![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
After looking (and reading) a post about a card in the BST section (Scott and Dean) I wondered why SGC doesn't have 1/2 grades all the way up? Does anyone know why? Just wondered why other TPGs do and they don't????
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I noticed that too when I was listing the number of Hindu backs sold in the last year in a previous post. I questioned what a PSA 6.5 would crossover to since SGC has no 82 grade. I have no idea why they don't have certain half grades. I also don't like the fact that they list no qualifiers. I see alot of SGC 10's that would never crossover to a NQ PSA 1.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I thought SGC was the first major TPG to come out w/ the 1/2 point scale. (I don't know why they didn't do it all the way, however.) Then when Beckett started grading, they also used the 1/2 point scale, and finally PSA came around to half points a couple of years ago.
Many people just don't like qualifiers on their flips, so SGC gives that option to those people. They lower the grade accordingly. However, obviously, you pretty much can't go lower than Poor (other than Authentic), so a card in a Poor SGC flip w/ writing won't cross into a NQ PSA 1 holder. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Hi Reg,
I too wish SGC gave 1/2 grades. That was my conundrum when I bought that Young card. It was in an older PSA holder. I was torn on what to do with it. Attempt a 4.5 grade, which I believe it deserves, or cross it to SGC. At the time I had no intentions of selling it and so I decided to go SGC because I like the way cards look in their holders compared to PSA. And talking to a few people at the time they felt that even though it's not in a 4.5 holder, the card would speak for itself. I'm sure SGC had its reasons for the grading scale they use. One possibilty is that maybe when TPG originated the focus of many collectors, me included, was on the higher end (7 plus) grades. So the need for 1/2 grades on lower end grades (2-4) was not perceived as important. Now with more focus on mid-grade examples there is a market for it but it's probably too late for SGC to change. Just a thought. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
SGC doesn't offer that option. They've never used qualifiers.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
THey are planning on initiating half grades for some of the levels where they do not currently have them. I just spoke with them last week and they said they needed to do some computer changes, but that it is in the planning.
JimB |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Good to know! I wonder how much more $$$ they will get from people cracking out cards and resubmitting?
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Personally, I think qualifiers are stupid. I don't there is anything dumber than grading a card PSA 8 (oc) in my opinion. If the card is OC, how can you say it's an 8! Just another gimmick!
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It seems to me that one finds the widest range of condition variation at the lower range. Grades of 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 seem the most useful to me.
JimB |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I strongly disagree with this opinion. I prefer to have greater transparency in understanding why a certain grade was assigned. Especially in the imperfect eBay marketplace. I rely to a certain extent on a third party opinion when considering a purchase. If i find a listing for a card with a grade of psa 4mk I can make a buying decision based on the knowledge that the card has a mark on it. I do not have that assurity with an sgc 50. I have bought several cards in sgc 50 holders with marks on them that have no chance to cross to an psa 6 mk. The assertion that sgc takes this into account and drops the grade accordingly is simply not true in many cases. In extreme cases, yes but not always. I prefer the extra information the psa qualifier provides. In a perfect world where I had the card in hand pre-purchase it might not matter but I buy less than 1% of my cards face to face.
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Yea, I didn't word that very well. I meant options from other TPG's that use qualifiers. For example, I don't think that SGC uses qualifiers like Altered for Authentic cards (in most cases) while PSA and BVG do. It makes for a cleaner flip.
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
High grade qualifiers are PSA's way of acknowledging creaseless, very sharp cornered cards with other flaws.
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Should be graded 1-100. Look at centering, corners, creases, focus, notches , print marks, color or eye appeal etc. For example :if a crease on the card the highest # would be 40 and go from there. If good 55-45 centering with crease gets around 40, if centering is less continue to go down maybe 35, etc.
Cards with borders should be computer analyzed with laser to determine precise centering ( no qualifiers ) ! If 80/20 then maybe 65 would be the maximum grade with other factors lowering this number ( such as a crease etc). If a grading company would do this ( 1-100 scale with computerized guidelines and remove the human element) I would send in my cards. I would think the card could be placed under a measuring device and a computer readout could get a precise reading. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'm not a big fan of qualifiers, but I don't usually let them bother me too much.
One of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to qualifiers is when people try to sell their PSA 8oc for a PSA 8 price. I know it was said earlier that buyers know how to distinguish the price difference between the two, but that statement is false sometimes (Qualifiers and BccG). Believe it or not, we have many people that are uneducated in the grading scale and the qualifiers make it that much more difficult. That being said, it's common sense for most of us, but many, many people use the qualifiers to their advantage to make more money. If you need a qualifier to tell you why you got the grade you did...I feel sorry for you ![]() So realistically, qualifiers are present to tell us we have an otherwise very nice card other than this one defect...just don't get it...give us the real grade and leave off the bs. So let's say that a card grades a PSA 8mk because of a pen mark on the back. What would that card grade if it didn't have the qualifier? PSA 1.5 or 2??? So how can we assess the qualifier properly on marks? We can't simply knock the grade down two notches like the general rule of thumb for other qualifiers? Probably not. Just something to chew on...
__________________
T206's Graded low-mid 219/520 T201's SGC/PSA 2-5 50/50 T202's SGC/PSA 2-5 10/132 1938 Goudey Graded VG range 37/48 |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I see all points made, I don't like the "qualifiers" though......I mean, one can usually see what the issue is that would designate the qualifier....mark, off center, etc...
Would someone fairly new to collecting get thrown off by what a qualifier was, and pay the price of an 8 on an 8oc? I think it's possible. Sincerely, Clayton |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Starting Today - T210s | alsup2311 | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 3 | 08-22-2011 04:35 PM |
1934 Goudey SGC finish your set! | JasonD08 | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 01-12-2011 08:16 PM |
FS: 1953 Topps Starter Set (20) - All SGC + bonus - SOLD | Irwin Fletcher | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 12-20-2010 08:55 PM |
T206 for Sale: Almost 50% of set, 220 cards | Julian Wells | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 2 | 08-01-2010 04:42 PM |
SGC T205s (mostly 10s, 20s) for Sale | obcbobd | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 8 | 02-26-2010 08:18 AM |