PSA 1 p-f vs. SGC 10 and SGC 20

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

For those of us on the bottom of the card food chain, do you prefer the PSA unified grade for these low end items, the SGC 2 tier grade, or would you prefer an authentic label instead?

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Not sure what you mean by the "SGC 2-tier grade". Do you mean the half-grades?

I prefer SGC, nonetheless, especially for my lower-grade cards, which tend to mostly be prewar.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

My personal opinion is that SGC could break down the low end even more. How can there be so many sub grades for high end and so few for low grade? At least with the low end you don't have to pull out a micrscope to find the difference in grades. to me the PSA 1 is a fast way to grade low end cards for low end cards.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

I try to buy the card and not the grade on the holder, regardless of the grade. I like the SGC insert better on the pre-war cards, so I tend to prefer SGC for that reason alone.

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: JudgeDred2

In my opinion I like the SGC and GAI black backgrounds (although I like SGC better for personal reasons).

At the bottom of the barrel I don't think that there's really that much difference because the subjectivity of grading cards at those low levels seems to change on a daily basis for all graders (GAI, PSA, SGC, etc). I've seen some ugly 1's and some pretty 1's (is that even possible, my standards must be pretty low). I've seen some 1.5's and 2's that were uglier than some other 1's. The 1's that I like have the pin holes or some other minor blemish that relegates the card to such a low grade. I figure I can live with a small pin hole as long as the card displays nicely. For those of us that are bottom feeders these cards can offer great value.

[Archive]

Posted By: Erland Stevens

When the idea of grading cards was first conceived, did the grading companies even consider that the low grades would garner so much attention? It seems that splitting hairs on the top end is where the market was envisioned. If that is the case, then it's only natural that low-grade collectors will be dissatisfied with the grading system.

Maybe some board members who know about the workings of the coin grading industry can share whether low grade coins share the same interest as low grade vintage cards. Has the coin world already encountered and addressed this problem?

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

The purpose of grading was really divined to expose flaws that the casual observer might miss -- a wrinkle, an erasure, evidence of tampering, etc. Many of us use grading as a reliable source of cards over the internet because sellers can't overstate the condition of a card that scans well. Grading below 2 or 1 is really not particularly informative -- most of the damage can be gleaned from a casual glance, and if not, then deserves a closer look.

With a 1, you are told that it is authentic and has not been tampered with. Why would you need any additional third-party information? What would you learn about the card that was not already obvious by the card itself and the grade assigned to it?

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

Sometimes people just like the added protection of the slab. I know that I do. I had to scan eleven raw Gold Medal Flour cards last night to list for sale and I was freaking out having to lay them on the scanner and then pick them carefully back up and put them away in a safe place, making sure I didn't ding a corner or whatever. There's no such issue with my slabbed cards.

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: RayB

Good Topic.

PSA 1 Poor/Fair is inadequate. Fair as a grade should be broken out as SGC does in with their SGC20 grade designation.

Poor however is another matter.
There is Poor
Really Poor
Downright Miserable
Run over by a Front End Loader

Poor can be a card with some endearing qualities but technically not up to Fair standards. Then there are Poor cards with marks, writing, tears, paper loss, small pieces missing, image obliterated, that still get holdered. It seems that "Authentic" only applies to cards that are undersized (trimmed) or otherwise altered.

Just goes to show how buying on the low end, even graded cards, one needs to always buy the card.

RayB

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

I wasn't suggesting that cards as low as a 1 should not be graded -- far from it. I love my SGC 10's. But what I meants was that there is no need to parse the grade for cards graded a 10 by SGC -- SGC does not need to start using a 5, for example (which might be confusing with the 1-10 scale, although an SGC 10 is rarely confused with a PSA 10) because you already know everything you need to know about a card that is graded an SGC 10 -- either (1) it is obvious from looking at the card; or (2) it isn't obvious and the 10 tells you that you need to look closer because there is a major flaw you hadn't noticed. What else could a 5 tell you that you didn't already know?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott T

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

In the case of the Flick, we all know why it is a 10. In the case of the Brown, we know that there is a serious flaw -- either creasing/tearing that is not visible in the scan, reverse paper loss or a pinhole. Keeping the Brown a 10, while reassigning the Flick a 5 does not give us any more information. The important fact is that Brown is not a 60 or 50.

We can all agree that not all 10's are the same. But can't we all agree that not all 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's are the same? The answer is not to create sub-degrees. The answer is to ask yourself what point grading serves -- again, to provide information that is not readily available from a casual scan, either authentication or condition.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I prefer the 2-tier SGC/GAI approach, just to create some resolution at the bottom. Or on some kind of wierd principle that it just doesn't seem right that there can be such a variety at the '1' level.

For better or worse, and despite the 'buy the card not the holder' mantra, grade does affect value even for lower end cards (Cobbs, etc).

It also just makes some common sense that there be some way to avoid the wide range within a grade, and with PSA anything that prevents a 2 automatically reduces a card to be on the same level as a complete disaster card.

OTOH ... I can't come up with a single argument to Paul's point about being able to see defects at the lower levels. That is so simply true that it defies debate. Maybe for newer collectors it might help if they miss something, but really - a low end holder shouldn't be giving us any info we can't get by looking at the card.

Still like the availability of a .5 though, just don't know why.

Joann

(Dave - I keep a regular business envelope next to my scanner. After scanning I slide it under one edge of the card and flip it up. Keeps me from having to grab at the edges, and also keeps the fingerprints off my scanner.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I have had similar instances of 10s like you have shown.

Quite frankly it shows a flaw in the grading system when two cards like the one you have shown receive the same grade.

What is the point of a 100-pt grading system, or half point scale when two cards like that get grouped together anyway?


I think SGC is too quick to give the 10 rating to cards that should be given a 20 (isn't that the whole point of the 20?)

[Archive]

Posted By: Sean

I like the SGC 10 and 20, it's nice to break up the Poor and Fair grades. Looking at past prices 20 go for about 1.5 - 2 times the price of a 10 and follow that same scale up to about a 70 and the it switches up to about 3 - 4 times in the 80+ range.
I would assume the Brown has some back damage or something thats hard to see in the scan and probably deserves the 10, my problem is with the Flick, can a card that destroyed receive a 10? I would say it should get a 0(zero) or what SGC currently offers has "Authentic."