BVG is inconsistent
 

More evidence...

http://cgi.ebay.com/1909-1911-T206-D...#ht_2181wt_995

Wow that is quite bad

That was a dark period for them. I've seen more than a couple bad cards and bad grades with that period BVG label.

IMO they've righted the ship now. I consider them to be nearly on par with PSA/SGC at this point.

clarification
 

"nearly on par" = you are still not confident, yes?

bvg
 

i'm with scott.
there was a time i would've automatically run away from bvg but now i'd say they're ok. still, i'd go sgc first with bvg and psa about the same. IMHO

best,
barry

Put me in the minority, but I liked their system back then. The surface of this card graded a 1.5 (in between "poor" and "fair"). Its otherwise a decent looking card, so the other grades brought it up the max it was allowed to go (I believe "1" grade higher than its lowest mark) so it gets a 2.5.

Had they graded the card a "5", sure lets rip them apart. If it was rebacked and not caught, a reprint, trimmed, color added, etc then I'd see a good reason to called them "terrible". But c'mon, it was graded a 2.5! Haven't we seen SGC and PSA slabbed cards with paper loss graded a 2? So we're ripping BVG cuz they gave a card a 2.5?

I think it's good to scrutinize the TPG's. No doubt they read this site.

I owned mostly BVG at one time. Many I'd crossed over to PSA received the same grade and one scored higher. I find them to be accurate -at least with all mine.

I'd have rec'd a 1 or 1.5 on that Murphy, accurately.

Things to consider; Beauty is subjective., It's just a hobby myth, kind people DO exist., This grader's name could have been Murphy. Perhaps he had a blind-date that night and in a hurry to hit the lanes. Or Beckett doesn't provide random substance.

http://www.failpix.net/wp-content/up...xist-3s-30.jpg
http://www.lolhome.com/img_big/funny...5380952131.jpg

That's funny, I was just looking at this card and thought "I'm sure SGC and PSA would grade it a "1" because of the paper loss on the back". I'd guess that's why it is still in a BVG holder.
http://cgi.ebay.com/1948-LEAF-8-SATC...item230ee9dd56

However, my personal opinion is that this card should be a "2".

I don't think back damage should downgrade a card as severly as it would if the same damage was on the front (I know I'm in the miniority here).

I have quite a few SGC 10's with some back damage that fit this critieria.
https://picasaweb.google.com/danp306...33316378810738

Dan

I tend to slightly agree with rob on this card. If you look at the corners, they appear to be ex quality. the real mystery is why they gave the corners a sub-grade of only 2?? Maybe they could have hit the card one more grade lower.

BVG does not weight surface issues (front and back) as severely as other grading companies. PSA will miss surface issues sometimes, but when they see them, they are consistent with SGC in how they deduct. Beckett, by design, does not discount nearly as much.

How exactly do they average their grades? So if you have a perfectly centered card with sharp corners etc but the face was scribbled out could the card get a decent grade? In this case the 8 for centering seems to have bumped this cards' grade whereas SGC/PSA would automatically knock it down to a 1 or 1.5 irregardless of the other condition characteristics....

I have/would buy cards in current BVG holders. Although they are my third choice it's only by a small margin.

Rob hit the nail on the head on this one. If you'll look at any BVG graded card that lists the sub-grades, the final grade will always be 1 grade above the lowest sub-grade - at least 99.99% of the time. I believe that they got the surface sub-grade right on this card - between poor and fair. Therefore, they were consistent with their grading scale on this card even though we wouldn't usually expect a card with paper loss to receive a 2.5.

Personally
 

Personally I will buy BVG graded cards all day long. I think they are consistent and a bit harsh in their grading.