Nat Turner is for a combined set registry
 

He says it right at the beginning of this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KTVQHFnpOI

It's apparently not imminent because they have a lot else to do first, but until now I thought the line was that they weren't doing a combined PSA and SGC set registry. A big deal for SGC cards if they do it, I think. Thoughts?

I couldn't find the interview in your WSJ link, but I would think that combining the set registries would be a positive game changer for the value of SGC cards. Presumably, it would also mean that the SGC registry would be subsumed into the PSA one and that SGC and PSA grades would be considered equivalent in terms of value for set registry points and rankings.

If this is all the case, the arbitrage between PSA and SGC prices at a given grade should close very quickly.

I couldn’t find it at that WSJ link either, but here’s a video interview from yesterday where he basically says the same thing:

https://youtu.be/_KTVQHFnpOI?si=gpjyTV8NF83YtzlT

Step 1. PSA buys SGC at a valuation based on SGC not having a competitive set registry (which is a major determinant of company value).

Step 2. PSA decrees SGC graded cards are equivalent to PSA's for set registry purposes, and the PSA set registry becomes a PSA/SGC set registry.

Step 3. The valuation of SGC skyrockets.

Conclusion: A brillant business plan, on par to PSA's original creation of their set registry.

Disclosure: The great majority of my graded cards are SGC-graded (because I think on balance they are better graders), so I would be delighted if this is how it plays out.

Nat Turner is for a combined set registry
 

In that video, Nat Turner says that polling showed that a combined registry was a low priority for their customers, so other projects take precedence. I don’t think it will ever happen.

That would be great!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Certainly will increase submission to SGC...of those hittin' the late night hopium.

President Lincoln on PSA/SGC
 

Question: If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does it have? Answer: Four, because calling a dog’s tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.

ah ha...So you say it's a points ranking game, :D:D:D:D. I wish them well. My eyes are hurtin and I don't see it happening very soon by the way he answered the question.

With 78% of those answering the survey saying they did not have mixed slabs in their collections, I would say it is remote it ever happens. However, if it did, it would increase the value of Collector's investment in SGC. SGC's failure to maintain their own registry is in large part why their market share is where it is.

In the real world, this is true. In the make-believe-world of card grading, the world this hobby resides in, whatever PSA calls it, that is what it becomes.

Buy the card, sell the slab!
.

I guess it’s time to sell all my PSA slabs before the great devaluation.

As a veterinarian I know your statement is not true as I have seen many dogs without 4 legs and I have made a few of them myself! 😎

If it was to happen, it would help SGC more. Unfortunately, combined registry sets wouldn't help any T205 or T206 collectors. SGC doesn't track Factory Numbers, While PSA doesn't have any intension of adding T205 back info.

For many years, I believed there was plenty of room for an independent company to come along and combind grading companies for cards, coins, stamps, and comic books. And could even add video games, VHS/DVD movies, Albums/CD's and other medias for music, there really is no limit. If someone grades something, then there's a spot to add it to the website. This website would strictly be a centralized place for registry only. I know it's possible because I know of a coin website that has it's own combined registry for a few older coin sets.

100%. I've thought about this many times. I'd pay a nominal sub fee to have this capability. Would it require participation by each grading company to give you access to their db?

Agreed. No chance it happens in Nat Turner’s life time if ever!

I don't know why some people seem to have concluded that it is now going to happen? A lot of wishful thinking it seems to me.

Unless I am looking at this the wrong way, what incentive is there for Nat to put money into a combined registry? It makes SGC cards more valuable in the market but isn't he in essence just competing against himself?

I prefer SGC to PSA but I must be lacking the long distance vision to see how Collectors benefits by having two separate grading brands. My assumption has been that at some point SGC either gets sold off or folds into PSA.

It also takes away a potentially very large crossover business, no? If your SGC card goes into the registry, why pay to try to cross it?

A combined registry is a consumer friendly move but not sure it makes any sense for Collector's profits but maybe it would help their overall value as a company.

I feel Collectors bought SGC to prevent someone else from doing so and as long as they are profitable will keep the brand going but at some point I think it goes away.

If they did away with the SGC brand would those collectors not use PSA and go to CGC or Beckett? Maybe SGC loyalists would refuse to cross over?

People aren't just wishing it into existence though. Last year, Nat Turner expressly stated that this was on his to-do list after he acquired SGC. He said the timing would come down to resources and priorities, which is why people started speculating that it might be something near the end of 2024 (that goal appears unlikely). However, it sounds like this is currently lower down on his priority list? But it is coming. I do believe that.

Also, there is evidence that it is in the works already. At least on the back end. The first step in building that out would be to coordinate the pop reports to ensure that they are in alignment with respect to how they identify various cards & sets. And those changes are already under way at SGC. One example of a recent change made at SGC to align with the PSA pop report is the 1929 Churchman's Babe Ruth. Previously, SGC put Ruth's name on the flip. Now, they've aligned with PSA in removing his name and only putting "Baseball, USA Sports & Games" on it. It's safe to assume that this change was made to align the databases with respect to which cards count on the registry as official "Babe Ruth cards". The Churchman Ruth is not counted in his master PSA Registry set (even though the Shonen Ruth is lol).

Collectors announced their intent to buy SGC at the end of Feb 2024, not last year. The deal closed sometime after that.

I have neither read nor heard anything from Nat or anyone at PSA or SGC about blending the brands into one registry. In fact, every statement I heard or read was how SGC would remain a separate company and Collectors would be providing resources to further enhance SGC's operations. In fact in mid April Nat spoke with Rovell and expressly stated a combined registry was not forthcoming. https://www.hobbynewsdaily.com/post/...ors-buying-sgc

As far as the Churchman example goes, I hope your assumption is correct but I think that is merely for a universal checklist as the Rovell link above states would be coming in the near future. I am seeing more of an alignment, like your Churchman example, between SGC and PSA that would support a universal checklist.

I suppose once there is a universal checklist then you have the basis of starting to blend a set registry but I remain skeptical this will happen.

So if SGC cards as graded are equivalent for registry purposes, why wouldn't PSA also automatically cross them? If not, seems inconsistent.

Expecting consistency now from the great TPG monolith seems a bit like wishful thinking given our collective experience to date.

Maybe at some point they will. It might be inconsistent but it makes sense from a set registry purpose to accept the grade. This future blended registry might identify if the card in the set as an SGC or a PSA card as opposed to simply going by the grade. Most would likely value a purebred PSA set over one with the same GPA that contained SGC cards.

Grading standards have changed over time and each company at various times in their history has graded with different emphasis for the final grade. If we were to crack out almost any PSA 7 that was graded 10 years ago, my guess is that today PSA would not deem them 7s yet there are numerous sets that contain these older graded cards that carry the same weight as a card in the same grade that was graded today.

It really irks me every time I hear Nat Turner respond to questions about whether or not PSA has gotten more strict with respect to vintage grading. He always responds with this same "well some people think we've actually gotten more lenient, it just depends who you ask" nonsense. Then he just sorta laughs it off like we're all a bunch of idiots that don't know how to grade cards. That level of hubris is wild. Nobody that grades cards today thinks they've gotten softer on vintage grading. NOBODY. The only people that I've ever seen try to claim that are dinosaurs with a bunch of old cert cards who never grade today, and are disingenuously trying to protect their investments.

I could crack out and resubmit 100 random PSA 6s with cert numbers starting with a 0 or 1 and I'd be lucky to get even one 6 back in return.

Nat, if you're reading this, let's place a little wager if you're so confident that grading standards haven't changed for vintage. I'll crack out and pay for 50 random old cert vintage cards to get regraded across 4 separate orders. If they come back lower with statistical significance, then you have to donate $10k to a charity of my choosing. If they come back more than a full grade lower, then you owe $25k to the charity and have to retrain your vintage grading team to align with PSA's historical standards. But if they come back higher, by even just +0.1 avg or more, I'll donate $30k to the charity of your choice. It's a win win. What do you say?

I see old.psa 4s with hairline creases and 3 soft corners. They'd be a 2 today!

As I like to say, 6 is the new 8. There were a couple of period in the past where they were RELATIVELY strict (0900 certs come to mind for some reason), but no chance has grading become more lenient.

100% correct. And he is not going to admit they have gotten tighter. It would discourage people from grading AND would be an admission they are controlling the grade distribution which implies cards are not being graded strictly on their merit, which they should be. That should be the only factor for determining the final grade. Who submits it and what PSA artificially designates the grade should not be factors.

Let's face it. Their business model is such that they get rewarded for not getting the grade right the first time. It leads to cards being submitted again. Why get paid once for something if you can get paid 2 or 3 times for the same card?

Travis you are spot on with your observation. I put the 1952 set together 8 years ago and had a grade average of 6.5. I am now putting the set together again and the difference in grades is shocking. PSA has tightened up the standards by about 1.5-2.0 on most cards. That is why I am putting this set together using only recently graded cards. My average grade for this set will be around 5.5 but it will be a far superior set to my first one. Is it just me or is the bulk of the grades now a 4??

It's not just you. I think 4 likely is the mode of the distribution now for recently graded 1952 Topps cards. And yes, I agree. Cards are very often 2 full grades off now. The average delta is certainly greater than one full grade and likely less than two grades if resubmitted. Although you could certainly find no shortage of cards that would regrade 3 or more grades lower today.

Ya, I encounter those often as well. The moving of the goal posts is perhaps most evident in the mid grade range. Nearly every single recently graded 4 I encounter now without creases or wrinkles would have graded as a 5, 6, or even 7 in the past. Every single one of them.

My collection is mostly full of these sorts of cards. I just laugh when they arrive. Then I crack them out and either send them to SGC or resubmit them to PSA if the value difference is high enough to make up for the longshot odds of getting an accurate-ish grader at PSA (which seems to happen about 30% of the time for bulk vintage). By "accurate-ish grader" I mean that they are only 0.5 to 1 grade tighter than old cert cards rather than the majority of bulk vintage graders which are more like 1.5 to 2 grades lower. That said, if you submit cards at the Express level or higher, you'll usually get a fair or at least "accurate-ish" grader. My higher level submissions with PSA are at least somewhat consistent and predictable anyhow. It's primarily the bulk vintage stuff that gets really hammered.

Interesting. How long before a change to SGC pricing for new submissions comes along with all of this?

I believe them when they say they have no plans to phase out SGC and that they want to continue to operate them as separate brands. It's what I would do. I think they will just continue to allow market demand to dictate pricing. It's the dial they use currently to increase or decrease submission demand.

Correct. Its not going to happen.

I doubt it and some vanilla quote from Nat in one interview doesn't sway me nor does anything else said here so far.

They're supposedly creating A combined registry, not combining THE registry. Set Registry gurus will surely still favor the PSA-only flavor so they can continue to pretend their sets are superior.

I would love it were it to happen but I am not seeing this as something that is going to come to fruition. Nat's comment in the interview clearly indicate they are short of tech resources to even address PSA's set registry needs, whatever those might be. When you factor into that a poll showed only 22% of the people collect both PSA and SGC cards, this has to be a very low priority.