This is why I use SGC only

[GehrigFan]

Ah yes... the great BCCG debate.

Okay, several points, but be forewarned that I am not going to spend the rest of the week in a circular argument. We'll agree right now that most of you (and myself) don't personally have a use for BCCG, but it is a very viable business model that the industry continues to want. As such, it isn't likely to go away anytime soon.

----------------------

The card is accurately graded as a "Poor" card. The numerical grade is a different scale than BVG/BGS. To whomever claims they have seen BCCG 3's, 4's, etc., that is incorrect. The BCCG scale is only 6 points (5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10) and the system won't even allow a lower number to be entered.

Sometimes we don't always agree with every product our employers put out, but there are legitimate reasons for the product to exist. Personally, if I was a graded card collector, I wouldn't want BCCG cards, because I am not a novice or beginner. This system was created back when home shopping channels and other people were churning out new grading companies where every card is a 10. This was misleading and, in my opinion, fraudulent. BCCG was created as a result of major distributors asking for a low-cost, entry-level encapsulating service that actually graded the cards accurately. Hard-core collectors, vintage collectors, and the like were never the target audience. Instead, this was for cards marketed on Shopping Networks, Walmart, K-Mart, Target, etc. The intent on the numerical grade was never to confuse or mislead. In retrospect, I wish the grading scale for BCCG had been skip-numbered somehow (1, 3, 5, 7, etc.), but then people would be wondering why they never saw a BCCG4 or BCCG 6 card. Either way, it would confuse some people. Ironically, this BCCG service that some people feel is misleading was create solely for the purpose of trying to clean up the other services out there that we thought WERE misleading. Would you rather have that card in a BCCG holder clearly labeled as "POOR", or in a XXX 10 Gem Mint holder ("XXX" being one of the many "every card is a 10" companies)?

We can authenticate, grade, and label (as Poor, Good, etc.) these cards correctly. But we cannot control how owners of these cards choose to describe them. If they want to try to trick people into thinking they are something other than a Poor card, in this case, how is that Beckett's fault when we accurately stated the card is in Poor condition? Is the numerical system a little weird? Sure, but how is it any different than a Near Mint card being called an "84 out of 100" and then also being called a "7 out of 10"? (My point not being anti-SGC, as I have no issue with their original system, because, like BCCG, cards are clearly marked as "Near Mint", etc.)

We have always steered people towards BVG on vintage cards and any higher end cards, and in fact, we steer all regular submitters to BVG or BGS. BCCG isn't a product that was designed for regular collectors or dealers. BCCG was supposed to be for corporate entities wanting massive amounts of cards authenticated and graded quickly and inexpensively.

Is there a need or desire for this type of service? I actually track every grading company, and thus far I have recorded 109 different grading companies over the last 15 years! We continue to do tens of thousands of BCCG cards each month, so yes, there is still a desire for this service. But we don't expect or want advanced collectors to use BCCG. The idea is that a new entry-level collector buys a BCCG card, gets interested in graded cards, and then moves up into the BVG/BGS/SGC/PSA services.

On the same note, does anybody remember "SGM" Grading? This was SGC's answer to BCCG a "light" version of SGC's scale. I don't believe it is offered anymore, and I never actually saw a card graded under the scale, but it was an advertised service shortly after BCCG was launched. Beckett obviously wasn't the only one trying to bring some order to the chaos of lower-tiered grading back then.