T207's
 

Hi Dan,

Just got home so missed all the 'exciting' discussions on this. Sorry for your bad experience. As you know, I also have a T206 PSA Registry set and am close to a T207 PSA set.

This year I've bought over 60 SGC T207's and sent them to PSA. I decided to crack all of them out of the SGC cases first. I've seen the bias that both PSA and SGC have on crossovers. They each want to appear to be tougher than the other, so are super tough on crossovers. If you crack the cases first, then the grades will come back better I believe.

My result was 25% were downgraded by PSA, 25% upgraded by PSA and 50% the same. One big problem with T207's is the glossy surface, that is prone to light cracking. Sometimes a grader grades down because of that and sometimes they don't. T207's have a lot of minor flaws compared to T206's so it's tougher to get anything higher than a 5 (or 60).

Ron R

One thing Dan, since your cards are going back to PSA I am hoping you will post scans of the 6 cards you posted to see how they are graded this go around. Good luck and I think it should be interesting.

I am not in the camp that follows "the grades ultimately determine the value of the cards" or I would not have paid double for the SGC 30 vs the 40 shown below. I buy the card not the holder, in this case I could not pass on a 30 with a NM front with a little bit of paper loss on the back even at twice the price of the 40. To each his own thou.

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n...98Clarke40.jpghttp://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n...arkeBlue30.jpg

These are the only two cards I have submitted for cross and I did so because I can't stand the way the BVG holder looks. I submitted both to SGC with a minimum grade of SGC 60. One came back an SGC 60 and the other SGC 70.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/Sy...SC350%2030.jpg
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/Sy...lar%20Bear.jpg

More T207's
 

Sorry for your bad experience, Dan,

I've submitted only a few handfuls more (raw) T207s to SGC over the last 4 years combined than your recent crossover hassle. My experiences are mostly in line with previous posters regarding different aspects of their grading standards - especially SGC's harshness for tiny marks and glue residue on the back. It is a shame that the variance exists, but so be it.

Like Ron R, I've just caught up on the thread, and while he and I differ on choice of grading company, I think we'd probably agree on approach with each based on our individual experiences. Based on previous board discussions, I decided to crack out the few cards I wanted moved to SGC from various TPGs before sending in for grading - I had generally positive results.

Those involved in our (offline) pre-REA discussions of some of the grades on the high-grade T207 lots know my feelings about the relatively loose standards for the grades on some of those 7's and 8's. I understand those were graded much earlier in life - they'd not pass muster at those levels today ... IMO. Ironically, I expect to be finding out just how the crossover experience is, though, as I was fortunate to be in with others on one of those lots and have now completed the T207 set (sans Lewis no-emblem). The final card/cards should be the highlight of the my entire set, but I just "know" I'll be disappointed with that experience ... and I should just leave well enough alone and enjoy the set as-is.

Again - I wish your experience had been better and I'll take full care when submitting the impending crossover. Whoever it was that suggested a "cursory review before even beginning the grading" was the big takeaway from this thread for me - great approach.

--
Mike

In my view, this thread demonstrates the subjectivity in the very nature of grading. While improvements could probably be made to improve consistency within and among third-party grading services, in the end the subjectivity simply cannot be avoided.

Nevertheless, I believe the hobby is far better off for the grading companies, at least those that are generally trusted, as they, in conjunction with the internet, greatly facilitate long-distance transactions.

The problem, as I see it, is that too much value is ascribed to differences in grades.

Scott- I remember that E98 blue Clarke well :( It's cards like this with beautiful fronts and a tiny bit of back paper loss which are always welcome in my collection. Very nice pickup and a great card.

great posts!!!

Wow, that's a lot of posts for this thread. I just want to know how many of the grades change after you re-submit them back to PSA, raw.

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

You employ SGC to assess the condition of your cards, which they did. And when you get grades lower than what you expected, what do you do?

You make your first thread ever on the main board and blast SGC for doing exactly what you paid them to do.

Not long ago, a board member started a thread asking other members what they thought they contributed to the board.

So with this first thread of yours, what have you contributed?

By the way, I have looked at your T206 set. You are a very fortunate individual.


Jantz

This thread is a great example of one of the problems with our society. People doing things under their own free will but when it goes wrong they always try to find someone else to blame and don't take responsiblity for there own actions.

By the Dan you do a nice job of avoiding the questions and only acknowledge the posts that give you a little positive.

It is time to suck it up and move on, you made the decision to submit the cards to SGC under your own free will.

Lee

Actually
 

Probably everyone is a bit at fault here

1) Dan for not realizing that he could ask for a minimum grade. He may never have done this before. In addition, why did he want to move these cards to SGC from PSA. I think there is little doubt that Dan is looking for a profit motive; but ultimately HE needs to take responsibility for not reading or knowing about a minimum grade request. I find myself agreeing with the Behrens brother that he is not accepting his responsibility

Having said that: the problem is "its called fine print" and Dan missed it -- man up to that and you'll get more respect from the other posters. I am, however, sympathetic to his issue - and there is nothing like seeing grades from one company drop when they go to another company (That is amongst the major companies; obviously GEM and PRO. etc, == most of us expect drops from THOSE companies if and when they cross)

2) Brian from SGC could have mentioned, although he does not need to, that there is a minimum grade caveat. It appears from some of these posts, that a quick disucssion BEFORE these cards were submitted that this whole imbroglio could have been avoided. Perhaps this could also serve as a good learning tool for Brian. (I will say that I have met Brian at Leon's dinners and he is certainly a good rep for SGC). And I know things get harried at shows, BUT sometimes taking another 30 seconds, especially with a new client to see exactly what they want, is time well spent. Better to have all the ducks in order (or whatever that horrible metaphor is) rather than have a situation like this pop up. We've all been guilty of that, but the extra 30 seconds can sometimes save you hundreds of hours on the back end

Regards
Rich

Whatever else comes out of this thread, Dan's pic of the pile of cracked SGC slabs is priceless. If third party grading ever goes down in flames, the pic would make a great epitaph.

Rich, I understand that in order for everyone to feel good about what went on with Dan it is important to spread the blame around. But the only mention of crossover submissions on SGC's submission form is as follows:

Crossover Cards from other grading services are reviewed for SGC certification. The minimum grade for a crossover must be equal or less than the original grade. SGC will not accept crossover with a higher minimum grade than originally assigned. When submitting crossover you must state a minimum grade you will accept for each crossover.

How can it be considered fine print when the only mention of crossovers on the form is the above information? Regardless, what experienced collector doesn't know the details of crossovers? And isn't the above info clear enough? Should it come in audio or video form as well on the form?

Everyone here has empathy for Dan as he really got hammered due to a clearly honest mistake. But there is something to be said for the fact that Dan was handled by SGC the way any of us are when submitting cards to SGC. There were no mentions of 'special' deals which only the HOF members or high volume submitters get. Didn't that piss everyone off when we read about one board member getting special treatment when submitting his entire collection for a review at PSA?

I'm not saying that any of the third party graders are without fault -- because they all are in certain areas -- but I can't really see any blame on SGC for this one.

Hasn't GAI already done this once, or is it twice:confused:

"When submitting crossover you must state a minimum grade you will accept for each crossover."

So how did Dan do a large submission with NO minimum grade?:confused::confused:

I don't think
 

Submitting a minimum grade is MANDATORY for a cross-over. Rather this is a box that has to be submitted or noted. Yes; Dan SHOULD have noted what he wanted -- but I'll also say, and I thought I read this about Michael's booth work (I could be wrong) in this thread, that a few seconds from Brian, other than accepting the order, might have saved this whole scenario.

Even Brian saying something like: "You do understand that your grades may all be lower than what they are in the PSA slabs based on what our graders see" is perfectly acceptable.

Jeff L.

I tend to agree with you on this:


If I had to put a blame percent:

Dan 90-95%; SGC 5-10%. At some point, like my original sentence said; DAN HAS to take responsibility

Regards
Rich

The best we can hope for from the grading services is consistency- both in grading cards, and how submitters are treated. Jeff did remind us about one major collector of PSA cards who resubmitted his massive collection for half grade bumps, and was literally given the royal treatment as hundreds of them got bumps and not a single one a downgrade. Everyone agreed that was simply not fair (I know anyone can resubmit for a half bump but when you give them 5000 cards you get the VIP treatment).

All that happened to Dan, as frustrating as it was to him, is that SGC gave his cards a close look and believed they were overgraded. Again, it would be nice if the criteria for grading were standard, but each service has its own view on how cards should be assessed. If there's one thing we learned from this thread it's that the crossover game is a risky one, without the proper safety nets in place.

Barry......et al

Well stated Barry.... and, your prior post (#124) sums up this situation very succinctly......

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


BUT GUYS....it doesn't have to be this way....you have "CHOICE".

Choose to enjoy life, by returning to the age old, time-tested hobby of collecting BB cards in their natural state....

UN--freakin--GRADED


I guarantee you, you will enjoy this hobby much more....spend less $$$$$....and, even live longer :)


This message is from the handful of Net54er's that have an aversion for Graded cards....and, is posted in honor of
our departed Joe P....who would've said it better than me.

Joe P. might have said it better...but we wouldn't have understood a word of it.:)

Dan
 

Dan you certainly picked an issue I would not have recommended for crossover to SGC. It is my experience they are much tougher on these cards T207 then PSA. These cards tend to have cracks and/or wrinkles which SGC will almost always hit you much harder for then PSA. I tend to think SGC is more lenient on corner wear across the board on mid grade T cards. The fact is there are certain issues and or flaws that SGC will grade harsher then PSA and vice versa. If you do resubmit to PSA please let us know how you do.

Jeff, you make a good point because I was one of the many who got ticked when C******* got special treatment from PSA.

Whew - finally caught up on this thread. Nothing much to say that hasn't been mentioned already, except that if you are going to send in that many cards to be graded, how could you not have done your 'homework' beforehand...especially if money was the underlying motive.

Well said Ted --
 

"BUT GUYS....it doesn't have to be this way....you have "CHOICE".

Choose to enjoy life, by returning to the age old, time-tested hobby of collecting BB cards in their natural state....

UN--freakin--GRADED


I guarantee you, you will enjoy this hobby much more..."
______________________________

I hope I'll live longer too, but in any case, I love to crack 'em out, and I love buying 'em raw even more!

Tim

"Jeff, you make a good point because I was one of the many who got ticked when C******* got special treatment from PSA."

Are we not allowed to use his name or has Leon programed it in as a curse word that auto defaults to *********?


:rolleyes:

I think what happened was that Dan met Brian of SGC, and Brian, in effect, said that "we'll take care of your cards." Dan, probably incorrect assumed that meant that most of the cards would crossover at the same grade, so no homework or minimum grade was needed. It was an incorrect assumption, which has obviously cost Dan thousands of dollars. As people have said, Brian might have mentioned minimum grade for crossover to Dan to avoid this, but he was under no obligation to do so. And that's how we ended up with this super-long thread.

Tim N
 

LOVE your above, Tim. Lot's o' LOVE going on here :)

Thanks for quoting me.

P.S......Anyone want to buy 600+ cracked plastics (flips are still intact and some are labelled "6's, and even a few 8's") ? ?


TED Z

it's not a curse word
 

It's not a curse word. I don't even dislike the guy, Jim Crandall. He collects differently and really only collects by number, from what I remember, but to each their own. I harbor no ill feelings towards almost anyone in the hobby...except 1 rooster molestor :rolleyes:.

Perhaps Dan could confirm whether or not Brian mentioned anything about minimum grades when the cards were submitted?

Everyone hates PSA... until it's time to sell.

You forgot to add "....their 1960s Topps baseball card collection."

As much as I dislike graded cards....when it is necessary to have any of my cards graded, I submit them to SGC.
Brian Dwyer, Derek Grady, Mike Goldberg and the rest of the crew at SGC are the best.
I've had a bad experience (or two) with PSA in the past and that turned me off.

I don't do crossovers, it is a risky business....and, especially when you are going from PSA to SGC.
Crossing-over graded cards to gain a slight edge (and perhaps more $$$$) is not my style.
I guess I'm just a "dinosaur" collector.

But, to each his own.


T-Rex TED

I'll see if I can beat Barry here...it's "molester".

I can't believe some of the things he posts but that's another story.

To quote my buddy Brian..."be well"

Steve

P.S. You do know my post was tongue in cheek? :cool:

Missed it Steve.:(

Being the spelling cop is a tough job...it's 24/7.

good press
 

SGC loves this thread...it perpetuates the stereotype that they are more difficult, when in fact, they seem to miss or not care about paper loss and/or pencil marks as much as PSA cares....

You would have been MUCH better served cracking them out yourself and submitting raw....there is no way SGC would grade them equal or higher, as it would be admitting they grade easier than PSA....its a pride thing

CROSSOVERS ARE A LOSING PROPOSITION...

why the grading company would take the risk of breaking out a valuable card is beyond me...you would theink they wouldnt anything to do with this service....

who knows, maybe they are rough in removing cards and now the grades are true????

Hi-
Everyone should collect how they want to collect but I 100% agree with Ted Z. Raw is the only way I have ever (and will ever) collect. I have never even bought a single graded card and I hope I never do. I do understand why most folks collect graded cards (protection, authenticity, competition through the set registries) but it will never be for me.
That being said, several posters have already aired the point I wanted to make. Grading is subjective, so grades will change on resubmittal whether through another grading company or the same grading company. It is only human beings doing the grading afterall.
Yours in collecting,
Alan Elefson

Hee, hee, thanks for the laugh this afternoon!

I guess I'm just unlucky, SGC has never and I mean never missed paper loss or pencil marks on any of my submissions. I disagree with the assessment that they are more lax on both of those than PSA.

+1

The title of this thread should've been "I Forgot To Use The Minimum Grade Option,And Now I'm Pissed".

Are you kidding?
 

You're kidding, right? You have any evidence of this? Because my experience in having my 40 PSA graded T206 cards crossed over was precisely the opposite.

For what possible reason would SGC would want to hammer PSA graded cards as over-graded? If they did that, most cards would not cross over and would instead still reside in PSA slabs. They would be better served crossing everything over so they could populate collections.

That's true, unless you recognize the value in a grading company having more valuable cards in its slabs. If all the Wagners in the world were in PSA holders, SGC would clearly be motivated to cross over as many as possible. That they would try to downgrade any on purpose as a result of some purported grading standard ego misses the point -- and the primary motivation of grading companies -- entirely.

You have to assume the following:

1. SGC virtually only crosses cards over if they meet the same grade or higher in their opinion; otherwise the submitter of the card will take the card back un-crossed over.
2. SGC is primarily motivated to encapsulate as many cards in the universe as possible.
3. If SGC hammered PSA on its grades, they would not satisfy its primary motivation because 1 and 2 above would fail.

That SGC would let its purported "ego" get in the way of encapsulating as many cards in the universe as possible is a model for bankruptcy and is certainly not the way that they conduct business, in my experience.

No Brian never mentioned about minimum grade but he didn't have to I am no stranger to grading. I guess though I felt comfortable submitting with him and maybe that gave me a false sense of security. At this point to be honest anymore I could care less. I might even just leave them raw now?? Except for the Lowdermilk.... As I mentioned before I do not believe either grading company is consistent by any means. Many of the posts in response to mine bails the grading companies out a little bit. SGC did lose my business however I will take some responsibility for the issue, and I don't care what anyone says there is bias and scrutiny when a grading company sees another grading company’s holder. Grading is subjective to a point but a vg-ex is a vg-ex and an ex is an ex. They need to do a better job both SGC and PSA. For the people that say SGC is consistent do you really believe that? If you do taking one look at those beautiful under graded cards that Wonkaticket posted yesterday should make you think twice.

It's like you never read my responses. A beautiful sharp cornered card with no imperfections visible on the scan deserves to get a PSA 1/SGC 10 if there is a huge swatch of paper loss on the back. Even beautiful cards get hammered by grading which is exactly the point of the grading in the first place, i.e., to point out that the beautiful card has a hidden defect.

Wonka's cards are awesome for the grade, but if you had each of the SGC graded beauties in your hands and brought them to a show to discuss the grades with the good folk at SGC (who, by the way, have actually come onto Net54 today to address your complaint), you would get a consistent response just about every time. Heck, if Wonka thought the grades were inconsistent, I think he'd spend the $8 to have each of those beauties upgraded, by either SGC or PSA.

Steve- ok, rather than type "He Who Must Not Be Named," the missing letters were randall. :o

Scott, I normally agree with you but I don't here. I have never had SGC miss a single spot of paper loss, no matter how tiny, or the lightest and smallest of pencil or ink markings. They are like bloodhounds in their pursuit of flaws, at least that has been my experience. I've seen PSA 5s with paper loss before but not SGC cards. At least that's been my experience.
tbob

Piling on a bit here but I am with Bob, my experience is they (SGC) NEVER miss paper loss and I am okay with that.

I just got through reading Brian's post from SGC, Brian has many great points. The one thing that I would suggest is that SGC maybe handle a large crossover like mine differently. He stated that giving a preliminary grade and calling the customer would bottle neck the operation and he is right however on a larger crossover when you are talking about thousands of dollars in cards something different should be in place. Many of you have been down right rude in your responses to me. If anyone crossed a set and received that many downgrades you would have a bad taste in your mouth no matter what grading company it was from. I have also read many comments saying well PSA over graded them to start with and they probably deserved the downgrades, but in the next sentence you here grading is subjective so my point is maybe many peoples opinion is subjective? So my take away is I didn't protect my self by putting a minimum grade on it. The only downside is if you use a registry for your sets like I do that wouldn't work either because then I would have had half and half. So all around just a crappy situation. I do think SGC should put something in place to change how they handle large crossovers because if I would have received a phone call saying hey half your cards will get downgraded I would have said leave them in their holders thanks but no thanks or at that time dug into why and received detailed info and would have not had a bad taste in my mouth.

Disgusted with SGC- Beware
 

I have read the many posts on this thread with significant interest. I have a completely graded set of SGC T207's (sans Lewis no emblem) and have collected and graded them over some time. I have sympathy for what happened to Dan.

Grading is so subjective that it became the reason why I sold my T206 set in lots in REA last spring. Many cards I bought raw over the years and many I bought graded. PSA tends to bring the highest price, yet I dont really know why.

It has to be hard for the graders to detect all there is. So the buyer needs to be careful and buy the card. Baseball card collecting is quite a joy, but the grading process is all about the money.

I think SGC is a fine operation and would send any raw card to them for their expert evaluation. Crossing over is a gamble and should have a minimum grade so one isnt surprised.

All in all it does show integrity on the part of SGC that they have addressed my concern on the board PSA would never have. I am not gonna run around and be an SGC hater now but I will be cautious of my moves in the future. I am glad I posted about this because I think this crossover issue received some much needed attention. No matter what anyone says I still do think there is bias in crossovers because of the competitor's holder. I have sent at least 30 to 40 SGC graded T206's to PSA for crossover in the past and had at least 80-90% of them rejected for minimum grade and now I had a similiar issue with SGC. All I ask from the grading companies is to clean that issue up so the collectors are not the one paying the price.

Dan, you were pissed about what happened to you and you had a right to be; I'd have been pissed (probably more) too. You lashed out and it certainly is understandable. And for what it's worth, I also believe that there is bias when third party graders are presented with cards from their competitors. It may not be overt or even a conscious decision, but it does seem to always work out that crossovers at same grade (or higher) are in the minority.

Dan on the other thread Brian said this:

"We will never assume that a customer will accept a lower grade. Any cards that are lowered as part of the crossover service are done so because the customer has consented to it."

So did you consent?

I last read this thread at about post #35. What did I miss?

i have had many SGC 10 that would only become PSA authentic, due to paper loss...

also since they dont designate pencil mark like PSA (MK qualifier) you will usually get a card to go from SGC 30 to PSA 3 MK.... A BIG DIFFERENCE

clarify
 

just to make it clear, i dont think crossovers work either way

i think PSA would be just as stingy on SGC cards that someone wanted to cross...

also, most of my experience comes in low grade pre war, and there is a big difference when you include a qualifier or not (pencil marks)...

that is why i think the PSA outsells SGC in similar low grades, because you dont know if the SGC card has pencil mark or not!!!!!!

There is a R303 on ebay now that has paper loss on the front (it appears) and is a PSA 4! I have seen many a PSA card with paperloss graded much higher than Authentic. Maybe your unlucky too!

Unfortunately I did consent because I did not specify a minimum grade. It was actually wrote on the form "any numerical grade" I guess the reason I was so pissed off and lashed out like I did is because we do all know the issues with PSA and I would have never ever ever and never have submitted a crossover to PSA without a minimum grade and I was expecting a non bias opinion from SGC and I do not feel I received one. Again when I looked through the cards that they downgraded I could see there point on several of them but there were quit a few that I did not see the grade as being accurate, and with SGC's customer service blowing PSA's away I guess in my mind I am holding SGC to a higher standard and I don't feel I received that standard. All of the grading companies have different standards in grading and I see that especially now and another thing I think most people do not realize is that each grading company may grade specific sets differently and that is my experience. No matter what by mentioning this experience may help us all and may make the grading companies at least discuss this issue internally to better themselves. Well at least SGC will, PSA probably dont even read this board.

Ugh. Each day I go to work in the morning I say that when I get home that night I'm going to get stuff ready to mail out to SGC. The past few days I get on and see this thread which then reminds me that I forgot to do it again and am just too tired to be bothered with it right now. :confused:

Dan,

I give you a lot of credit for how your opinions and statements have evolved in this thread. You're cearly a smart guy that got totally "F'ed" by the system -- you thought you assumed some risk, but not this much. You're totally justified in wanting to kick someone's teeth in. I would, too. But, in the end, I think you understand that it was unfortunately your risk to assume under the circumstances. Certainly lessons to be learned by all here.

Registry issue
 

Dan had mentioned earlier that he likes to collect a registry set and have the whole set in matching holders. I do, too. The cards look great that way and they rate well on the registries. A set of half SGC and half PSA looks bad, in my opinion. I don't blame him for trusting that SGC would grade his cards fairly, and without bias. He was willing to live with some downgrades so he didn't specify minimums. I agree with Dan and others who think there was bias by SGC.

SGC and PSA act like two neighborhood kids, trying to prove one is tougher than the other.

Ron R

SGC has no incentive to undergrade PSA cards. It would only hurt their business to do so.

My feeling is that if you submit a card in a holder, you're doing it with the knowledge that the grader can't see the edges, and can't examine the card as close up as they could if the card was raw. As such, your grader might go a little more conservative.

I have no concerns that PSA or SGC are biased against one another's holders. They want the cards IN their holders - not out of them.

-Al