SGC vs PSA , cards with qualifiers

[Mountaineer1999]

With my very short T206 history it seems obvious to me that marked cards get the shaft. Cards of much lesser grade are valued over anything with a qualifier even if it's just a hint of a mark or a back stamp.
That said, how does SGC grade a marked card? Would it behoove one to buy the marked PSA card crack it open and then submit it to SGC?
I would personally rather look at a bright clean front that may have a mark on the back than a less attractive creased colorless card, but in many instances the value is about equal due to that stigma of having a qualifier.

[insccollectibles]

SGC gives the card an overall lower grade. The card can look great on the front but have a mark/stamp on the back and get 1.5 grade.

[bn2cardz]

I admit I am in the minority in this, but I like Qualifier cards... especially pre war. It lets me know what the card would have graded if it wasn't for ONE particular flaw. Sure they don't command the premium, but with SGC I don't know if that is the only reason it got marked down or are there more flaws that I am not seeing. Basically it is saying "If you can look past this one flaw this is what the card would be equivalent to."

I particularly don't mind factory flaws. A mark is one that I can go either way with depending on where it is and what it denotes.

I know this isn't a mark, but I believe this card should be at least a 8 (mc). Since it is in an SGC holder, though, it gets the same attention as a 2.

[brewing]

Ugh! If there isn't qualifiers for all flaws (pin holes, creases, round corners), then qualifiers miss the mark.
A better solution would be what Beckett started, but dropped. A breakdown of some sort.

[Mountaineer1999]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I admit I am in the minority in this, but I like Qualifier cards... especially pre war. It lets me know what the card would have graded if it wasn't for ONE particular flaw. Sure they don't command the premium, but with SGC I don't know if that is the only reason it got marked down or are there more flaws that I am not seeing. Basically it is saying "If you can look past this one flaw this is what the card would be equivalent to."

I particularly don't mind factory flaws. A mark is one that I can go either way with depending on where it is and what it denotes.

I know this isn't a mark, but I believe this card should be at least a 8 (mc). Since it is in an SGC holder, though, it gets the same attention as a 2.

I agree with you , I just don't understand the disconnect on the value.

[bn2cardz]

The disconnect comes from what the collector values. I would take factory errors over post factory errors when given a choice. Other collectors (a lot actually) care about centering and a card can be flawed in other ways but pay a premium if it is centered, especially if it is an issue difficult to find well centered.

Others will not pay for writing on a card, but if it is a stamp or other "period" markings they may actually bring a premium to some collectors.

You really have to look past the grade and look at the cards to see where the prices are coming from.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by brewing

Ugh! If there isn't qualifiers for all flaws (pin holes, creases, round corners), then qualifiers miss the mark.
A better solution would be what Beckett started, but dropped. A breakdown of some sort.

I do agree that Beckett's system was nice, no argument here. I always thought a factory grade (cutting, centering, print marks, registration) and post factory grade (creases, pin holes, corners, paper loss) on a card would be nice. I am stating that given the choices I don't mind the qualifiers, and prefer them at times (especially any and all miscuts).

[Rollingstone206]

...

[freakhappy]

I don't hate qualifiers, but I do have a beef with them since not everyone knows what they equal in terms of "real grade". I couldn't tell you how many times I have seen a card(s) for sale in a PSA 8(MC) holder that is being listed as the same selling price as a PSA 8 without the qualifier. Sometimes it seems like qualifiers are a loophole for sellers to dupe buyers that are uninformed on the subject. I realize that anyone in this hobby should get informed on anything that they are looking to buy or sell, but I'm just being realistic on the matter.

As far as a PSA 9(MC) equals a PSA 7 without the qualifier...well, that just isn't correct. I know some people believe the rule is 2-3 grades lower on an adjusted qualifier to no qualifier, but any card with an (MK, mark) qualifier, the adjusted real grade would be much much lower than a few grades if it were a NM or Mint grade.

[homerunhitter]

Do vintage topps cards in PSA slabs with a qualifier sell decently or are they frowned upon by collectors?

[refz]

I do not line qualifiers, I feel a MC or MK to a certain extent should fall into a certain grade range. On the other end I hate how sgc treats erasure labeling as altered. It should be a 1.5 or 2 or whatever depending on appeal

[JustinD]

Not a fan of qualifiers in the least and happy they seem to be going away. I am one who stays away as well. If it has a grade it should be a true grade and not a “if it wasn’t for this issue” imaginary grade. I find it as annoying as BCCG grading.

I love the honesty and clarity of an authentic or altered grade and have both in my collection. I don’t have a single qualified card as I have cracked any that may have come in. I would rather have it in a one touch.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Qualifiers vs lower grade with no qualifiers..makes no difference to me. I buy the card, not the grade.

[JollyElm]

For me, it always comes down to a simple reason.

Since the most often used/discussed (I assume) qualifier is the OC, let me present this.

Here are a pair of nearly identical cards, one being a PSA 8 OC and the other being a straight PSA 6.

• The one with the OC is entirely more 'accurate' to me, because the label intimates, "This card has all of the attributes of a PSA 8 card, BUT it is off-centered.
• However, since the PSA 6 has the same type of bad centering, it's nearly impossible to see it and know that it was 'lowered' to a PSA 6, BECAUSE it's off-centered.
It is much more likely that a person looking at it will think it is a PSA 6 THAT IS ALSO badly off-centered...and in essence nothing but a PSA 4 (value-wise).


QualifierOCexamplecomparison.jpg

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

For me, it always comes down to a simple reason.

Since the most often used/discussed (I assume) qualifier is the OC, let me present this.

Here are a pair of nearly identical cards, one being a PSA 8 OC and the other being a straight PSA 6.

• The one with the OC is entirely more 'accurate' to me, because the label intimates, "This card has all of the attributes of a PSA 8 card, BUT it is off-centered.
• However, since the PSA 6 has the same type of bad centering, it's nearly impossible to see it and know that it was 'lowered' to a PSA 6, BECAUSE it's off-centered.
It is much more likely that a person looking at it will think it is a PSA 6 THAT IS ALSO badly off-centered...and in essence nothing but a PSA 4 (value-wise).

That's a very valid point I hadn't considered. To be more accurate, it should be a PSA 8 OC, not a straight 6. They really shouldn't allow us to choose "no qualifiers" if they want to be accurate.

[icurnmedic]

I’m guessing the one on the right is the 8oc?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Qualifiers vs lower grade with no qualifiers..makes no difference to me. I buy the card, not the grade.

I am in this camp. I don't have many altered cards though (at least graded that way, who really knows?)

My favorite MK qualifier is a tiny erased mark, with only the indention left, on a blank back. Think '21 Exhibit Ruth (I don't own one yet).....would be a 1 to 1.5 with said erased mark, but could otherwise be a 3-4.
.

[toledo_mudhen]

I think, at some point, that the TPG who also includes an "explanation" of the grade assigned will have a huge leg up on all of the others.

I know that in my recent experience with SGC - I got a bunch of 3s & 4s on cards that I knew were easily 5s & 6s and when I contacted them to ask for some "additional" remarks on what they had seen to cause the low grade - I was told that - "Yea, we don't do that"

Great Response SGC - Note to self "SGC not going to be my 1st go to option" on future card grading.

For those of you who have been following my rants - I know that it sounds like total sour grapes and that I must be an idiot. However, I do "Know what I Know" and have been a vintage card collector (and TPG Submitter) for nearly 30 years. This one isn't going to "go away" any time soon.

Mudhen - Out

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am in this camp. I don't have many altered cards though (at least graded that way, who really knows?)

My favorite MK qualifier is a tiny erased mark, with only the indention left, on a blank back. Think '21 Exhibit Ruth (I don't own one yet).....would be a 1 to 1.5 with said erased mark, but could otherwise be a 3-4.
.

I love marked cards. I can get a nice card with a little ink on the back for a nice discount.I just crack it after because I don’t like the grade. I want it to enjoy and look at. I will not buy OC unless it’s the reverse giving it that, simply because I just don’t like them graded or not. Different strokes for different folks.

[BioCRN]

Since we're talking about marks on cards and grading, for those out there sensitive to owning cards with marks you're going to want to check anything SGC 2.5 or below closely because they allow them through the 2's.

[JollyElm]

Here's a thread I started many years ago that starts a little slowly (or has a different focus?), but then finds its footing as a (fun?) Guess which card has an OC qualifier? 'contest.'

Check it out...
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=265200

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

For me, it always comes down to a simple reason.

Since the most often used/discussed (I assume) qualifier is the OC, let me present this.

Here are a pair of nearly identical cards, one being a PSA 8 OC and the other being a straight PSA 6.

• The one with the OC is entirely more 'accurate' to me, because the label intimates, "This card has all of the attributes of a PSA 8 card, BUT it is off-centered.
• However, since the PSA 6 has the same type of bad centering, it's nearly impossible to see it and know that it was 'lowered' to a PSA 6, BECAUSE it's off-centered.
It is much more likely that a person looking at it will think it is a PSA 6 THAT IS ALSO badly off-centered...and in essence nothing but a PSA 4 (value-wise).


Attachment 658141

Good points Darren. I generally don't mind qualifiers.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Not a fan of qualifiers in the least and happy they seem to be going away. I am one who stays away as well. If it has a grade it should be a true grade and not a “if it wasn’t for this issue” imaginary grade. I find it as annoying as BCCG grading.

I love the honesty and clarity of an authentic or altered grade and have both in my collection. I don’t have a single qualified card as I have cracked any that may have come in. I would rather have it in a one touch.

I am in this camp. I don't want a fake grade "IF" the card didn't have the very obvious problem it does have. I avoid them like the plague and think they are overpriced even at the low prices they get.

With qualifiers every card in my collection is a GEM MINT 10 including the ones that look like I left them in a puddle of muddy water. Qualifiers just seems WAY beyond silly to me.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

That's a very valid point I hadn't considered. To be more accurate, it should be a PSA 8 OC, not a straight 6. They really shouldn't allow us to choose "no qualifiers" if they want to be accurate.

SOOOO - Is the the 6 the card on the left?????

[Snowman]

Qualifiers are ridiculous, of course. No, that miscut card is not mint. And neither is your Nolan Ryan RC with "John" written on the back, just because it has sharp corners.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Qualifiers are ridiculous, of course. No, that miscut card is not mint. And neither is your Nolan Ryan RC with "John" written on the back, just because it has sharp corners.

Agree 110%. Saying a PSA 8(MC) equals a PSA 6 is like saying my ex-wife would be hot except for that 3rd eye in the middle of her forehead.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

Agree 110%. Saying a PSA 8(MC) equals a PSA 6 is like saying my ex-wife would be hot except for that 3rd eye in the middle of her forehead.

I think her 3rd eye is kinda hot.........

[JollyElm]

QualifierOCexamplecomparison02.jpg

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

I think her 3rd eye is kinda hot.........

I’ll be happy to give you her number! 😂

[raulus]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

I think her 3rd eye is kinda hot.........

I feel like there’s a Total Recall joke in here somewhere…

[LEHR]

I avoid PSA cards with qualifiers, with the exception being 19th century stuff or cards I intend to cross to SGC and do not care about the grade. With 19th century cards if the image is strong I'll take what I can get, qualifier or not.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by LEHR

I avoid PSA cards with qualifiers, with the exception being 19th century stuff or cards I intend to cross to SGC and do not care about the grade. With 19th century cards if the image is strong I'll take what I can get, qualifier or not.

When you cross your PSA over to SGC, are you submitting the card in its PSA slab, or cracking it out and submitting raw?