More T207's
Sorry for your bad experience, Dan,
I've submitted only a few handfuls more (raw) T207s to SGC over the last 4 years combined than your recent crossover hassle. My experiences are mostly in line with previous posters regarding different aspects of their grading standards - especially SGC's harshness for tiny marks and glue residue on the back. It is a shame that the variance exists, but so be it.
Like Ron R, I've just caught up on the thread, and while he and I differ on choice of grading company, I think we'd probably agree on approach with each based on our individual experiences. Based on previous board discussions, I decided to crack out the few cards I wanted moved to SGC from various TPGs before sending in for grading - I had generally positive results.
Those involved in our (offline) pre-REA discussions of some of the grades on the high-grade T207 lots know my feelings about the relatively loose standards for the grades on some of those 7's and 8's. I understand those were graded much earlier in life - they'd not pass muster at those levels today ... IMO. Ironically, I expect to be finding out just how the crossover experience is, though, as I was fortunate to be in with others on one of those lots and have now completed the T207 set (sans Lewis no-emblem). The final card/cards should be the highlight of the my entire set, but I just "know" I'll be disappointed with that experience ... and I should just leave well enough alone and enjoy the set as-is.
Again - I wish your experience had been better and I'll take full care when submitting the impending crossover. Whoever it was that suggested a "cursory review before even beginning the grading" was the big takeaway from this thread for me - great approach.
--
Mike
|