Crossover Issue

[dancollins]

I have to tell the board about this.

First of all I know many of you personally and I also know that many people on the board prefer SGC over PSA for various reasons. I have almost 1000 graded tobacco cards including a complete PSA graded T206 set minus Wagner and Doyle.....

I had 103 PSA graded T207's and I recently was at a show and took them to SGC to cross them over because I felt they looked better in SGC holders and also anytime I buy a SGC T207, PSA never crosses them over due to minimum grade.

When I submitted these to SGC I did not ask for minimum grades I just left it open figuring they would do a great job. I got my cards back and let me tell you I am disgusted.

Out of 103 here is the results:

52 Downgraded and most of them were either 5's that went to 4's or 4's that went to 3's. (Full grades)

5 They felt were trimmed and left in the PSA holder

43 Remained the same

3 Yes only 3 were bumped and only by half a grade


Now before people start saying well that makes sense because of PSA grading and bla bla bla. Let me explain.

I generally prefer PSA over SGC and I am constantly sending cards there. Usually PSA is much more strict on its grades than SGC especially with T206. I also went on Ebay and did some random research and found that they were tougher on my cards than many other SGC graded examples I found. I contacted Brian at SGC and he said to send some of them back to have looked at again. I am not sending 52 cards back. That is rediculous and you would think they would have called me and said hey half of your cards are about to lose a full grade. Now I am sitting here with my partial T207 set being devalued by thousands. I could have lived with maybe 10 or even 15 being downgraded not 52!!!!!!!

Now I am going to rip everyone of them out of their SGC holders and resubmit them to PSA raw. I will never use SGC again it is clear to me that they were biased on the grades due to them being in PSA holders just like PSA does to their holders. It is sad that these two grading companies get in a pissing contest with each other at the collectors expense. I thought SGC was a much better company than this but they have proved their worth to me.... In my opinion beware...

Dan Collins

[botn]

Hi Dan,

That is a bad break. Sorry to hear this has happened to you. I generally always use a minimum grade when using the cross over service because grading is subjective at best. I really do not like using a cross over service as I like the cards I submit to be assessed in their raw state so they get a fresh look.

Absent seeing scans of the cards which got downgraded it would be impossible for any of us to draw any conclusions as to SGC's determination.

Best of luck on getting this resolved.

Greg

[carrigansghost]

If these cards had never been in a holder before and you were just seeing them for the first time in the SGC holder, would you disagree with the grades they received? I think more than likely not.

Rawn

[collectbaseball]

I don't know a whole lot about the whole sub, re-sub, crack and re-sub, review, crossover, crossing over a cracked resubbed Dick Towle-d reviewed crossover of a re-cracked card game (I have never sent in a card to be graded; I have bought graded cards, though), but if you were so concerned about protecting your investment I don't know why you wouldn't submit them with a minimum grade, or raw (unless you suspected them of being altered in the first place).

I know both companies have their quirks and perhaps you landed on the wrong side of one of them (e.g. SGC is more lenient on centering and PSA more lenient on stains).

I think if Joe P were still around he'd say something like:

Aren't they still the same exact cards???

..... Relax .....

Enjoy them.

[Tcards-Please]

Dan

Sorry to hear about your experience. I can certainly understand your frustration as I too have had cards lose a full grade. It would be nice to see some pictures of the SGC graded cards to judge for ourselves. Be sure to let us know what the PSA regrades are as it will be interesting to see how they do the second time around.

r/
Frank

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by dancollins

They were biased on the grades due to them being in PSA holders just like PSA does to their holders.

[Jantz]

This has got to be the most radical attempt I've ever seen to get a Christmas card from Joe Orlando!

[dancollins]

Jantz get serious

[bobbyw8469]

I can totally understand your frustration! I won't get into my incident with SGC here, but let's just say I can relate. In addition to losing thousands of dollars of value, I am sure you also paid a pretty penny to get them all graded. Did the custom inserts they used even fit (some of my 1952 Berk Ross have a gap, some fit perfectly)?? Talk about annoying!

[barrysloate]

It's unclear to me that the cards were penalized because they were submitted in PSA holders. I don't know what effect, if any, that has on the graders. What troubles me most about this, and about grading in general, is that after you complained about the grades, SGC asked you to send half of them back for a review. Why do they have to go through this procedure all over again? Why not get them all right the first time? If grading really is so subjective then what's the point?

Crossing over cards for a regrade is like walking through a minefield. I'm sorry this happened to you, but my opinion is when you buy a card in say a PSA 5 holder, that is what it is at that point in time. Once you send it for a regrade or a crossover, all bets are off.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by dancollins

Jantz get serious

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

You employ SGC to assess the condition of your cards, which they did. And when you get grades lower than what you expected, what do you do?

You make your first thread ever on the main board and blast SGC for doing exactly what you paid them to do.

Not long ago, a board member started a thread asking other members what they thought they contributed to the board.

So with this first thread of yours, what have you contributed?

By the way, I have looked at your T206 set. You are a very fortunate individual.


Jantz

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

This thread is a great example of one of the problems with our society. People doing things under their own free will but when it goes wrong they always try to find someone else to blame and don't take responsiblity for there own actions.

By the Dan you do a nice job of avoiding the questions and only acknowledge the posts that give you a little positive.

It is time to suck it up and move on, you made the decision to submit the cards to SGC under your own free will.

Lee

[Matt]

Originally Posted by dancollins

Usually PSA is much more strict on its grades than SGC especially with T206.

I find the opposite - I've seen way too many cases of PSA cards that I felt were overgraded as compared to SGC cards. Maybe that's all that happened here.

I do think a phone call, especially with an important issue on such a significant submission, would have been appropriate.

[JasonL]

You said this was an in-person show submission. Was there some discussion between you and SGC at the time -some dialogue wher you indicated that you wanted to be called if there was significant discrepancies in the grades, or was there any talk at all about the best way to submit the cards (e.g. what service level offered you protection against this type of outcome, etc)...?

As much as this stinks, I would think that the only fair gripe you would really have is if something occurred that was different than what you expected based upon your interaction with SGC. I certainly sympathize, but I'm not confident I have enough info to actually judge fairness, etc.

Thanks for the heads-up regardless of PSA vs SGC and fairness, etc, because it is a valuable lesson if you have a concern towards preserving card value when submitting.

[E93]

Originally Posted by dancollins

PSA never crosses them over due to minimum grade.

......

Now I am going to rip everyone of them out of their SGC holders and resubmit them to PSA raw. I will never use SGC again it is clear to me that they were biased on the grades due to them being in PSA holders just like PSA does to their holders.

Dan,
I know this sucks and I feel bad for your situation. It is impossible for any of us here to pass judgement without seeing the cards.

I am not clear here why you are willing to give PSA a pass on doing exactly what pissed you off about what you *think* SGC did. You are going to give all your business to PSA when, according to you, they do the exact same thing.

I use both SGC and PSA . My experience on crossovers has been that SGC is generally more fair. I can't remember PSA ever crossing anything over at the same level.
JimB

[tbob]

Dan- I think it's a damn shame. Barry is right when he says he wishes all grading companies use the same criteria, but they don't. Ask Steve M., or Peter T. or myself about how SGC brutalizes 1911 and 1912 Zeenuts with tiny writing on the blank backs, having PSA 5 and 6 MKs go to SGC 20 and 10, it's just the way they grade. Since I like the SGC holders better for the way cards fit and display and now that SGC is catching up in many collector's minds with the value of pre-war cards in their holders, I use SGC exclusively. The caveat is the expensive card in a PSA holder that you would like to get in to a SGC holder but you fear the drop in grade because of a mark on the back or a tiny bit of back paper loss which will cause the grade to plummet. It's a quandry.
The two suggestions made above which I feel are most worthwhile:
1) ALWAYS use minimum grades for a crossover and/or
2) NEVER submit anything to either PSA or SGC in a holder from another company, always break it out and submit it raw if you truly want that company's holder on it.
As Quan can tell you, years ago I was in the "Frank" camp and hated having cards slabbed at all but for protection purposes, display purposes and because of the card is worth much more slabbed, I gave in. I have 100% of my caramel cards slabbed and about 70% of my tobacco cards.
One last note on GAI slabbed cards- I don't use them anymore but I have some beautiful caramels slabbed in GAI holders and properly graded because at one time they were very good at correctly grading cards. I crossed some over and 50% stayed the same, 25% bumped up slightly, 25% bumped down slightly or more. I think the GAI slabbed cards from 2000-2005 get a bum rap, but that's just my personal opinion.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by E93

Dan,
I know this sucks and I feel bad for your situation. It is impossible for any of us here to pass judgement without seeing the cards.

I am not clear here why you are willing to give PSA a pass on doing exactly what pissed you off about what you *think* SGC did. You are going to give all your business to PSA when, according to you, they do the exact same thing.

These are exactly my thoughts. Neither company is any worse than the other for this debacle.

The only thing I take from this thread is further evidence that the whole "crossover" thing is a fool's game.

It is for people who care more about holders than the cards in them. And people who care way too much about Registry standing.

Cheers,
Blair