SGC to PSA Crossover Submission Results
 

I thought some here might be interested in the results of a submission I just got back where I was trying to cross 56 pre-war cards from SGC to PSA. I wouldn't normally do this, but I plan to sell these and felt that the results would be better in a PSA holder, even if the grade was slightly lower in some cases. As noted below, I set the minimum grade below the original grade in some cases where I felt that the card might have been a bit "overgraded" and would probably sell better in the PSA holder, even if graded a half grade or a full grade lower. Overall, 43 of the 56 cards submitted crossed over (some at a half grade or full grade lower), which is better than I expected. I should also note that these were submitted on a monthly special on 12/10/18, and I just got the grades yesterday (4/26/19), which is obviously a ridiculously slow turnaround time but pretty much the new normal with PSA.

SGC
Card Grade Min Grade by PSA
1933 Goudey 240 Harold Schumacher 55 4 VG-EX 4
1933 Goudey 1 Benny Bengough 40 2 GOOD+ 2.5
1933 Goudey 41 Gus Mancuso 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 64 Burleigh Grimes 40 3 VERY GOOD 3
1933 Goudey 97 Joe Morrissey 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 113 Oswald Bluege 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 122 Alvin Crowder 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 129 Harold Schumacher 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 132 Jim Elliott 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 159 Oswald Bluege 60 5 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1933 Goudey 196 Leroy Mahaffey 60 5 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1933 Goudey 200 Bill Hallahan 60 4 VG-EX+ 4.5
1933 Goudey 57 Earl Clark 60 5 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1933 Goudey 59 Bing Miller 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 61 Max Bishop 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 67 Guy Bush 60 5 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1933 Goudey 69 Randy Moore 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 72 Owen Carroll 60 5 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1933 Goudey 75 Willie Kamm 60 5 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1933 Goudey 80 Clyde Manion 70 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 82 Dibrell Williams 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 83 Pete Jablonowski 60 5 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1933 Goudey 85 Heinie Sand 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 90 Jess Petty 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 121 Walter Stewart 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1938 Goudey 256 Vernon Kennedy 80 5 EXCELLENT+ 5.5
1933 Goudey 20 Bill Terry 50 4 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1938 Goudey 287 Marvin Owen 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1938 Goudey 275 Bump Hadley 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1934 Goudey 59 Joe Mowry 80 5 EXCELLENT+ 5.5
1933 Goudey 174 Curley Ogden 82 6 EXCELLENT-MINT 6
1933 Goudey 16 George Blaeholder 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 11 Billy Rogell 60 5 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1933 Goudey 33 Ralph Kress 60 5 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1933 Goudey 215 Russell Van Atta 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 198 Jack Burns 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 182 Andy High 70 5 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1933 Goudey 178 Jackie Warner 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 177 Walter French 70 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 172 Billy Hargrave 60 5 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1933 Goudey 162 Leo Mangum 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 146 Walter Stewart 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1933 Goudey 137 Red Lucas 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1938 Goudey 288 Bob Feller 40 3 VERY GOOD 3
1936 Diamond Stars 8 Joe Vosmik 84 6 EXCELLENT-MINT+ 6.5
1934 Diamond Stars 24 SparkyAdams 84 6 EXCELLENT-MINT 6
1935 Diamond Stars 61 Billy Werber 86 6 EXCELLENT-MINT+ 6.5
1935 Diamond Stars 69 Earl Grace 86 6 NEAR MINT 7
1935 Diamond Stars 78 Joe Kuhel 84 6 EXCELLENT-MINT+ 6.5
1935 Diamond Stars 79 Willis Hudlin 84 6 NEAR MINT 7
1935 Diamond Stars 84 Sam Byrd 84 6 EXCELLENT-MINT 6
1909 T206 Gus Dorner 50 4 VG-EX 4
1909 T206 Bill Hallman 60 5 MG: MINIMUM GRADE
1909 T206 Bob Rhoades-Hands Chest 60 5 EXCELLENT 5
1909 T206 Hal Chase Throwing Dark 30 2 GOOD 2
1927 Honey Boy 3 Carson McVey 30 2 GOOD 2

you submitted them in their sgc holders?

to me this shows that PSA's newly more strict standards are more in line with the consistency SGC has exhibited over the years.

I can't help but wonder what would have happened had you submitted Ruths and Gehrigs.

Yes - submitted in the SGC holders. Sorry for the formatting above - can't figure out how to get it spaced out better.

If they were Ruths and Gehrigs, there is not doubt in my mind that PSA would not have crossed them over.

I wonder how you would have fared if you had cracked them out. I suspect there is an inherent downward bias on crossovers. Has anyone ever received a bump from PSA on a cross-over? In any event, good luck with your sales, Colt.

Interesting that most of the grades were in line w/ some getting lesser grades, none getting higher grades.
Wonder what the outcome would be if the cards were submitted ungraded?

I think it depends on if the cards that were graded by SGC have the old flip or the new flip. I am being serious when I say I think when the new labels came on the scene tighter grading also arrived. I have about 7 cards I feel are undergraded by SGC and would love the opportunity to crack these out and see what PSA would give me.

As to the OP, I would have been petrified to send them in to PSA in the SGC holders. I would have thought they would have hammered you on the grades worse than they did. You have some guts thats for sure!

For what it's worth
 

Years ago I had purchased 20 T206 cards in early GAI holders for very reasonable prices ranging from 2.5 to 7 on their grading scale.

I decided a couple of years ago to get them all in SGC holders, but I cracked them all out and submitted them raw.

Fortunately every card received a numerical grade from SGC.:)

Four received grades higher than their GAI grade.
Four received the same grade as their GAI grade.
Twelve received a lower grade from SGC, with three receiving a grade 2.5 lower.

Overall the group lost 13 grade points or .65 grade points/card.

I have since moved 10 of the cards, one of the no change cards and 9 of the cards with grade reductions. In SGC holders the ten cards have sold for an average of $40 per card more than my purchase price. Two of the sales were aided by having rarer backs that had escalated in price, but only 3 of the 10 resulted in losses.

I have kept the other ten cards from the ex-GAI group. They would appear to realize similar gains if and when they are sold. Overall I am pleased with the results. Had they been submitted in the GAI holders as a crossover submission would I have received 4 grade bumps in the right direction. I'll never know.

I have never played the crossover game with PSA. I am a collector and not a flipper or dealer. Buying at the right price, considering the condition of the card and the grade and the XYZ letters on the slab, has served me well when I sell due to upgrading my collection.

That's interesting to read. I just cracked out a T206 in a GAI 3 holder and sent it raw to SGC. I'm curious what it will come back as.

Yeah I think with the higher ticket cards you run into the politics of it.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but I never submit, let alone seek to cross-over: I assume they still charge you even if they won’t give you the minimum grade requested, and thus don’t slab the submission? If so, is it full freight even where you are seeking to cross a $20k+ card and thus paying a ton in fees?

I don’t believe you pay unless they slab.

Thanks Jeff. Frankly that seems a bit odd, as they have to review the card in order to make the determination that it won’t grade and would be allowing free Hail Mary Cross-over or upgrade attempts and encouraging same, but you certainly may be right. If they do not charge, I may attempt a few cross overs!

Ole Joe
 

..-- Joe O. business model : you pay...--

..

I believe the opposite is true. You pay full price for a cross over or bump attempt regardless of the result.

You definitely pay the grading fee unless they seem it Minsize or factory miscut if it doesn't cross.
And if you look at the OP Diamond Stars, most of them bumped a grade. Congrats!

The way I read it, the Diamond Stars bumped down not up.:eek:

I’m probably reading it wrong though.:confused:

I’m really clueless when it comes to some of the terminology and I don’t understand what this part means. PSA would not grade/slab them because????

Sorry for being a submission newb.

To the OP, I'm curious did any of your successful cross attempts receive a grade higher than your minimum allowed?

I believe he identified his minimum grade in his post, and some of the Diamond Stars surpassed it, although none received a bump over their original SGC grades.

Thanks, I missed that. Will have to pay closer attention next time.

Because as a matter of politics it's very difficult to get them to assign an equal or higher grade to an expensive card.

Some cards did receive a higher grade than my minimum crossover grade, but none received a higher grade than the original SGC grade. I should add that I did not feel that any of the cards were worthy of a higher grade than SGC had already assigned them, and I felt that those where I assigned a lower minimum grade for crossing could fairly be assessed that grade if submitted raw. So, the only cards I was disappointed with were the 13 that did not cross, as I felt they were worthy of crossing over at the assigned grade. Also, you pay the grading fee whether it crosses or not.

In the end, I think I will come out ahead in terms of the amount I net on selling these now that they are in the new PSA holders. I think most buyers value the new PSA holders a bit higher due to the perceived new stricter PSA standards (same with the new SGC holders). In addition, I think that especially for mid-grade commons (like a lot of these are) PSA cards not only sell for a higher price, but are much easier to sell. This is probably due in large part to the popularity of the PSA set registry.

i think you did well. Congratulations,

lol so you wait four months to learn they won’t slab your card — and pay full price. Jesus H.

Ah, but the joy at the end of the rainbow if any of your cards come back in that fresh lighthouse holder...

He believes there is an additional bias against higher valued cards, and PSA (or any grading company) would not bring them in from another company's holder at the same grade.

Whoever thinks PSA is going to look at a card and not charge you really needs to rethink the way they operate....lol

Well, in this case the submitter told them to not reholder unless they met his minimum grade. Not sure what your complaint is. PSA may have considered the others trimmed or altered; they are therefore worth more slabbed with a number grade by SGC.

FWIW - I’m sure there are countless similar stories for a lot of the grading companies, but I have a ‘51 Bowman Mantle that was very nice. It was graded a GAI 6 (original slab). I brought it to the National last year and submitted it to PSA in the GAI holder with a minimum grade of 5. Got it back not crossed over for failing to meet the minimum grade. After thinking it over, I decided to crack it and submit it raw. PSA graded it a 6.

This is something I keep hearing from both dealers and other collectors. Glad your story has a happy ending despite paying 2 times for grading. Big price difference between the GAI holder and the PSA so you did well.

Let’s see if I’ve got this right.

Mantra #1 - Buy the card, not the holder.

Mantra #2 - Sell the holder, not the card.

Mantra #3 - There is no hypocrisy in the hobby.

Now that’s pretty funny!