Which card do you prefer?
 

PSA one will tap back, that's not the issue. Both back clean.

SGC - color pops in that holder and registration looks better. PSA (as usual) just looks sloppy

If the scans are representative, the color does look better on the SGC one. That would be my preference. Does it have a surface wrinkle?

Negative.

Or they are just scanned by the companies at slightly different settings. Color of cards in hand is the same.

Is it just my eyes or does the SGC look trimmed?

It is smaller...

No, the scan size is smaller.

I'll take SGC's undergraded version any day of the week
Especially since it would go at a fraction of the "9" price

SGC: It actually supports the card.

Someone's gotta say it. This really seems to be a very 'purposeful' thread that's meant to prove some sort of point. Am I correct?

We are all 'supposed' to pick the SGC 4 to prove we look beyond the number (or for some other reason), yes? And those who opt for the PSA 9 will be smirked at?
The early returns certainly follow that line of thinking.

I prefer the 9. The 4 got a 4 for a reason. Just because I can't see it from this front scan doesn't mean it isn't there.

Are they the same card? Minus the color they look strikingly similar in centering and corners.

SGC looks better in my opinion.

I agree with the poster above, at first they do look like the same card. I'm assuming they are not.

Yep. Well done. SGC only missed by 5 grades. The highlight of a distinguished 30 card or thereabouts sub where every card was undergraded, most by around 2 grades.

Great pickup congrats!

I still haven't been able to figure out if either the SGC or PSA card depict a Prewar baseball player.

Brian (prewar cards sometimes look like this E101 below)

Hah, good catch.

I had a feeling it had something to do with SGC's strange grading standards of overseas and odd stock cards.

What's that, like a $700-$800 price difference? A couple years ago or so, it would have been much more.

You have waaaay more confidence in TPG than me. If I didn't know better, I might think it's a scam. :rolleyes:

If it's for my collection, I'd go with the SGC only because I despise those PSA slabs that don't set the card correctly. If the PSA slab was sized right I would go with that one but only barely.

Not arguing, but I cannot for the life of me understand why someone would prefer a 4 to a 9 because of the slab's appearance.

When a card slides around inside the slab like that one would it just drives me nuts. I've taken cards out of those PSA slabs and sent them to SGC knowing that they would get a lower grade (which they did) and I'm still happier with them now.

In 99 percent of cases you just tap it back to vertical and centered and it will stay in place unless you really subject it to a lot of movement.

Serious question...what is keeping the card in aligned position once you tap it back into vertical and centered? The holder doesn't fit the card.

This comment is from someone who has never submitted a card for grading and only has less than 20 graded 1950s cards. :)

Its an auto racing card and I have absolutely no interest in either. Given that lack of interest, I'd take the one that would realize more when sold so I'd prefer the PSA 9.

Interestingly, I had three copies of the same card graded in 2022, and they used a tighter holder with borders on the inside to fit these cards. I wonder why a card graded now is still floating around in the holder, when they had proper fitting holders two years ago?

If keeping for my collection, the SGC slab for sure as it looks horrible in that PSA monstrosity.

If free to sell of course the PSA slab because it would bring more money.

If buying to resell the SGC because it will be way cheaper. Then I could play the Please Submit Again game. Hopefully I could also get the same 9 from PSA but I highly doubt if it was cracked out again and sent to PSA it would receive the same 9 grade.

This has not been my experience. Simply picking the card up and putting it back down will send it in all sorts of directions.

Again, and maybe I'm wrong, but on the PSA holder I see no designed area in the holder that is supposed to keep the card secure. Am I missing something?
I don't see how knocking it back into position is going to keep it in that position:confused:

It's in an internal sleeve, which usually will keep it relatively stable. There is also pressure from the two halves of the slab. Beckett cards don't go all the way out to the edge of the slats but they mostly look OK.

But it's still subject to move around, and undeniably FUGLY. :eek:

It's a holder. Big deal. If SGC hadn't graded it FIVE grades low I wouldn't even have submitted it. Amazing to me the focus of this thread has become the PSA slab, not the fact that SGC has no clue and gave me a 4 on a mint card.

It's almost always going to be the other way. The lower grade is usually the more accurate one and the higher one missed something. SGC didn't pull a number out of a hat. The grader clearly saw something. Whether what they saw justifies the grade is up for debate. But unfortunately, we don't get to find out what they saw. We have to guess, look at scans, or take your word for it. Ultimately, we don't have enough information to know which company is clueless.

Grading has always been an opinion no?

Sure, but I'd expect people who call themselves professionals to be within spitting distance of the same grade when looking at the same card and using written standards for each grade level.

In this case, it's clear that one of the companies simply got it very, very wrong.

Isn't that one of the problems that these graders are self appointed experts or professionals whatever they want to call themselves? Lol

As another responded, I would prefer the SGC for the looks of the card as it sits and the PSA if I was selling for maximized profits. I would sell as the card doesn't interest me.

As I have said they graded the whole sub wrong, 2 grades in most cases, some more. There was nothing to see here. Just incompetence, likely the grader was some kid used to perfect out of the pack shiny. On this particular sub, they were clueless. It was not worth the money to regrade most of the cards, the only other card I did went from a 6 to an 8.

We all prefer the opinion of the company that puts higher numbers on our labels. Their opinion is definitely more accurate than the company that puts lower numbers on our labels.

I've been doing this for decades and it's my card which I have examined very closely multiple times. Is there some reason for your skepticism other than you like to be a contrarian?

That would be my guess also as Peter has talked smack about PSA way too many times to count over the years.:D:D:D

I've been doing it for decades as well. Appealing to your own authority isn't compelling to me. I've seen many discrepancies in grades like this. When one is a 4 and the other a 9, it is ALWAYS a hidden surface wrinkle that the company that gave it a 9 missed. They don't just give out 4s for no reason. Even if incompetence. It's not like a close call between a 7 and an 8. It's an otherwise mint card that gets a 4. There is something there. I guarantee it.

You can make it personal and call me contrarian all you want. I just call it like I see it.

You know best I am sure. As does SGC.

You think what you want and I'll do the same. But if you think PSA knows best, you are sadly mistaken.

As an overall matter, I don't think that, and never said so. Straw man. In this case, I do for sure, having thoroughly examined the card and seeing that the entire sub was misgraded, pretty obviously by some kid who doesn't understand anything non ultra modern.

Peter, I wonder if PSA is now controlling SGC's grading, even though they announced several times that they would treat SGC as an independent entity. That grade is a travesty to the whole system.

Not sure, but the SGC grade was pre transaction.

+1

In this case, I'm guessing PSA looked at the card for 7 seconds, and SGC gave it a full minute. Otherwise I'm with Peter... my last SGC submission was about 2 grades off on all the key cards I submitted.

Same card :)....That's great. I think it's about 50/50 who's wrong ....And I am not sure it matters as it's usually last holder standing, wins.

.

Can you give us your opinion or guess as to why SGC would have assigned that grade? I tend to agree with others that to be that far off on what appears to a high-graded card usually means the grader saw or thought he saw some flaw that lowers the technical grade regardless of eye appeal. Put differently, it seems unlikely the grader just randomly thought this card graded less than excellent given its appearance in the scan.

I've answered this, but again, my assumption is some kid used to grading shiny stuff is not familiar with vintage and mistook some tiny thing that should not be marked down for at all, like a print speck, or something that's a normal feature of the paper stock, as a major problem. If it was one card, I could see your point. It was the whole sub as I have said many times but people just ignore. Like I missed something on 30 consecutive cards? Sorry, no.

One question and one comment...

Q. Did they upcharge you (after the fact) on any of the 30 shitty grades?

C. It appears that they've already gone the way of PSA. Merger is in full swing now, and they don't want any variance between the two divisions.

Nobody ignored it. You feel the entire sub was undergraded. That's not the same as the entire sub being 5 grades undergraded. We are not talking about your whole sub. We are talking about this card. And to get a 4, there was a flaw you and PSA missed. The rest of the sub being a couple grades off for vintage is within the range of SGC just being tougher on certain things, or a particularly tough grader. No reason to assume incompetence is the sole reason for the grades. But you believe what you want.

Does anyone know how or grader submits their findings when they’re done ..
Prior to encapsulation ?
Do they press a “9” or a “4” on a keyboard ?
Do they write “9” or “4” on paper ?
With all the stories about TPGs mislabeling cards and putting cards in the wrong slab - Maybe it was just a big fat user error

You know best, I'm sure. Again, the problem is they think something is a flaw when it's a normal part of the card, because they don't know vintage. This really isn't hard but be the contrarian and know it all, that's cool.

No upcharges. But this was pre merger.

We all see things differently. It always confuses me when just because of age people think cards should be graded differently. To me it is a card and no matter the printing date they should all be treated the same or it just adds more confusion to the process.

Peter, I don’t deny the possibility of a hose job but was just looking for more info. I know nothing about the set and chuckled at the thought that it is considered “vintage’, which makes me paleozoic. Was your entire submission all cards from this set? You say there must be some minor, insignificant trait that caused the grader to downgrade. Assuming that’s true, do you have even a guess as to what that could be, and do you think the same “flaw” was observed in all of your submitted cards?
Way back in 1989 I bought boxes of Score baseball cards, which were then considered all the rage. Dozens upon dozens of them in many boxes bought at different times and places had one or more corners somewhat pressed down slightly, as if they had been packed too tight. These were noticeable only if you held them up and looked at an angle, and were resolved at least to my satisfaction with thumb and forefinger or just having them laid flat for awhile with something on top. To this day I do not know if this is discernible to a TPG since I have no intention of submitting any of them for grading. Is there any known characteristic for this Panini set that collectors disregard because it is apparent in many or even most all of them?

Wide range of mostly nonsports from the 30s on. I will look at Senna again I don't have it back in hand yet. The grading on European issues tends to be very inconsistent by both SGC and PSA because they don't know the difference between natural and trivial imperfections in the paper stockor the printing, and wear. And it's because, I infer, many of the new graders are used to seeing mostly perfect new shiny cards and are not trained how to grade older cards.

If you take any high grade card that isn't ultramodern, put it under high power magnification and under a powerful light at an angle, you are going to see "stuff." The question is when should it matter.

Ironically, it is you who thinks he knows best, and has even profiled a completely unknown grader along with an evaluation of the validity of the flaw he may or may not have noticed as beinig a completely normal part of the card, and assume he is a young kid who only knows modern cards. All the while you have literally zero facts to support all those assumptions.

But sure. I'm the contrarian know-it-all. Just because I assume the simplest answer (and one I've seen in countless message board complaint threads like this one: the submitter missed something) :rolleyes:

I don't think I know best, I own the card and have examined it closely, and you in your arrogance think you're in a position to tell me I missed something. In terms you will understand (presumably anyhow), lack of foundation for your opinion.

Yet all you give us is a crappy scan of the front of the card, eliminating any possibility we can look at the surface for ourselves and forcing us to take your word that the card is mint. Hmm.

Face it, you were deceptive from the first post, trying to hide the fact that they were the same card, and have concealed the actual condition of the card intentionally. Someone who truly wanted us to look at the card and give informed feedback would have taken high quality photos in good light at various angles. But that was never your intent. This whole thread was an SGC bash thread, created in hopes we would just take your word for it and join in on making fun of this neophyte grader. I'll pass. I'd rather trust my experience that when one grader grades a card and 9 and one grades it a 4, there is something the grader who gave it a 9 missed.

But hey, you know best (because you guaranteed you were the only one with the information in this thread). :rolleyes:

Now you're accusing me of deception. Seriously? How dare you? Do you come to this Board just to fight with people? It's the official PSA scan and the other is the official SGC scan. Yeah, I'm really trying to deceive by scans. And I knew that within 10 posts someone would put two and two together and expose the irony in my post, hiding something indeed. Lighten up, dude. Anyhow, carry on, I am sure there are plenty of fights to be had here and on Blowout, I'm done with you and your ad hominem bullshit.

PS The other day you admitted you needed to work on not pushing people's buttons. Keep trying.

Perhaps the young grader didn’t realize it was a sticker and got confused by the flimsiness 🙂
(I am half kidding)

There is no question that at some point both companies dramatically increased the size of their grading force and inevitably, given the nature of submissions, many of the new hires (who in fact were relatively young) were not real familiar with vintage or European issues.

In the context of a message board that caps uploaded images at 2005 file sizes, I'm not sure what more than a clear scan one could reasonably produce for examination.

Yes, how dare anyone challenge your assertions? If anyone disagrees with you, they are "contrarian" or attacking you. :rollseyes: It couldn't possibly be that you missed something, or don't know everything. It's definitely being contrarian. It's truly pathetic that no one can question you without you claiming they're picking a fight. The solution to this false claim is simple. I'll just put you on ignore and problem solved. Enjoy your card with surface issues. Goodbye.

I explained what I was suggesting. Scans are terrible for showing surface issues. Photos in good light, from various angles, provide useful information. You can absolutely provide useful photos on this site. The fact that we didn't even get back scans in a thread designed to bash a grading company for incompetence tells me all I need to know about the intent of the thread.

Nice distortion of what I said, counselor. Weak. The "dare" comment was only when you suggested I had a deceptive intent, and you know that. And that comment was completely out of line. Every post you make suggests you just want to attack people and fight. I think you fit in better on Blowout, perhaps you can continue the discussion you're having there about garbage and rats?

Yeah, I'm hiding those publicly-available back scans. That's right. Of course, you're contradicting yourself, because according to you they wouldn't show surface issues anyway.

I didn't peg you for a Sports Card Radio fan. I can't say I'm surprised.

I maybe watched a part of one of his videos once years ago which I don't recall the details of, and if it's who I am thinking of, corrected him when he posted on Blowout misinformation about the PSA guarantee. Other than that, no opinion at all. I suspect from things I have heard I would not be a fan, if I had any basis for an opinion.

Wait, is he the one who came up with the nicknames for some of the card doctors? I did find those funny.

Garbage and rats, why the heck do they get all the good threads?:D:D:D

Membership is open. Join the fray. :D

I wasn't having a discussion about garbage and rats. Just another misrepresentation of my posts by Peter. That's his M.O. It was a discussion about Sports Card Radio. I simply referred to them as rats feasting on garbage as a metaphor for their trash content. No other discussion of garbage and rats. For someone who plays the victim of misrepresentation so often, he sure likes to do it to others :rollseyes:

SMH. You used both terms, did you not, to describe someone? That's the point, I did not mean to suggest you were literally having a discussion on the TOPIC of garbage or the TOPIC of rats. Do you take everything literally? And yeah, I play the victim a lot. Ridiculous. There is only one other person on this forum who engages in personal attacks against me. Everyone else here seems capable of sometimes spirited, but always polite discussion. Blowout is definitely more suited to your style.

This thread is a good example of what happens when two very knowledgeable, highly intelligent, apparently nice guys — even fellow “brothers of the bar” — go down the rabbit hole of electronic media. I suspect you would never talk to each other this way if you were face-to-face. Such is the Internet. So here’s an unsolicited suggestion: apologize, shake hands, and walk away (electronically). Or you could just tell me to mind my own business (while pointing out that I’m ugly and stupid). -Jack Richards