How Did I Do With These Regradings?
 

Hi all,

In recent months I went on a mission to buy low grade T206 portraits of Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, and Cy Young where I felt the frontside looked considerably better than the grade. In each instance, the reason for the lower grade was some relatively minor ink or markings on the back. Two of the cards were PSA so automatically carried the MK qualifier, the other was SGC. After purchasing, I submitted to SGC for grading as feel the T206 cards just look so much better in the SGC holder. Also, SGC doesn’t do qualifiers so now have just pure grades. Pics below show the cards as I bought them and then after regrading. Just curious of everyone’s thoughts? Was this a fools errand? Did I improve the value of these cards individually and/or as a group? Do minor marks on the back impact your purchasing decisions? Thanks for any feedback.

A little ahead I think, qualifiers are the kiss of death.

You did better on the Christy portrait, for sure! And I think the straight Young portrait SGC 1.5 is a slight improvement on the PSA 2 with the MK qualifier. However, the SGC 1.5 Johnson portrait, I think, was better left alone as a PSA 3(MK). Overall, it appears to be pretty close to a wash on the decision to regrade them. That's my two cents.

Out of curiosity, what was the total cost of the re-grading?

Unless the back on Mathewson is torn the hell up, 1 is a harsh initial grade.

I'm a huge fan of the 1.5's in my collection (or 2.5's and under for SGC because they allow marks and noticeable staining up to 2.5).

The "eye appeal" on many 1.5's is greater than a slew of 2-4+ I've seen over the years. Yeah, there's generally a major flaw, but a good looking card is a good looking card.

Those are great-looking cards!

To answer a couple questions. I paid $85/card for grading plus shipping both ways. Also, I’m attaching a pic here of the backs of cards.

I’d say regardless of grade, those are beautiful cards. The backs look a lot better than what I anticipated off of the grades. The fronts are super sharp as well. Amazing eye appeal on those!

I like the qualifiers, because it tells you directly what the issue is. For instance, without the 'MK,' someone looking at the card may wonder a couple of things, like, "How much did the mark lower the grade overall? Would it be a 3 without it? A two?" Also, since the mark is so small, it's possible they might even think, "Wait, did they miss seeing the mark when they graded it?"

Having the 'MK' on it eliminates all of that.

To me, the original grade tells you exactly what grade they think the card deserves, while specifically pointing out it ALSO has a mark on it.

Unfortunately, if you're looking to sell a card, what I said probably won't come into play. So many collectors abhor any and all qualifiers. :eek:

They definitely look pretty sweet in the tuxedos!!!

Hopefully you like them better in the new slabs.

Personally, I’m not convinced the juice would be worth the squeeze. But if you’re planning to sell, hopefully the new grades will offset the grading cost, and leave a little extra?

Now they’re accurately graded. Qualifiers are stupid.

The Johnson in the SGC slab looks stunning.

+1. You've done well, Grasshopper!

I don't know how you'll come out $ wise, but IMO the cards present far better in the new SGC slabs. Beauties for the given grades.

A little better, I think, But not sure to the tune of $250. Maybe though, that could be made up on Christy alone.

I'm not sure how you did but SGC did great!

;)

-
Regardless of grade your cards look much better with a black apron.

Where's the mark on the WaJo?

The number "8" written on the back.

Thanks, missed it. Beautiful card.

The End Result
 

Hi everyone, thought some of you might be interested to learn how this experiment turned out. I went into this buying the T206 WaJo, Cy Young, and Matty cards where I believed the grades weren’t doing them justice - two of the cards had MK qualifiers and the other I thought was just undergraded. After getting them regraded with SGC, I was a bit torn about keeping them or selling. I decided to sell all three and did so using the Fanatics Collect weekly auction. Their process worked smoothly and I feel I did every bit as well as with eBay or other auction options. Bottom line - after card costs, shipping, and grading I came out a little more than $400 ahead. Summary attached.

This was a fun experiment and I believe the cards as sold showed them in their best possible light. I am happy to have at least broke even and pocketed a few dollars but don’t know that I’ll try this again.

Thanks all.

Nice post and appreciate you following up. $400 is better than a loss :)

I will say that I also believe market conditions may have affected these sales.

Surprising that the Christy was the one with loss.

Good job and some great cards.

It is great to see that you can do better crossing from psa to sgc. I tend to buy either and focus on the card and price, but in some circles people say PSA is always better. With vintage that doesnt seem to be the case now. Of course, with the buyout of SGC by PSA, they will be one and the same going forward.

One question: when you send for regrading, do you just remove them from the case yourself first? Is that dangerous to maybe harming the cards maneuvering them?

Paul

SGC loves their half grades. I wonder what % of SGC vintage comes back with a .5 in the grade? Gotta be soooo much more prevalent than PSA.

That trivial comment aside, those are some beautiful cards.

Congratulations on the outcome. Hopefully the $400 you cleared was worth your time and effort.

I'm not entirely convinced that we can really conclude that the SGC label made them more valuable, but for the SGC acolytes, I suppose they're always looking for anything that supports that result.

Most companies allow you to submit either in holder (as a "crossover") or cracked out as a raw attempt. Crossovers normally have a lower chance of getting an improved grade, because they cannot always evaluate a card in someone else's slab. For example, try evaluating an edge through a BGS slab. If you send a BGS-slabbed card to PSA looking for an increase or even the same grade, it's unlikely that PSA will agree unless they see the card outside of the holder. However, they will only break the holder if they are absolutely sure the card is deserving of the same grade or better (or whatever you list as min acceptable grade on your form).

As such, most submitters crack them out themselves and take the minor risk, in order to maximize their chance of getting a desired result.

I just got a 22 card submittal back from SGC yesterday and 9 of them came back with half grades.

That's interesting about the SGC half grades. In looking back at the cards I have submitted, there are quite a few .5s in the various lots.

I certainly would've liked getting the grades 'rounded up' to the higher number in the binary choice of (for example) either an SGC 5 or an SGC 6, but it seems to be a more precise way of grading.

If the SGC standards say a card is less than a 6, but decently better than a 5, then it will land in a 5.5 holder. That's the right move.
Giving it 'only' a 5 instead would've been a crime against humanity (or against the collecting community, which is same thing)!! :D

I have all low grade type raw cards in my collection and like the .5 grading on cards graded between 1-3. I think it has helped me to become more realistic about comparing my cards to recent sales on 130point. I do like the look of those SGC slabs. Sure am glad I found this website, you guys have so many great cards.

To answer the question about crossover or cracking
 

To answer a couple questions….

I started with the WaJo, I submitted it to SGC as a crossover with a 2 minimum which is according to their grading standards the highest they’ll grade anything with markings. They sent it back as not meeting the minimum. After some discussion with SGC staff, I was offered promo discount and resubmitted with a 1.5 minimum which turned out to be the final grade.

For the other two (Cy Young and Matty), I cracked them out and submitted. Having the experience with WaJo behind me, I felt pretty comfortable both would grade at the 1.5.

Certainly wish they all could have made a 2 but was informed that the cards would have to be like mint but with markings to get a 2 rather than the 1.5.

SGC cards
 

playball- Congrats! I think the cards look great, and the key is that you are
happy with the result. You made the right call.

Raulus- SGC ''acolytes" are "always" looking for anything that supports a result
that SGC cards are more valuable than PSA? SMH... First, the term
"acolyte" is in itself a dig- lose it. Secondly, I think many collectors are
looking for their cards a) to be graded accurately and b) to look sharp
in a holder. They want properly graded cards that present well. Where
is the harm in that? On the other hand, I have noted that some
PSA "acolytes" can't resist the little jibes. Who has the complex in that
circumstance?

Trent King

Would "fanboys" be a better term? :eek::cool:

Apparently acolyte is excessively pejorative!

Fanboy seems a little too gauche to me. How about devotee? I could also get behind enthusiast or perhaps even zealot if preferred.

It's better than "fanbois" which they use on Blowout lol. Anyhow, I am confident there is no good money making model based on taking PSA graded cards and submitting them to SGC. Sure, once in a while it might work out that way. And whenever we learn that PSA is dropping the SGC subbrand, there will be a mass exodus in the other direction I believe.