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

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.