Posted By:
ROBIncorrect label: First- 1927 British American Tobacco Company Bobby Jones as 1926 Lambert Butler. I have also seen a 1930 British American Tobacco Babe Ruth card labelled by SGC as 1929 Churchman's Tobacco. This should not be happening as these cards are listed separately in the Beckett online catalog. Finally, I put it down on the order form correctly, which was apprently ignored. Second: seems like T213's should be labelled as Type I, II or III, given the different surfaces & type paper, but as the correct year's noted, perhaps that's being picky.
Finally, I submitted a T205 with the Gold from the borders notably lacking, which wss rejected for grading. I had sold other cards like it in a group to a very experienced vintage card collector/dealer, who in turn sold some of the cards as singles I had sold him. I hope my belief this card was wrongly rejected wasn't misplaced with those observations.
I should emphasize I do agree with a majority of the grades I received back and most of the undergrades were a matter of one, with relatively few cards in the 2-3 undergrade range. I note the Brucemo web site is rather good explaining the card corner wear with great illustrations, so I know my solution for card grading companies providing more detailed illustrated explanations for card grdes is achievable.
I phrased my complaint in rather blunt terms what other people have politely commented about on this board as well as other places: that SGC/PSA appear to had been downgrading cards by 1/3 to 1/2 grade more recently.
I disagree that this is "improved grading", or "stricter grading" as explained by those who apologize for the Grading companies. It's simply inconsistent grading with past standards and is not providing the service that is, at a minimum, implied by product that can be observed in the marketplace, as well as the written critieria.
For comparision, I had developed some skill in grading diamonds a long time ago. I never had a problem with a Jeweler with grade as to color and clarity of a diamond, in contrast to sports card grading companies. The best explanation I can come to is that card grading companies are sloppy, careless or rushed, with the rule being to assign the lowest grade on the quickest glance. The fee for grading a card is less than appraising a diamond, so time being money comes into play here.
I will submit cards for grading again, but the value of the card will need to be higher and/or the grade of the card not as readily apparent from a quality scan, as is the case with better condition cards, or with another reason to add value to the card that is above the cost of grading.
Getting shortchanged one grade on a high value mid range condition card does not seem to be damaging, as it's more important to ascertain there are no alterations to the card. Getting shortchanged one grade of a better condition card simply means cracking out the card for resubmission to get a higher grade, which seems to be a common game of collectors and dealers from which the card companies benefit, which is why I don't see PSA/SGC providing an illustrated card grading guide, it will ocst them money and such a service will not enhance their revenues.
05-19-2003, 08:55 PM
7th Inning Stretch
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
