countless examples/stories of PSA 5 graded T206 cards with wrinkles that SGC would never cross over. SGC is somewhat more lenient when it comes to moderate corner rounding and centering, but otherwise is the stricter company with respect to creasing, wrinkles, paper loss, glue residue, etc.

Your failure to put a minimum grade was a catastrophic mistake and the blame here should not be shifted to SGC. The fact that they have signaled a willingness to work with you on a group of them only confirms that their customer service is second to none.

Finally, the below T206 Cobb was submitted to SGC by me for a crossover. I submitted it in its PSA 4 case, with a "Min. 50" notation. SGC gave it a 60, which I always felt was the right grade. By doing so, they have affirmed for me that I need not crack my PSA cards out before submitted for crossovers.

From SGC Graded Cards

[aaroncc]

I'm trying to understand what benefit it is to SGC to lower the grades?

[bobbyw8469]

No benefit that I can think of. On my submission and the OP submission I am sure it was an inexperienced grader....I had 64 cards, and the OP had quite a bit as well. Maybe they are giving their big subs to their graders with the least experience?

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From my observation SGC is less strict about corner wear but more strict about surface wrinkles, paper loss, marks, etc. I don't think you can fairly complain given that each company has its own criteria and you did not specify minimum grade. It is my opinion that recognizing you have significant cards, SGC would want your business and would not deliberately screw you on your submission. That said, all grading is a crapshoot.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Originally Posted by dancollins

Tony I submitted them in person at a show to Brian and he reassured me they would do a great job grading but you have a point that I should have took some other steps. None the less I am not happy and I am relaying my story to people so something doesn't happen to them like this and many members with previous posts have nothing better to do but find a reason to argue.

No one is looking to argue, but I think many would do things a lot different and that is the message being conveyed. There are plenty of good reasons to bash any grading company, but this might not be one of them.

[slidekellyslide]

Did you take scans of any of these before cracking them out? It would be helpful to see examples of the downgrades.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

I am sure it was an inexperienced grader.

As far as I know, they have been using the same small group of graders for a very long time -- there are no "inexperienced graders" at SGC.

I once made the same complaint to them at a show and was told that there are no new graders and they've had no turnover in the grader department.

[smtjoy]

I can not help but think I am happy I choose SGC for my grading. I do feel they are tougher than PSA as well as more consistent and threads like this only confirm it.

I feel sorry for what happened to you Dan but it really sounds like you played the reslab game and lost. If you liked the cards in the first place and you were crossing as you said because you liked the SGC slabs better then the grades should not have mattered, at the end of the day you had the same great cards in the slabs you prefered. But because of your comments I can not help but think you were crossing because you felt many/most of them would get bumped and were doing it for your own gain and when that failed you decide to take it out on SGC.

Good luck on your resubbing at PSA and for your sake I hope you get the easy grader over there so all your grades come out higher and you can come on here and praise PSA's great work lol.

[nolemmings]

*

[bcornell]

Originally Posted by dancollins

One other piece of info about this was last year I sent roughly 10 SGC graded T207's to PSA at different times and none of them crossed. What is the problem with these grading companies?

T207's often vary in size and even when a card is short but untrimmed, both SGC and PSA may reject the card because it doesn't measure "normally". I've had that happen more than once with submissions. It may have happened with a number of your cards.


Bill

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

No benefit that I can think of. On my submission and the OP submission I am sure it was an inexperienced grader....I had 64 cards, and the OP had quite a bit as well. Maybe they are giving their big subs to their graders with the least experience?

I could be very wrong, but doesn't more than one grader factor into the final grade? I thought at the very least a second grader looks over the original grader's decision. Obviously that is not the issue here anyway, but that was my understanding.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by smtjoy

sounds like you played the reslab game and lost...

the end.

[botn]

I understand Dan is upset as any of us would be if we lost money or value in our cards however that is why it is imperative if using the cross over to employ minimum grades. You lose nothing other than the grading fee by doing this. Under these circumstances there is no reason or incentive for SGC to have misgraded the cards. What do they gain in do so? I do not use SGC but who says the cards that downgraded were graded right by PSA in the first place? Which is why on the second post on this thread I suggested Dan provide some scans so we know if SGC messed up. Think it is only fair if you are going to trash someone or you want meaningful responses to a problem you have to be willing to provide sufficient information.

[quinnsryche]

The original poster is wrong in this case. If he didn't want them qualified with a minimum, it's his fault. SGC doesn't owe him a phone call, he chose to let the chips fall on the grading. They graded them at their standards, not PSA's. If he loves PSA so much, why did he want to cross them over? Anyone with any knowledge of grading in this hobby KNOWS PSA overgrades and SGC is tougher. Sending that many cards as a crap shoot with fingers crossed makes no sense whatsoever. Also, why would anyone think a card should automatically crossover equal from one to another? Kinda defeats the purpose of 2 completely different grading companies, doesn't it?

[M's_Fan]

Dan, I just wanted to say I feel your pain. I really wish you would have asked us on the board and I think we would have told you this mass crossover from PSA was a bad idea.

And let me just state that I'm an SGC fan, all of my cards are SGC graded. This is mainly because I love the look of the SGC holder, their fees are reasonable, and they have great customer service.

But I have to admit that SGC has a big anti-PSA bias. PSA probably has an anti-SGC bias, though I don't know that from experience.

I've quit buying PSA cards and trying to get them to cross over because SGC never gives a PSA graded card a fair shake, I really think they are harsher on cards graded by other companies, it makes them feel superior when they can turn their nose up at a PSA graded card.

Consider this stunning Mathewson that SGC wouldn't grade:



Luckily I said I wouldn't accept below an SGC 60, so they just charged me the grading fee and sent it back, but if I didn't, who knows what it would have come back in (30, 40, or 50, depending on the mood of the grader).

This was supposedly due to "glue residue" on the back of the card. Huh? The back is clean!

I gave up crossing over after this experience, I'm not going to pay money to boost SGC's ego.

So tell me how this Matty isn't a 60 and this McGraw is? The Mathewson has sharper corners, colors and a cleaner back.



The silly part about this is that grading companies are losing revenue because people have become very hesitant to cross cards over. So they've shot themselves in the foot in my opinion with their snobiness.

[JasonL]

You said this was an in-person show submission. Was there some discussion between you and SGC at the time -some dialogue wher you indicated that you wanted to be called if there was significant discrepancies in the grades, or was there any talk at all about the best way to submit the cards (e.g. what service level offered you protection against this type of outcome, etc)...?

As much as this stinks, I would think that the only fair gripe you would really have is if something occurred that was different than what you expected based upon your interaction with SGC. I certainly sympathize, but I'm not confident I have enough info to actually judge fairness, etc.

Thanks for the heads-up regardless of PSA vs SGC and fairness, etc, because it is a valuable lesson if you have a concern towards preserving card value when submitting.

[botn]

I think there is plenty of incentive for a grading company to cross over a card. That means one more card in their holder and one less in their competitors. That is how you build market share.