Scg

[Ben Yourg]

I had a card graded by PSA. It's ,in my opinion,graded
way below what it should be.PSA won't return any of my Emails,about this.
Have many of you sent your cards to SCG,for a RE-GRADE ?
And,did SCG have a special fee,for that?I can't remember.
Thanks,
Ben

[shagrotn77]

It’s SGC.

[bobbyw8469]

Post a scan of the card....we can tell if it is undergraded or not.

[ejharrington]

I did. They had a $10 regrade special. I had a card that, while not outed as altered, was listed as part of a submission that included an altered card. This was early in the PWCC scandal. I called them and told them that I couldn’t see anything wrong with card but that they look closely at it. In the end it came back in same grade (EX5).

[Rhotchkiss]

Was the card initially in an SGC flip, and you sent to PSA; did not like the grade PSA gave you; PSA will not return your calls/emails; and now you want it back in the SGC flip? OR, was this a raw card that PSA graded?

[Ben Yourg]

This was a Raw card,that I sent to PSA.

[111gecko]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Post a scan of the card....we can tell if it is undergraded or not.

This.

[3-2-count]

Originally Posted by 111gecko

This.

This +1

[jchcollins]

PSA has cracked down a bit more since the scandal. For example, card that looks like a 6 or a 7 but has a small hard to find wrinkle might get a 3 or 2.5. I've seen a lot of this. It's not really right, but given that all grading is subjective at some level, I kind of understand what they are doing. If you have something that you think is way undergraded just based on eye-appeal, it's possible you've run afoul of this. All of the big 3 TPG's make mistakes. But at least in my experience, SGC and BVG are more apt to grade a card based on the whole of it's eye appeal than PSA is. At least right now.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Ben Yourg

This was a Raw card,that I sent to PSA.

Ok. Then I guess I am confused as to why you are calling it a “re-grade” and seeing if their is a special fee. My guess is SGC will view this as any other, plain vanilla submission, and charge you accordingly. I am not a big submitter; that’s just my gut

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

PSA has cracked down a bit more since the scandal. For example, card that looks like a 6 or a 7 but has a small hard to find wrinkle might get a 3 or 2.5. I've seen a lot of this. It's not really right, but given that all grading is subjective at some level, I kind of understand what they are doing. If you have something that you think is way undergraded just based on eye-appeal, it's possible you've run afoul of this. All of the big 3 TPG's make mistakes. But at least in my experience, SGC and BVG are more apt to grade a card based on the whole of it's eye appeal than PSA is. At least right now.

I love the way PSA has "changed" their "grading" standards over the years. But then again...I guess they've just changed their "opinions" over the years...because that's all they are selling...expensive...opinions...that change with the wind?

Sounds like good value to me?

PSA is the worst...and has been a s scourge on the hobby!

SGC has been much more consistent over the years...it's too bad there are so many sheeple in the collecting community.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

PSA has cracked down a bit more since the scandal. For example, card that looks like a 6 or a 7 but has a small hard to find wrinkle might get a 3 or 2.5. I've seen a lot of this. It's not really right, but given that all grading is subjective at some level, I kind of understand what they are doing. If you have something that you think is way undergraded just based on eye-appeal, it's possible you've run afoul of this. All of the big 3 TPG's make mistakes. But at least in my experience, SGC and BVG are more apt to grade a card based on the whole of it's eye appeal than PSA is. At least right now.

I completely agree that SGC has been far more consistent over the years.

But hasn't it always held true that any wrinkle or crease (no matter how small or faint) should keep the card from grading no better than "4"?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by perezfan

But hasn't it always held true that any wrinkle or crease (no matter how small or faint) should keep the card from grading no better than "4"?

In theory. In reality, I’ve seen plenty of PSA 5’s that have subtle wrinkles somewhere. I wasn’t arguing that a card with a wrinkle should necessarily be more than a 4. But PSA lately has been giving many cards like that 2 and 2.5’s, which is a bit harsh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[perezfan]

Yeah... really harsh, if the tiny wrinkle/crease is the only flaw of significance.

I agree that they’re grading tougher now, in light of this year’s “developments”.

[Republicaninmass]

Agreed they seem stricter


Gorgeous psa 4.5 came back a 4

Perfect psa 4 came back a 3


So back they go, great gimmick

[Ben Yourg]

Here is the card,that I have been talking about.
It is a real nice blue.Not as it shows.Printing on back is nice,dark and perfectly clear.
Not as my computer shows.
Very light creases across front "Knee Level" ,and under arm pit,
to the left.And across chest.EXCEPT FOR THE KNEE LEVEL,THE OTHERS ARE VERY HARD, TO EVEN SEE?
What do you think?
Is it worthy of more,than a "POOR"?

Ben

[Bill77]

My T205 Wilbur Goode is graded the same. It really isn't anything new with PSA. I think that if your card has more than one crease PSA will just grade it a 1.

[Tom S.]

It's hard to tell from the blurry back scan, but it looks like there is a sliver of paper loss within the crease on the back of the card to the left of Tennant's name.

The PSA 1 grade would be due to that in my opinion.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Tom S.

It's hard to tell from the blurry back scan, but it looks like there is a sliver of paper loss within the crease on the back of the card to the left of Tennant's name.

The PSA 1 grade would be due to that in my opinion.

If PSA is looking that closely at this card to notice micro issues that drop this pretty card to a 1 (and it should be no greater than a 2.5 IMO), then how the hell are they missing so many obvious trims and alterations?!

[Ben Yourg]

No,the crease shows lightly on the back.
But no paper missing.

[ALBB]

I will give you a Fair on it

[Republicaninmass]

Sgc maybe 1.5, if that is what you'd like. Least 2 creases

[buymycards]

I would guess a 1.5. A 1 on a bad day, a 2 on a good day, but probably a 1.5.

[Luke]

Looks accurately graded to me. I see 2 big creases and 4 little wrinkles. Can't really see that getting a 1.5. Nice looking card though.

[thecomebacker]

They might give you a 1.5 for nice eye appeal and centering.
But I think too many creases and wrinkles to get a 2.

[111gecko]

It's a 1.5
Even though it is only a .5 grade higher, it means something. For whatever reason when I see a 1, I immediately think a card is torn, paper loss, pinhole..etc. I tend to shy away from them. A 1.5 is still rough, but I feel better about it. Maybe I'm just silly...

[x2drich2000]

I think this is the same card. If so, it is much more obvious why it got a 1 and it is well deserved.

DJ

[Rhotchkiss]

Great pic DJ. I agree now that there is no way the card gets a 2. However, I would give it the hook (1.5) due to eye appeal; it is a pretty card despite the numerous wrinkles and creases. Regardless, I don’t think it is worth the money for OP to send it to SGC for grading (or regrading) hoping for a better grade.

[Ben Yourg]

Thanks for showing your "Carlisle"My card is the same
blue ,and front has less problems?

[pgconboy]

Those look like the exact same card to me.

https://imgur.com/a/lPKLaWi

Not trying to stir the pot but hopefully that's not from an auction where they pressed and cleaned it.

[JohnP0621]

Originally Posted by pgconboy

Those look like the exact same card to me.

https://imgur.com/a/lPKLaWi

Not trying to stir the pot but hopefully that's not from an auction where they pressed and cleaned it.

I agree with this.
Same creases and stain on top right.

JP

[111gecko]

And here we go.. seriously, I quit.

[x2drich2000]

Just for clarification, this is not a card I have ever owned. The image was pulled off Cardtarget from the sale on June 21, 2016. There are also a couple other scans from when the card sold at different times.

DJ

[chalupacollects]

I think PSA got this one right... hard to get passed a 1 with 3 visible front creases and some staining or discoloration on the back...

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Agreed they seem stricter


Gorgeous psa 4.5 came back a 4

Perfect psa 4 came back a 3


So back they go, great gimmick

this is part of the problem right here. Why are we cracking these out like idiots? How about we collect them? I find it fascinating.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Ben Yourg

Thanks for showing your "Carlisle"My card is the same
blue ,and front has less problems?

Since it seems to be the exact same card, who did you buy it from?

[Ben Yourg]

To be honest,I can't remember right now.But,I will
remember soon.And,I will also,check my records.
Ben

[JollyElm]

Please edit the original post and change the thread title to "SGC." I'm begging you.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

this is part of the problem right here. Why are we cracking these out like idiots? How about we collect them? I find it fascinating.

+1. A TPG honey hole . The answer is always money. Otherwise who gives a crap whether a card is a 3.5, a 4 or 5?

[jchcollins]

I would agree if the same card, that is accurately graded as a 1. Expecting more, especially from today’s PSA is not realistic. They are giving cards that look EX-MT 2’s and 3’s because of barely perceptible wrinkles; not sure what we should expect them to do with cards that have multiple, obvious creases other than rate them poor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I completely agree that SGC has been far more consistent over the years.

But hasn't it always held true that any wrinkle or crease (no matter how small or faint) should keep the card from grading no better than "4"?

I once had a '58 Topps Yogi Berra card PSA 5 card that had a 1/2" diagonal crease through the upper right corner. Not a subtle crease either, and when I sent it in to them for a review, PSA refused to admit it was a grading blunder. That was about ten years ago.

[Republicaninmass]

I had one as well with paperloss that graded a 4.5. I called and sent them a scan, as I wanted it accurately graded. They said it was fine because of eye appeal.

[iowadoc77]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I had one as well with paperloss that graded a 4.5. I called and sent them a scan, as I wanted it accurately graded. They said it was fine because of eye appeal.

Ok because of eye appeal?!? Yikes. If that’s the case I have a few more to send in for regrades.