Raw cards and PSA crackouts going to SGC
 

I've been procrastinating sending these cards in to SGC for grading, but SGC will be at the Phoenix Card Show this weekend so it's time to do it. Some are raw, some I'll be cracking out of PSA holders to submit.

With the raw cards I'm going with SGC even though PSA is acquiring them. It seems PSA is incredibly harsh grading lately, and researching sales of these cards on eBay it appears SGC has been getting prices very comparable to PSA.

I'm going to crack these out in hopes of getting 8's on them. I doubt they would grade lower, so I'll give it a shot.

Feel free to give me your thoughts. Potential grades on the raw cards? Is it worth a shot on the crackouts? It's not the end of the world if I'm not successful, and I'm curious to see first hand how SGC grades will compare to PSA.

Thanks, Mark

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1709875231

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1709875501

Hey, I would be careful with the 1967 Aaron, because my eye told me it looks unnaturally thin. So I laid it on top of your Musial to compare them (assuming the same scanner was used, etc.), and it doesn't appear to match up. Look on the left side. The bright white is the Aaron card, and the dull grayish stuff extending beyond it is the Musial - looking a bit wider than it.

Could be nothing, but definitely give it a proper measuring to protect yourself, and good luck with the sub!!

Attachment 613298

I was thinking the same thing about the Aaron.
Scott

I guess I'm not sure I follow your motivation here, particularly with respect to those that are already graded by PSA.

Are you merely curious to see how SGC will grade these?

Have cash to burn, so feel like spending more on TPG services?

Your collection is mostly SGC, and the PSA slabs don't fit in?

Or are you genuinely trying to get some grade bumps because you think they are undergraded?

I guess the whole exercise intrigues me a bit. But as a helpless set registry goon, I'm the last one to be casting aspersions and throwing stones. Regardless, I wish you luck, and I guess we'll see how it turns out in a few weeks when you get them back.

That Dr. J rookie is a beauty. Love those crunchy edges.

I agree with the above thoughts on the 67 Aaron ,
Also would not break the Clemente out - appears to be less strictly graded - I would peddle it .. use the funds to get an already graded SGC with better registration and less print dots

........
 

I would NOT crack any of those PSA cards to slab with SGC. SGC is and has been much stricter in terms of recognizing alterations.

I will say this, you will most likely not be happy with the results.

My 2 cents.

PS Please post your results if you decide to do this with pics please! I've been wrong before! Thanks!

Agree with Mike, seems like a bad gamble. Hope I'm wrong but you are cracking out relatively old PSA slabs and hoping to turn 7s into an 8s, but with SGC which ceteris paribus won't generate as much revenue as PSA at same grade levels. You will have to crack them out, deal with the shipping costs, and risk, and then hope pretty much for 8s or better across the board to do better than break even.

It could work out, but I wouldn't do it. Then again, they are your cards and it might be an enjoyable project/experiment.

Yeah, the OP doesn't seem concerned about any harm coming from this being a fail...so I think it's great fun and will provide some interesting information.

I wouldn't say harsh so much as incredibly inconsistent. If I had a dollar for every person I've seen sending NM cards in that are returned PSA 4's recently - well, I'd have more $ to spend on this hobby, for sure.

Last year a good friend of mine (and board member, hi Robert...) sent in a blazer Ryan RC, only it was miscut s-s. The corners even under magnification were pack fresh perfect, nothing else wrong with the card. We were expecting it to get an 8 (MC) from PSA at the minimum. Instead they sent it back a 4 (MC). Total crap grade and inconsistent with their standards - I could have seen them giving it a straight 4 for the MC if they didn't want to use a qualifier - but as many of you know, that's not how PSA rolls. Giving it such a low grade with the qualifer everyone knew it would get anyway was asinine, and I would bet money would not happen to a submitter who was a known quantity to PSA.

I digress, only to say to your original post those cards have a lot better chance of getting a fair shake at SGC than they do at PSA right now. Acquisition or not...

Mark,

I know you are referencing the cards listed below your post, but it also depends upon what set is being crossed. Some sets still have a wider disparity in prices for the comparable grades.

Update
 

Grades are back from SGC. BTW this was an experiment of sorts to compare SGC's grades to PSA, and of course to get some raw cards graded at a good price (and quickly). Money wasn't a driver for this, although I was definitely hoping the Erving rookie would grade 8 or 9.

All in all grades were a mixed bag. I certainly like the 63 McCovey and 64 Gibson upgrades, and that the 67 Aaron graded. The Musial was a PSA 5 so that was a match. 63 Gibson was also a match, though I was hoping for an 8. The 61 Clemente and 63 Robinson I'm disappointed in, they're really clean. The 73 Erving I also don't understand, maybe the 2 white print dots in the border knocked it down.

I have to say SGC did a gorgeous job of packaging the cards, and I'm very pleased with their prices for grading and shipping. I'm also a fan of their holders (1956 Topps look amazing in an SGC holder), although they are a little large.

Fun experiment. Thanks for reading!

Mark

Attachment 617345Attachment 617346Attachment 617347
Attachment 617348Attachment 617349Attachment 617350Attachment 617351Attachment 617352Attachment 617353Attachment 617354

I dropped 17 cards off with SGC this weekend at Chantilly, though most were not as nice as yours. Did have a Koufax RC and Ryan RC, along with a '55T Teddy Ballgame, '57 Mays, '66 Aaron and '62 Brock and Uecker RCs.

Will post the results here when I get them back.