Crossover Issue
 

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

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

Sgc
 

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

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. :)

Show some pics
 

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

:cool:

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

Jantz get serious

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!

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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

PSA sucks.

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.

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.

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.

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? :confused:

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:rolleyes:

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?? :)

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.

This post reaffirms why I use SGC, too
 

"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.

<table style="width:auto;"><tr><td><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/c8iq6qseG7GwMm1-VyRt0g?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Ys7fw31kTDs/Rouvek_nEPI/AAAAAAAAAkU/hJIgcS4Lv4w/s800/CobbBatOnShoulderSGC60.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>

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

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?

Couldn't have said it better myself.


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.

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

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.

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.

Dan
 

*

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

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.

the end.

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.

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?

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:

http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/v...g?t=1274192697http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/v...g?t=1274192739

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.

http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/v...g?t=1274197857http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/v...g?t=1274197913

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.

Dan, can you clarify...
 

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.

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.

All you guys should just send your cards into PRO grading and get guaranteed 9's and 10's back. :D

Mad at SGC!?!?
 

Why be mad at SGC when it is PSA who drastically overgrades in my opinion. I collect SGC cards ONLY....i have bought several PSA cards with hopes of crossing over to SGC only to be let down.......but the difference is that SGC grades accurately in my opinion and PSA over grades. So im not let down i just know this going forward and don't buy PSA unless im paying a real low number. Im sorry to here that you have been effected as you have by this company.
Hopefully this is a learning lesson for everybody.

As a person who prefers and respects SGC over PSA, would this thread have been started if there was a tremendous amount of upgrades, over downgrades? I hope this poster sends 106 raw cards to PSA and I want to see what kind of grade they get a second time with them. A kind of a test. If an original PSA 5, got a SGC 50 and now a PSA 4 (or funnier yet, 3 1/2), it would could further frustrate the poster and bemuse the board.

DanC

Dan - first would like to say sorry about what happened. This situation would upset me as well.

However, I don't want to speak for SGC, but I just had a similar discussion with Michael at a show this weekend when we were discussing crossing over my PSA registered set. The impression that I got was that they could take a quick look at the set and give a rough estimate if the majority would cross in the same grade before they started cracking out cards and charging for the grading.

I would think that something like this could have been arranged for your set before any of your cards were cracked out and you were charged any fees. If their initial assessment was that roughly half of your cards were clearly not close enough to make the grade, you could have kept them all in the PSA holders without any damage to your wallet. And, as previously mentioned, SGC doesn't really have any motive to not get cards out of PSA holders. They want as many cards in their holders as possible, but if they don't make the grade, it is probably because they truly don't believe that the condition warrants it.

It's unfortunate that the grading standards differ from one company to the next. It would be good for the marketplace if all the major grading companies used the same criteria, but they compete fiercely for market share and I doubt they would ever have a summit to work this out.

I also find it interesting that the majority of posters believe PSA cards sell for more than SGC cards, while just as many believe that SGC cards are more strictly graded. That would suggest given a PSA 5 or an SGC 60, the SGC card should sell for more. But the fact is it probably sells for less.

No two graders at a given grading company grade the same all the time. That is an inherent flaw in grading.

You are failing to factor in the PSA advantage--their set registry.

I think I agree w/ most posters on this board in that Dan made a huge mistake in not putting min grade for crossover. It will be good luck for going back to PSA because I've read threads on the Collectors saying that PSA gives different grades depending on which day of the week they process the cards. The only mistake I could see from SGC, and this is could be debateable, is that Dan did meet with Brian at SGC. Brian could have looked at the submission sheet, and warned him the he should put minimum grades for crossovers.

Minimum grades for crossovers is absolutely required. I did not have a minimum grade for a crossover once, and that was only because the card (cheap Pedro Martinez RC) was in a GEM holder. (Yes, and graded GEM10, which I am not really expecting it to come back as.) Otherwise, you have to give minimum grade. There is simply too much danger the card will come back as altered, lowered, etc. This past weekend, I dropped off a submission to SGC at the SF Card Show. I had 3 cards for crossovers, 2 GAI and 1 BVG. I put minimum grades for each of these. For one of them, Erving RC, I was fairly skeptical it would crossover, and I had Michael from SGC look at the card, he told me it was possible, so I submitted it anyway. However, Michael gave me plenty of warning that he wasn't a grader, so I made sure that I had put a minimum crossover grade anyway. I think that the rule of thumb pretty much is if you want all of your cards in one holder, it's almost better to sell your cards in the different holder, and buy the cards in the holder you want. That's what I'm planning on doing if my GAI cards don't cross.

About Brian should have warned Dan as a courtesy, I'm just saying that because Michael had checked that for me when he reviewed my submission. Michael also told me my declared values were probably too low, so it would be bad if my package got lost or damaged in the mail coming back. Saying this, I'm obviously biased towards SGC. I really think their customer service is great, and I've spoken with Brian on the phone too, who is really nice. I think Dan made a mistake here which is very unfortunate. I understand why he's pissed. He'll have to spend untold hours of time getting this fixed and obviously significant amounts of money.

I would think that a good amount of truth in that comes down to registry purposes. When I see a dinged up PSA 5 outsell a good looking SGC 60 that is usually the first thing that comes to mind.

Well, unless you have an inherent need to have such an amazing set, does it really make ALL that much difference when you have the means to own quality cards like these? Now, if I had a Wagner or a big dollar card, I could see the real concern.

That said, as it apparently does matter a lot to Mr Collins, Im sorry he lost the money in "book value" too, and any additional grading fees. Still, he probably will still have a bunch of really nice cards too, which some of us wish we had too.

Its a shame so much of this is "financially motivated", and you guys just sometimes can't enjoy owning quality cards, and are more worried about grading greed w the companies, etc. , the value based on a small grading difference, etc.

SGC is not rejecting PSA cards because they have an ego. To suggest otherwise based on a scan of a card that has glue residue that you cannot see in a scan is absurd. The whole purpose of 3rd party grading, especially in the internet/scan age, is to identify flaws in cards that cannot be seen easily in a scan like, e.g., glue residue.

The set registry has caused such an excessive valuation of cards at the top end. I wonder if a time will come when that bubble bursts.

SGC has a set registry too, and there are some pretty fine vintage sets represented. But that's one area where PSA has a market stranglehold.

Other than a head start, I'm still puzzled why SGC's registry lags so far behind PSA's in participation. Certainly it's in part due to availability, but the gap is so huge it can't be just that.

Dan,

You give an example of a Chase in an 80 that is now in an PSA 6.5 after originally not meeting the minimum grade.

Did you by chance call out PSA and tell them the story behind the card and demand it go into a 6 holder?

Lee

The PSA registry is extremely nice, which most people on this board are probably aware. You can add many cards to your inventory, and it will let you know all of the different registries that you can have. PSA validates that only one cert belongs to one user, so that if a card is sold, you won't have the same card in registries for different users. Of course, one of the biggest things is size. It's like ebay which people hate. If you want to compete for best sets, you want to go to the place with the most competition. It's a lot better to say that you're #3 out of 30 sets that #2 out of 4 sets.

I try and participate in the SGC set registry!! :)

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/usersets.aspx?user=1304

Sorry about the results, Dan. I also suspect there is a bias when one company reviews a card that has been slabbed by a competitor. And this works also when crossing SGC card to PSA as well. After hearing this story, I don't think I would ever try to cross without noting a minimum grade.

Dan,
I know this sucks and I feel bad for your situation. It is impossible for any of us here to pass judgement without seeing the cards.

I am not clear here why you are willing to give PSA a pass on doing exactly what pissed you off about what you *think* SGC did. You are going to give all your business to PSA when, according to you, they do the exact same thing.

I use both SGC and PSA . My experience on crossovers has been that SGC is generally more fair. I can't remember PSA ever crossing anything over at the same level.
JimB

Dan- I think it's a damn shame. Barry is right when he says he wishes all grading companies use the same criteria, but they don't. Ask Steve M., or Peter T. or myself about how SGC brutalizes 1911 and 1912 Zeenuts with tiny writing on the blank backs, having PSA 5 and 6 MKs go to SGC 20 and 10, it's just the way they grade. Since I like the SGC holders better for the way cards fit and display and now that SGC is catching up in many collector's minds with the value of pre-war cards in their holders, I use SGC exclusively. The caveat is the expensive card in a PSA holder that you would like to get in to a SGC holder but you fear the drop in grade because of a mark on the back or a tiny bit of back paper loss which will cause the grade to plummet. It's a quandry.
The two suggestions made above which I feel are most worthwhile:
1) ALWAYS use minimum grades for a crossover and/or
2) NEVER submit anything to either PSA or SGC in a holder from another company, always break it out and submit it raw if you truly want that company's holder on it.
As Quan can tell you, years ago I was in the "Frank" camp and hated having cards slabbed at all but for protection purposes, display purposes and because of the card is worth much more slabbed, I gave in. I have 100% of my caramel cards slabbed and about 70% of my tobacco cards.
One last note on GAI slabbed cards- I don't use them anymore but I have some beautiful caramels slabbed in GAI holders and properly graded because at one time they were very good at correctly grading cards. I crossed some over and 50% stayed the same, 25% bumped up slightly, 25% bumped down slightly or more. I think the GAI slabbed cards from 2000-2005 get a bum rap, but that's just my personal opinion. :)

PSA has always dominated the market in sheer volume of cards graded and collectors and dealers supporting them. That is where everyone is perceived to be. The SGC registry does have some awesome sets registered and most likely those sets consists of cards which are more accurately graded.

I have had to use PSA because that is what is easier for me to sell.

These are exactly my thoughts. Neither company is any worse than the other for this debacle.

The only thing I take from this thread is further evidence that the whole "crossover" thing is a fool's game.

It is for people who care more about holders than the cards in them. And people who care way too much about Registry standing.

Cheers,
Blair

Let me start by saying I think many posters have some valid points and I think some are just in another world.

I really should have specified a minumum grade so I will take credit there. I think Brian from SGC made me feel really comfortable about it so I was not worried. Many posters said lets see some examples and they are right. Here are some examples you be the judge......

Now Severoid stayed a 3 while Wilie was downgraded to a 3

How does that make any sense?

Severoid is clearly a 3 and Wilie in my opinion is clearly vg-ex

Dan,

I think the Wilie card is really a toss up at best. I am looking at the bottom left and right corners and they might be too beat up for an SGC 50. Nevertheless, sweet card, and I wouldn't argue if it was an SGC 40 or 50.

Rob

Here are four more examples that were all taken down one full grade

Ball to a 4
McLean to a 4
Coulson to a 4
Danforth to a 3

You Judge

The 5s that became 4s probably have a solitary wrinkle or back crease. On the McLean specifically, what is going on on the left border on the reverse scan?

The Wilie is a strong 3, weak 4.

The Severoid is a 3 but not a great one...maybe 2.5 is more accurate.

In the next group of 4 they don't look too strictly graded. Best as I can see, the two 5's at the top have some corner fraying, and shouldn't have been 5's. The two below also look a little weak for their grade.

It's the difference between strict grading and lax grading. Why should each company have different standards? Makes no sense to me.

I have said it on multiple occasions that IMO all the grading companies are biased when they are grading cards previously graded by other companies.

If SGC had crossed or bumped the vast majority of these cards they are in essense saying "wow, PSA did a great conservative job gradng these cards the first time!" but by downgrading them all they are in essense saying "look at what a crappy job PSA did when they originally graded these, I hope you like that they overgraded them all". The same experience happens when the PSA and SGC names are switched as well. It isn't in the grading companies best interest to confrim what a great company their competitors are. The idea that bias exists in these situations is almost undeniable to me based on experience.

On multiple occassions a card submitted in a GAI holder has been rejected only to be resubmitted raw and then get the numerical grade...bias exists!

-Rhett

I think the best we can hope for is consistency within a company within a card issue. So, e.g., SGC grades T206 cards so much more consistently than PSA that it isn't even funny. That is why I stick with them.

How can you say that if the damage on the lower right is so significant as to remove the corner of the box containing the name/team?

Another member posted a picture of the PSA 5 Matty that didn't cross which is a 5 all day long.

This was not meant to turn into a PSA vs SGC thing but many people are doing so. I guees it simply comes down to everyones individual experience with either grading company, mine is definitely now PSA over SGC. With that said believe me I have many issues with PSA grading. Here are 2 cards the PSA one I still own and the other Cobb in the SGC holder I just sold. I see a clear difference in their grading favoring PSA by far in this one. Also here is a link to my T206 registry with a lot of the images and I think my T206 set is graded pretty correctly.

http://www.psacard.com/setregistry/p...et.aspx?s=2289