Guess The Grade
 

I recently received back these three cards from SGC. I can tell you they are all crease free. I know #491 is off center on back. What grades do YOU think ? I will post grades tomorrow.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...22eb64bd_k.jpgIMG_2271 (2) by Tony Biviano, on Flickr


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...65a2d062_k.jpgIMG_2272 by Tony Biviano, on Flickr

From left to right I'll say 6, 5, 5.

5,3.5,3?

5 mc
4
5 mc

5
5
6mc

All 7's

5, 2, 3

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

7, 6, 7
For those guessing MC, SGC doesn't have the MC qualifier.

5.5, 6, 6

I would guess:
5 OC
4
5 MC

Geez, tough crowd! How could you call those first 2 5's? Not saying they can't be but I'm not sure what you could see in that pic that would make you say 5.

The nature of the post itself does make you think that the OP was disappointed in the grades, but without taking that into account I will be an optimist and say:

8
7
7

These threads are always more about trying to figure out the psychology of the OP than the cards themselves. That said, I have no clue, 7 7 6

4.5; 4.5; 6
Top corners on Sam seem soft, Radatz has notch bottom center front.

6s across the board.

lol SGC is brutal and OP wouldn't be posting if this was straightforward so there's not a chance in HELL of an 8 in that batch.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

5, 5, 5

Well since they don't have mc or oc at SGC, then I will say....
4
4
4

hahahaha

I can't for the life of me understand why people keep paying the grading companies a bunch of money to essentially devalue their cards by crapping all over them, which is what seems to happen about 95 percent of the time.

You're not wrong. I just like to lock in a value with a grade, but it's a waste of money on many cards.

It’s like they’re seeking to have their cards blessed by a notoriously fickle and ill-tempered wizard.

I agree. Unfortunately, there was a time where grading common cards was cheap. I got caught in the big rip off and am stuck with about 40 common cards to grade for a complete graded ex/mt set.

7
5
6

5
3
4

8,6,7 left to right… is there a prize?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Grades
 

5, 5, 5

3
9
1

I am not a professional grader.

5,4,6

5,4,5

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...aeaa4f01_b.jpgIMG_2274 by Tony Biviano, on Flickr

Pretty disappointing. I was expect8ng 7,7,6. Just don't understand it, especially the McDowell. I may crack them out and sell for what I think the grade should be.

My sympathies. If they are going to grade your cards that harshly, it might be a struggle to get those last 40 cards graded in the ex/mt range. You might just have to buy them already graded and forget about submitting any more cards to them at least on this project.

These 3 should've all been graded around 6 IMO.

Not that it helps any, but I've always said SGC grades tough. I know it would prolong things, but I just wish they, and all other TPG's, would tell us the reason(s) why?

I think grades are accurate. They can’t be 6 and 7s when you can see corner wear without the use of a loupe… and my eyes are bad !

Disagree. There are plenty of PSA 9s with corner dings, and those are "Mint."

wut
There are countless 7s and 6s where you can see corner touches in scans or pics.
Deadpan humor maybe?

You guys should know with today’s grading if you have a clean card that you can see a touch of corner and edge wear it’s in the 4 to 5 range. If it looks real good and you can’t see wear with out a loupe it’s a 6 to 7…. Clean under a loupe with a touch of wear to one corner a 8 … no wear under a loupe and centered a 9!
It’s that simple…. It’s the new way of grading 😀

They look like 6's to me from the front, but........ Is it me or does anyone else see the severe miscut / diamond cut on the reverse of the first card? And the less but still diamond cut on the reverse of the second card? And the off centered reverse two ways on the third card?
This is why I said 4,4,4 on them.
Bob

The graders have just completely lost touch with reality in terms of logic and proportionality. I mean, if I said to you, “Imagine the best looking card possible for these. Now imagine a card that looks only 40 percent as good,” would you picture anything like the ones above? Of course not.

NFW those are 4s in any realistic universe.

That’s what we get when the marketplace rewards “strictness.” It will just continue to get worse unless enough people decide to stop paying to get their nice cards crapped on. Which shows no sign of happening, of course - quite the opposite.

When I can, that’s what I do. I have been buying cheap PSA 7s and breaking them out. I want to complete this set and sell it be finished with this hobby.

I've wondered also why the TPGs won't normally tell you why a card got a certain grade, especially since they are being paid to perform a service. Can you imagine going to a doctor to have a check-up and he/she comes out and says you have this illness or disease, and if you ask how do they know, they basically just respond, "Because I'm a doctor, and you're not, and I said so.". No decent, upstanding doctor would ever do that, but that is basically the treatment you're getting back from TPGs, and it is disgusting and insulting. But hey, they probably have it written into or somehow implied in their fine print that they don't have to tell you any more about their proprietary methods of grading, like doing so would let out some secret like the recipe for Coca-Cola that could end up costing their company money. But we, the collecting community, let them get away with this crap because we keep spending money with them without demanding answers and explanations as to why they grade something as they do.

And we, the collecting community, also allow each different TPG to pick their own grading standards, which is more horse crap. There should be one recognized set of grading standards for the entire hobby, all the TPGs should be made to follow them, and all TPGs should be completely transparent as to their grading standards and processes. As well as being subject to some periodic, independent, outside third party review to insure a TPG is keeping up with those grading standards and practices/procedures. During this pandemic we've seen the submissions to TPGs go ballistic, causing unprecedented backlogs and shutdowns to occur. Part of the TPG's response has been to hire more graders, but does anyone know exactly what background or training any of these newly hired, so called grading experts actually has or will go through? I know I don't. But I bet a majority of the members on this forum could run circles around most of these new TPG hires when it comes to grading.

Anyway, enough venting. As to specifically why a TPG won't tell you exactly why a card grades what it does, I've always felt there were two main possible reasons. One, to not let possible card doctors know exactly what it was the TPG caught so they can further refine and improve their activities in the future to get even more cards, in even higher grades, past TPG graders and into numbered slabs. And secondly, by not giving out exact reasons for specific card grades a TPG can not so easily be called out for their grading mistakes, and therefore make it more difficult for them to be held accountable for such grading mistakes in light of any guarantees they may have made. I think about all these cards the BODA guys have been exposing as altered and doctored for years now, and how they keep ending up in TPG numerically graded slabs. Yet I never hear of instances where any TPG has stepped up and made good financially to any collector on a card they had misgraded due to such alterations. I've got to believe this occasionally, at least, happens in the hobby, but why then does it always seem so hush-hush?

So, can anyone think of any other good reasons that TPGs won't tell you why they graded a card what they did? Or any thoughts or comments on the two reasons I put forth?

As for the cards the OP had graded, I too felt they were slightly undergraded based on just the scans, especially the card of McDowell. I'm guessing the noticable, but not extreme, diamond cut on the front and back of the McDowell card didn't help, as neither did the obvious miscut on the back of the Rookie Stars card and the slight diamond cut on it's front and back also. And though the back of the Radatz card was not perfectly centered either, though not as extreme as on the back of the Rookie Stars card, there is a also a very slight diamond cut to the front and back of that Radatz card, along with a slight ding or chipping on the bottom front edge of the card as well, below the word SOX. I'm guessing those are the possible main issues none of the cards got a 5.

Welcome to the club...check out my Mantles on BST

Still a better option than paying $100/card for more disappointment much, much later from psa.

.

Well, I am a doctor and my total grades for threesome is 13, pretty close to the actual 12.5.

So if I say you’ve got a disease, don’t doubt me.:eek:

Tony,

Why wait to finish the set if you really want to sell and get out? The difference between a complete and near-complete set shouldn't be that much, unless you're still missing a few of the big cards from the set. Either way, good luck.

Bob, its the challenge. I have collected mostly every set there. is. This is the last Topps set I have yet to finish. I have been looking for these commons for at least three years.. Can't be found in the SGC slab. Not many people were having commons graded compared to psa. I have every one of the commons I need in raw ex/nm/nm IMO. Due to the grading rip off I have sending three cards a month. I will get there in time.

OK, so what is the end of the story, tell us why the cards are graded so low. Are there surface issues? From your pics it looks like the cards may all be diamond cut, does SGC lower their grades for those kind of miscut cards?

Scott thinks the corners show wear but I don't see that from your pictures. The bottom corners look clean, but are the top corners soft?

Tony,

I get it and understand. Good luck with the hunt and finally finishing the set then. I'm sure this pandemic hasn't helped at all. Sounds like you just need to get to some shows and the chance to look through boxes of raw commons to finally find the last few you need.