![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Adam
Hi, I'm a newbie to the T206 set. Its has been about a month or so since I started collecting. My question is what do you guys think of SGC? I like the way they look encapsulated the best. Do you think they are reputable? I know alot about PSA but not to much about SGC. I sent in a couple cards to them and they seem pretty consistent with grades so far. Thanks in advance for the answers- Adam O. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Fred C
Adam, |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Ed Ivey
Reputable, professional, consistent, courteous, demonstrably experts. IMHO. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JimB
SGC is a great company and very consistent. Many collectors thing they are better than PSA, especially for pre-War stuff. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Frank Evanov
No knock on SGC, but in terms of T206 availability, PSA rules. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: leon
Frank E and everyone else is correct so far..(imo). I think one of the reasons you see more PSA T206's is because dealers are still wanting to maximize their dollars, and rightfully so, so they go with the mass appeal of PSA. I was speaking with a collector, but mostly dealer, yesterday, and it's obvious the PSA blinders for selling (and some collecting) are still there. I think most hard core vintage collectors prefer SGC though....as they are more consistent, more knowledgable, and more revered in the pre-war space. ..This board is a valuable resource for you so listen, ask questions, learn...and most importantly have fun....Good luck in the hunt.. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Adam
Thank you guys for the info. I will be sure to check in often. I really can't thank you guys enough for the quick response! Adam O. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: MikeU
"Re: SGC November 17 2007, 11:40 AM |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JimB
PSA still has the dominant share of some of the mainstream pre-war sets like T206 and '33 Goudey. I think it is mostly because they were in the game first and had a lot people gearing their sets toward the PSA registry, etc. If, for example, someone already had 300+ PSA graded cards toward a T206 set and want them all in the same type of holders, it is much easier to just go for PSA for the rest of them, rather than pay to crossover 300 cards. But starting a set new, one is not hampered by such a decision. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: quan
can they stop grading vg/ex cards as g? i want correctly graded cards, not overly harsh ones. when i submit i find i'm in agreement with about 75% of their grading (there are always 2-3 headscratchers)...whereas with psa it's about 90%. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barry arnold
your message title says it all:SGC |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: T206Collector
...as he posts one of my favorite sayings about T206. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Bob B.
I'm more comfortable with SGC grading vintage cards. The holders look better as well. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Ken McMillan
SGC is awesome. I sent 5 cards in for the November grading special $8.00 per card and 20 business days. Got them back in a week. Now that is service!!!!! Can't do better than this one. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Robert Reiss
I submitted cards to PSA at Reading. There were 2 different submission levels so I could not combine to save on their ridiculous shipping fees. Funny thing... the cards that were supposed to take up to 30 business days to return arrived before the ones that were supposed to take 10. The 10 day ones were late, so I could envoke their "Guarantee", and have other cards graded (as long as I pay for shipping). Spending $100 to "Join" PSA was the stupidest use of my collecting $$$ ever. I can have anything graded by SGC, with no "Membership" fee, get consistent grades, and, in a better holder. If I was a huge customer,(Dealer), I'm sure I would be EXTREMELY happy with PSA, but I am just a collector.... |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jeffK
"SGC kills paper loss and light wrinkles." |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JK
Jeff - I couldnt agree more. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: cmoking
Over the last couple of years, I have grown to really appreciate how SGC grades T206 cards. In my opinion, they grade closer to what I expect than other grading companies. Availability can be a bummer sometimes, but there always seem to be some T206s around - in all holders and grades - so it doesn't take long for another card(s) to come up that you'll need. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Matt
"PSA, unfortunately, will put a EX grade on a card with significant damage to the back of the card." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: cmoking
Matt, is this one bad enough for you? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
WOW! that Lajoie is horrible! From what little I know about 3rd party grading, that should be a 2 in an SGC holder. At best a 5 in a PSA with qualifier MK? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barrysloate
The front looks like a 7, so maybe knock it down three grades to a 4. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
No qualifier for the stain and paperloss Barry? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barrysloate
Does paper loss get a qualifier or just a lower grade? Okay, maybe a 4 is generous, let's call it a high end 3. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Jason L
I like PSA for modern (post 1950) and primarily for the Set Registry. The competition is a fun aspect of collecting. ...But otherwise, I tend to think that their grading is maddeningly inconsistent. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Rob
i'd love to add that lajoie to my collection! At least from the picture, the stain is easier to live with than a crease (my opinion) so I'd give it somewhere in the VG - VG/EX range. Nice corners and great color/focus! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
I agree Rob, it is much nicer than mine and with great eye appeal. The technical grade I guess is the issue. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Matt
I believe that Lajoie is the symptom of a grading industry issue, which is that with a few select cards that are going to get a lot of face time (read Grretzky Wagner, this Lajoie, etc), the grading company will intentionally be very lax as it will result in a ton of free branding for them; I could almost see the submitter saying, "well SGC will give me a 50, so if you can do better, I'll go with you." While that is a huge problem on several levels, I haven't seen a PSA slabbed card worth less then $1k with a similar issue (of course, feel free to post 1 and prove me wrong |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: cmoking
From what I see and read, it isn't a stain, but paper loss and rubber band abrasion. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JimB
That is a gorgeous card! I agree with Barry; it would probably be a 7 if not for the back problems. I think knocking it to a 4 would be about right, but I am not sure PSA is being inconsistent with their standards here. I have seen a number of PSA 5s with paper loss. If SGC were to give this card a 2/30 for this card, I think that would be too harsh of a downgrade. I think people are conditioned to think PSA made an error here because SGC would be so harsh on an error like this. Generally the grading companies are in agreement on technical issues, but not always. Let's be serious here; that is an amazing card. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Jeff Lichtman
Guys, anyone who has a 33 Goudey set in the Registry knows that is not a 7 front. That is an 8, easy. King, do you agree? I'm not sure I have many 7s that look nearly as good as that front. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: cmoking
Jeff, as you know, its often tough to tell from a scan, especially the corners. My guesstimate is that the front/corners are PSA 6ish or PSA 7ish. Just my guess from the scan. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Eric Brehm
Here is the card in Mastro again: |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barrysloate
Considering the Lajoie is considered a classic rarity, it is not very difficult to find. It seems like there is at least one in every major auction. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Frank Wakefield
Adam, |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Jeff Lichtman
I agree with Eric that the 5 with paper loss has a front at least as nice as the 7 and 8s shown. As for the bit of paper loss on the back, I don't think a 5 is too high a grade as the front is clearly (to me) at least a 7-8. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Lee Behrens
THis is one of my favorite over grades by PSA, a tough card in the set, the card has stains, paperloss and is miscut and still got a 6. Sadly the last time I saw it sell it went for $15,000. There is also a T206 AB back with a Miscut designation, a little education does help. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
T206 SGC 80 Criss, SGC 50 Stanage Tolstoi, SGC 50 Parent Old Mill | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 03-21-2009 11:36 AM |
High Grade Sale '64 SGC 84 Yaz; '68 SGC 86 Seaver; '57 SGC 80 Yanks; '67 SGC 84 BrockFlood | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 11-23-2007 09:05 AM |