Another point I want to make is that while going through these cards when I got them back I do agree that some of them deserved to be downgraded but not 52. That is my problem and the point many is missing. 52 cards out of 103 is a bit over the top and it does clearly show bias. I ask the people that think SGC does no wrong to step back for a moment and see that they have inconsistent grading as well. Since many people talked so highly of SGC I figured I would give them a shot and it didn't work out for me. Now they will never get a hold of my T206's and T205's.

The real lessons learned is grading companies do not like giving crossovers and put a minimum grade on your submissions.

Thanks for the scans, my 2 cents-

Wilie- way too much corner damage for a 4, at best a 40/3
Severoid- ouch I think they both got it wrong looks like a 2.5 at best or most likely 30/2
Ball- I think this one is closer to a 5 than a 4 and would agree with PSA
McLean- too much corner wear, correct at a 40/3
Coulson- same as McLean 40/3
Danforth- very borderline, weak 4, strong 3, tossup

On crossovers I have sent over 250 1940 and older PSA cards to SGC for crossover and I have had about 25% get lower grades, while your percentage was higher I dont think off the charts from your couple scans shown.

I have over 800 cards slabbed by SGC and I agree no grading company is perfect. I have had very few disagreements out of all those cards. Many times when I expect a higher grade then I get, it is often me who missed something. One thing about SGC is that you can always reach out to them and have them explain it.

I do use the crossover service, and when I do, I pretty much know what to expect based on SGCs grading methods.

Again I am sorry it didn't work out for you, but many times you need to examine the card beyond the slab it is in. In the examples you have shown so far, a good argument can be made for downgrades.

Rob

If you learned that SGC does not like giving crossovers you have shown no objective evidence in support of this lesson.

Dan,

You have made a few replies since I posted and others have pointed out the grading company differences.

But the underlying question to me is would you have posted or complained to PSA is the situation was reversed.

The cards you have all posted to me are either tweeners or definately should have been down graded.

I currently have about a dozen PSA 5s that have small creases in them. They will stay in PSA holders because SGC would not give them an EX and may even drop to VG with them.

Why not show the cards that got up grades not much talk from you about them.

Lee

Sorry Dan, I'm just not feeling it.
 

Most of what I would like to say has already been covered, and I have no problem with what SGC did here. I would be upset if there was some wink and an a nod deal where larger submitters or those friendly with the SGC echelon get bumps on that basis. Let the cards stand or fall by themselves.

I would agree with Scott--only one of the cards shown looks harshly graded, and I'm going only on the basis of a scan that might not reveal everything.

While the bias thing might have some visceral appeal, it makes little business sense. SGC has to know it runs the risk of losing customers by downgrading many of their crossovers, who are unlikely to be pleased with such result. Moreover, it would be far easier to just take a batch of 100 cards and give them a straight cross with no real examination. It's not hard for me to imagine a blurry-eyed grader at the end of the day seeing an opportunity to cross 100 off his to-do list in about ninety seconds by just picking 5 to bump, four to downgrade and passing the buck on the rest. Who's going to question, or really even be upset? The fact that they changed grades on so many at least suggests to me that they took the time to look at each card.

Next, what is the point of "they lowered it by a full grade". Of course they did--they have no half grades under 60 that could apply. If it's not worthy of a strict cross, that's what happens. Either request min grade or roll the dice.

Finally, this whole notion in the original post that you could "live with" 10-15 cards being lowered, but now your collection is devalued by "thousands" is bogus to me. If the cards truly are 5s and you want them in SGC holders, crack them out and submit them raw. They will come back 5s and you'll be out 52x the grading fee of $6 or $7. No devaluation, no "bias". Of course, if they are accurately graded at less than 5, then why blame SGC? If the number on the holder is so damn important, send them to PSA for 52x their grading fee--again, you will not be out thousands and your faith in humanity will be restored.

This whole concept of graders having a bias when they see a card holdered by their competition is very troubling to me, assuming it is true.

Are they grading the card you submit to them, or are they playing politics? If it's the latter, then they are not doing their job, which is to grade cards, period.

Of the last ten cards I crossed over from PSA to SGC (all 1933 Delong or Tattoo Orbit) the results were.....

4 came back higher in a SGC holder
4 came back the same in a SGC holder
2 were retuned because they didn't meet the minimum grade.

When dealing with a grading company, it's virtually impossible to have exact, 100% robotic results time after time after time. The sheer volume they deal with and that pesky human factor won't allow it. I grade hundreds and hundreds of cards a day at my job. I like to think I'm very consistent and one of the best in the business. However, there are times on a day to day basis where there is a slight variance. I think it's unreasonable to expect a complete, scientific approach to grading....it is what it is. For my money, I collect SGC.

Or it clearly shows original overgrading.

What Nolemmings said is completely spot on.

The same "bias" occurs when you review SGC graded material with SGC and PSA material with PSA. Most of the time you will not get the desired result of a bump. So do we conclude the submitter thinks his/her cards are nicer than than they are or do the graders get influenced by the number of the flip and hesitate to change the grade?

When I attempt a *bump* at SGC, I often include a short and honest note about why I feel that particular card should be graded higher than it is. More often than not, it works.

I disagree w/ the notion that bias does not come into play when grading a previously graded card as I don't think it is bad for business in the long run. I'm not surprised by the reaction on this board in regard to their quickness to agree w/ what SGC does, even I find myself more in agreement w/ SGC on cards than PSA. It is clear that this board will never agree w/ PSA on almost anything so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Ask those that are PSA apologists and they will have just as many stories of PSA wholesale rejecting SGC cards to cross over--so it goes both ways.

However, I have seen it done too many times to disregard it as fallacy.

Rhett,

That's why pliers and screwdrivers were invented.

Thank you Rhett that is the point I have been trying to make.

James, I kid you not I can crack a PSA or SGC slab in 6.8 seconds flat (I had my wife time me!) so I totally understand. Ironically, those GAI slabs are tough SOB's in relation (and don't even get me started on the Beckett ones!).

What I am looking for is evidence of a card submitted in an SGC holder that PSA graded higher than the SGC grade. SGC routinely upgrades PSA cards, where warranted. Anyone have any examples of a PSA upgrade from an SGC card that was submitted for a crossover?

I once had a common 1956 Topps card in an SGC 86 holder which crossed to a PSA 8. Probably a $20 card. And it was the only upgrade I've ever gotten from PSA.

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!

That will be a PSA 4 every day of the week because of the corner rounding, but I have always felt (i.e., pre-PSA/SGC world) that a card like my Cobb is an EX, even with the slightly rounded corners, because it is otherwise clean, has no wrinkles, etc. But I know a lot of folks who collect 33 Goudeys in EX 5 condition do not chase the SGC 60s because they find the corners are often too soft from SGC.

But the point is, know your grader's standards before you dump a few hundred/thousand dollars to have your collection graded by them. Then you won't be surprised by the grades.

I've had SGC grade over 500 of my raw T206 cards over the past decade. Maybe once did I have to go back to them and suggest they under-graded a card. They get it right, folks, with a strong degree of consistency. But the only way you would know that is if you spent the time sending cards in, analyzing the grades, talking to the SGC folk, etc.

I personally would grade it VG EX+ but it does not offend me to call it EX. SGC will grade T206s with even more corner wear EX though, and that bothers me.

I sure do here i s a card that was an SGC 70 I do not have the original scan... Jerry Totino might because I purchased it from him sent it to PSA for a crossover and it was bumped to a 6

I agree PSA had it right, maybe a 4.5 at best but nice Cobb

I agree. I didn't think either PSA or SGC awarded EX grades for corners rounded to that extent.

sgc
 

sorry to hear about the troubles, Dan.

i must say that every time i've spoken with SGC's customer service, things have worked out well.

best,

barry

SGC will. My past set had a number of examples of this. The corners have to get worn to my Bender to merit an SGC 50:

<table style="width:auto;"><tr><td><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/T5c32Hn0DzJcPoL6fnzHug?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Ys7fw31kTDs/RouveE_nEKI/AAAAAAAAAjs/nFVjKs4qsw0/s800/Bender%20Portrait%20SGC%2050.JPG" /></a></td></tr><tr><td style="font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:11px; text-align:right">From <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/pmifsud3d/SGCGradedCards?feat=embedwebsite">SGC Graded Cards</a></td></tr></table>

T206 Collector you should go work for SGC or buy stock in their company you defend them like someone would their Mother or Girlfriend :D

I've seen cards from both companies with corner problems but otherwise nice getting PSA 5 or SGC 60 grades. I just hate that SGC is death on any kind of backwriting no matter how small (even on blank backs). Maybe PSA has the right idea when they grade PSA 6 MK instead of the grade tumbling to an SGC 10 or 20. Just venting... :rolleyes:

They really hammer Old Judges

Similar to Bender?

In all fairness when someone starts a thread with the title, "Very Very Disgusted with SGC - Beware" you have to expect a reaction. I am also a believer in SGC, however I feel objective and when they get it wrong I will say it. I don't think your issue warrants a rant matched by the thread title.

That card is definitely vg-ex look at the corner wear. No way in the world that card is EX

Nice looking but not an EX

Well Rob we all have opinions thanks for yours!!!

Sgc
 

I just had some cards graded as well and yes SGC can be tough, but you have to understand both PSA and SGC kind a have a different perspective with grading cards - I still deal with both and for the most part no issues. I would love to get better grades and sometimes I feel SGC maybe off a bit, but I still accept the fact they look at way more cards then me!

Jimmy

I know. I probably should.

I used to have a lot of value tied up in SGC. Putting aside my autographed pre-war cards, I only have a couple dozen SGC graded cards any more. I have about 200 raw T206 cards.

But having "been there" and "done that" I still find it surprising that people "follow the leader" to PSA. It only took me a couple of years of really bad customer service and inconsistent T206 grading to make a clean break.

You ought to have a sit down with the SGC folk at your local card show. Get to know them. They are really great people, very responsive to customer issues.

Another grade I don't agree with. The point is, both companies grade differently, despite the superficial similarity in numbering.

I was furious this morning and I am glad I posted because some of these posts were so comical they actually put me in a good mood!!! :D


The funny thing is that if I would have sent 105 T207's to PSA that were in SGC holders for crossover and the same result happened I guarantee many of these posts would be much different. People would be saying see I told you PSA sucks... Here is my real opinion I think SGC and PSA both suck. Unfortunately for our hobby cards are worth more in the holders. Some posters are saying well who cares what they are graded they are the same great cards. That is a line of crap, whether you want to admit it or not collecting these cards are also an investment with the money they cost, so in an industry dominated by "grading" it absolutely matters. I used to be 100% anti grading.

That Lajoie actually looks like the one I had in my collection -- and may very well be. In any event, no -- the Bender is missing an entire corner (top left), while the Lajoie has a bit more in terms of corner definition on all four. There is, obviously, no black line -- and I had an SGC 60 Schreck that looked a lot more like my Bender and used to get me a little worked up.

my opinion on re-slabbing is that i wouldn't do it, i don't care whose slab it is in as long as it is one of the big three. To each their own, but it seems a little narcissistic!

Dan

While i agree it sucks, but "ya roll tha dice, ya takes your chances" with getting a re-grade. When something is subjective like grading, you have to accept the consequences.

Point is, you still have great cards.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/3084954078/" title="1908 Detroit Free Press PC 773-4 by calvindog65, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/3084954078_91616db3e7_o.jpg" width="475" height="882" alt="1908 Detroit Free Press PC 773-4" /></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/4581299311/" title="1911-14 Martens Bakery D304 (No Team) by calvindog65, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4581299311_df6170edc6_o.jpg" width="900" height="761" alt="1911-14 Martens Bakery D304 (No Team)" /></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/3210097170/" title="1911-14 General Baking D304 (No Team) by calvindog65, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3449/3210097170_3bac820a2f_o.jpg" width="900" height="735" alt="1911-14 General Baking D304 (No Team)" /></a>

Here is a vg-ex Cobb, compare to the ex Cobb.

Joe

How many think this card is overgraded?

Joe

And I used to be 100% pro PSA. You can probably do some archival searches on here from a 6 or 7 years ago where I was trumpeting the virtues of PSA. But then I learned the differences between the two companies and how they saw T206 cards and I had my whole collection crossed over to SGC -- with eyes wide open.

No question Dan that the hobby lives and dies by grading. Too bad it evolved that way, but that's the way it is.

Probably because you owned CLCT stock. :D:D

Jeff- that D304 Martens Hal Chase isn't even close to a 3. It's not even a nice 2. But it's a beautiful 1!:)

Joe- that N172 Brouthers looks more like a 6.

Here is one more example this is my Plank that I purchased in last years REA auction..... SGC had this one wrong I crossed it over to PSA and excepted the downgrade and the image will show you why. I don't feel it hurt the value at all a Plank is a Plank

That Cobb should be a 5+++

Dan,

Did you crack out the cards that received a bump from SGC or are they staying in their slab?

On a side note, it would be nice if SGC could adjust the pop report since those cards do not reside in the slab. Unless Dan returns the flips, I'm not sure how that would happen though.

r/
Frank

I'm missing Joe P. right about now.

I popped all of them including the ones that were bumped. Its all or nothing with me!!! I unfortunately prefer a set to be graded all by one company.

Dan- in the case of the Plank, the 20 it got from SGC is an intermediate grade that PSA doesn't have. It's equal to a 1.5. PSA couldn't give it a 2, so it had no choice but to give it a 1. A 1.5 seems reasonable to me. It's beat up but still has decent eye appeal and no major problems other than wear.

By the way the pop reports are off beyond belief. Just from crossovers alone they are way off. Its not like SGC alerted PSA that I crossed over 105 cards.

Who is Joe P ?

If I took these grades seriously I would be way more bald than I already am...:)

Collect the things inside not the things holding them and you will save your sanity...try and make sense of this grading game and you will lose your mind.

Cheers,

John

P.S. Paul please send in my Cobb this week... :)

Well said, LOL Joe would have loved this one.

Probably this threads worst nightmare :). RIP Joe!

Dan says:

"I sure do here is a card that was an SGC 70 I do not have the original scan... Jerry Totino might because I purchased it from him sent it to PSA for a crossover and it was bumped to a 6"

Was this before or after PSA instituted half grades?

If before the only choice PSA had was a 5 or a 6. Card clearly doesn't deserve a 5 so PSA had to grade it a 6. To do otherwise would have been evidence of its bias.

Joe Palaez.

PSA has a 1.5 grade.

It was last year after the half grades came out

I have to say
 

...seeing front scans of PSA/SGC 1 cards that look minty mint to which people respond that the card was obviously undergraded is quickly developing into one of my Net54 pet peeves.

People -- card grading is not designed to organize cards on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of beauty or eye appeal. It is designed to capture the flaws in a card and alert potential buyers of those flaws in a way that was impossible prior to the advent of grading, i.e., to avoid me finding a back crease in my friend's 1933 Tris Speaker on the way home from a card show, when he thought the card was EX.

To be sure, people who sell their mint looking 1s for crap looking 1s prices are missing the boat. But that doesn't mean that the mint looking 1s should be graded any higher.

Buy the card -- not the holder; but use the number to help guide your purchase.

In regards to the PSA 4 Wilie T207, why did it not receive an OC qualifier from PSA originlly? It has like 95/5 centering.

I think Dan deserves some slack here for the rant. He just lost thousands of dollars in grading and the value of his cards. If that happened to most of us, I think we'd be similarly upset. (And Dan has already admitted he should've put a minimum grade for crossover down. However, I'd still be upset if I were him. I recently got in a dispute w/ Chase bank where I lost $70 in overdraft fees because of a mistake where Chase Mortgage didn't communicate with Chase Online, and I was steaming because of that. And that was only 70 bucks!)

One thing that would keep grading consistent is if the companies kept pictures of cards they graded from sets and used them as a guide when grading. That would actually help them stay more consistent.

T206Collector..... If people bought cards based on appearence instead of the grade no one would know what anything is worth. Unfortunately the grades ultimately determine the value of the cards. We all know grading is very subjective but to a point that is a cop out that bails out the grading companies. People pay money to have cards graded and therefore the grading companies owe it to the hobby, collector, and card industry to do a better job at being consistent especially when the value between grades is so substantial.

The one thing that I do like about the grading companies is they did at least set some standards as to what vg-ex and ex and so on should be. I remember back 12 years a go everything was raw and every dealer claimed everything to be way better than what the cards were.

Thanks Daryl. I still don't know all of PSA's half grades.:o

If that is the case, the card would merit a 1.5, IMO.

thank you Gary!!!

The OJ that was posted, in my opinion, is way over graded. should be a 4, those corners were rough

Of course I have been in situations like that as well, however I would not take it out on someone if it wasn't well deserved. From the few T207 examples I saw, I don't believe anyone should be disgusted with SGC.

The only good thing is that here is that there is a lesson learned. Always use the minimum grade method when you do not want to drop grades.

Dan - Didn't mean to sound unsympathetic., either way you still have great cards.

I feel bad for Dan only in that he tried to cross cards over and it didn't work out the way he wanted -- and may have cost him money.

I feel less bad for him when he claims that SGC "ripped him off." Because SGC didn't rip him off.

The centering and diamond cut (look at the top) does not deserve a 6. That card seems to have been graded acurately or a bit high IMO by SGC. Looks like some cads I have that are 4's and 5's.

Crap the pic did not come with it. Refer back to post of the UZIT t206. Nice card none the less

Um... I buy cards based on grade and eye appeal. If you buy cards purely on grade then you are lucky because you'll never have to look at a scan again.

You know who agrees with this? Everyone at SGC.

That's really the point of 3rd party grading -- to help identify the hidden flaws so that dealers can no longer claim that cards are higher than they really are.

This whole thing seems so silly when you read it. If you want a card to cross then don't submit it in another company's holder. If you want to get the proper grade you are hoping for you have to include a little note and state why you believe your card deserves a certain grade. :rolleyes: COME ON! These companies are supposed to be grading cards as non biased third parties. I realize they provide a service, but should you be able to complain and then they will change the grade? If so, then the system is broken and these companies are not objective 3rd parties!

Agree, completely. Collectors seem to think that if they just pay their bills to third party graders or -- gasp! -- they send them lots of cards, then all objectivity should be tossed out the window when the grades are handed out. If you want to put your own grades on your own cards I'd suggest starting your own third party grader; or perhaps submit your cards to PRO.

I would like to see those same cards submitted to PSA, ungraded to see what grades would return. I wonder what level of consistency there is a second time around.

As a gambler, I recognize one in the poster (who didn't get a minimum, and dared to crossover), I'm sorry (even though I am a pro-SGC guy) this happened but I never understood the purpose of crossing over.

Also, as one poster mentioned. What would the point of sending them back in to SGC if they can't get it right the first time? Cards sent in the same condition don't get better by flight.

Larry

No, the cards wouldn't get any better, but as long as it's people doing the grading the grading will be inconsistent.

Maybe the grader didn't sleep well or argued with his wife,(Or she argued with her husband) and wasn't in a good mood.

Or maybe there was a special card going through that day and he didn't get the assignment.....

Borderline cases will seem better or worse depending on someones mood, or merely on different perceptions different days. Try taking a stack of maybe 150 cheap cards like late 70's in less than near mint. Now go through them and pick out the nicer ones. make two piles, the vg-ex and the ex. Leave them somewhere for a couple days, and sort them again. I'll bet you end up with a few that move from one stack to the other. For more fun try it at different times of the day. Say maybe right after a nice lunch and at 4:30.

Getting it 100% consistent is pretty hard And the workload can't make it any easier. I tried going through some fairly modern cards looking for the absolute best ones. 81 topps, looking at centering and corners mostly. I found I got sloppy after 3-400 cards and pretty hopeless after only 600.

And all that is why they're willing to do reviews

Steve B

I've only used the crossover service with SGC a couple of times,and I had sent GAI slabbed cards to them.I did state that if they wouldn't get the same grade or higher,to just send 'em back.One came back same grade,others got bumped a grade higher,to my suprise.

I buy cards in SGC,PSA,and BVG holders.In doing this,I have noticed that the PSA graded cards seem inconsistent-some seem graded accurately,others clearly overgraded.For this reason,I will never try to cross my PSA to SGC.And with BVG,I actually feel the cards that I have that they've graded seem right on the money.

With all that being said,I'm sorry you had a bad experience with all of this,and I hope you find a way to work it out.

Sincerely,Clayton

I've thought about crossing over but I'm too lazy and never get around to sending in anything. I do have some stuff waiting for a trip to SGC, some of which was taken out of a PSA slab as soon as I got the card.

I use the grade up top by the company pretty much as a guide. When I look at an auction or listing on here, I'll see the grade in the title and I have a general idea as to what it will look like. However, it all comes down to eye appeal for me. If I see a PSA 3 that in my eyes looks better than a 4, that's great. I'm taking the one that looks best to me and the one I want in my collection.

Professional grading is not an exact science. Maybe the grader hadn't had their cup of coffee yet in the AM or maybe it's getting late in the PM on a Friday. Graders are human. I only look to be happy with the card and to heck with what the flip says.

My last SGC sub included about 10 crossovers. One GAI got bumped up, Both BVGs got a bump up and out of 7 PSAs (0 got bumped up, 3 got bumped down, and 4 crossed).

Dan
 

Joe P. is Joe Pelaez and one of the best friends I ever had-I miss him terribly.


about your cards-SGC grades the cards to their standard whether they are in PSA slabs or raw. They will work with you if you talk to them -your buisness is important to them.
I hope this works out for you