How Did I Do With These Regradings?

p1ayba11 · #1 01-11-2025, 05:58 PM

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.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 01-11-2025, 06:05 PM

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

robw1959 · #3 01-11-2025, 06:07 PM

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.

Mark17 · #4 01-11-2025, 06:09 PM

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

BioCRN · #5 01-11-2025, 06:15 PM

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.