SGC vs PSA

[wonkaticket]

All of this has never really made sense to me. I think which ever you prefer you’re ok both are reputable companies or as reputable as you can be in this hobby.

In terms of folks making claims about this company’s cards sell for more…I think it’s all relative at best.

Bottom line quality items I mean really nice cards will sell for premiums regardless of what holders they are in. So as long as you’re buying cards with real eye appeal within their grades i.e. sharp VG’s, EX’s or NM’s and not just buying slabs to check off grade point averages you have nothing to worry about in terms of resell.

Cheers,

John

[GregMitch34]

Unfortunately, the price differential for PSA and SGC cards in certain issues can be pretty shocking. For example, in Southern League Old Mill cards, PSA 5s routinely go for $350 or more while SGC 5s struggle to hit $250. I'm sure that's due to registry but the gap is wide, if not justified by other factors.

[jerrys]

All personal opinions - show some proof.
Here are some inconsistencies labeled SGC 40 VG 3. All in the same grade!
Paper loss damage! - extremely rounded corners - the last cobb appears to be a grade or two higher.

x1-dunlap.jpg

x2-sullivan.jpg

x3-laporte.jpg

x4-cobb.jpg

x5-cobb.jpg

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jerrys

All personal opinions - show some proof.
Here are some inconsistencies labeled SGC 40 VG 3. All in the same grade!
Paper loss damage! - extremely rounded corners - the last cobb appears to be a grade or two higher.

Attachment 126273

Attachment 126274

Attachment 126275

Attachment 126276

Attachment 126277

The same things apply to PSA as well.

I learned a bit about grading at the shriners show this year. I graded a few cards, and brought a couple to ask about. Both were ones I felt were undergraded, one a 40 the other a 50. I'd had both for a long time and didn't see why they were graded so low.
What surprised me was how quickly the rep spotted the flaws.
The 40 had nice corners, but not great, and was well centered. I figured a 50, maybe almost a 55 but not quite.
In about 30 seconds he spotted some erased writing on the back that I'd missed. Only really visible with the magnifier. Yes, I'd have been right about maybe a weak 55 except for the erasure.

The 50 was a bit off center, but with very nice corners. It looks as good as some of the ones I've had come back as 70-80. The only thing I could think of was the tiny chip of surface missing from the front of one corner. But the chip is smaller than the areas I see worn on typical 50's and some 60's.
Again, very quickly he pointed out the tiny wrinkle on one border, also not really visible without the magnifier. And he explained that the grade was a cumulative grade, so while it's a great looking card, it's got a tiny wrinkle, a fleck of paperloss, not really great centering, and is a bit off-register. Without the wrinkle it would be higher, but with all four problems only deserves a 50.


The first two cards shown I think can truly be called mistakes. especially the first one. The second looks like it would be really nice aside from the paper loss. But I still wouldn't go for VG. The LaPorte and the first Cobb are almost exactly what I think of when I see a VG grade, The last Cobb I'd bet has some small flaw that won't show on the scan.

Recently I've seen a number of VG or even VG-EX cards from both companies that have creases, which I've always though of as putting a card solidly into the G grade.


Steve B

[Exhibitman]

My grading service is mightier that yours!

[freakhappy]

I think your analysis is spot on, Steve. The pictures that Jerry have provided us only really shows two cards that are probably mistakes...the first two. We have to remember that SGC only recently started grading with half grades (for the most part) and I believe if the card was closer to a three than a two, they would grade it that way.

There's no doubt every company makes mistakes on grading, but IMO SGC makes slightly fewer, making them my choice for the most part. I used to believe and heard that SGC only allowed cards with paper loss to receive nothing higher than a 1.5, but I have seen 2's consistently with paper loss...not sure how I feel about this, but I don't completely disagree I guess

Also, I know there are collectors that don't love SGC when they first started grading and believe their grading standards weren't as good...maybe some of their more mistake prone graded cards were during that era???

[Piratedogcardshows]

I prefer SGC for the look of the holder.I have never submitted to PSA so I can't really speak on there service.

[CMIZ5290]

Why are a lot of people preferring SGC because "of the looks of their holder"? Am I missing something here?? What does that have to do with anything? Maybe PSA will come out with red, white, and blue holders the first of the year...

[Tobacco206]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

All of this has never really made sense to me. I think which ever you prefer you’re ok both are reputable companies or as reputable as you can be in this hobby.

In terms of folks making claims about this company’s cards sell for more…I think it’s all relative at best.

Bottom line quality items I mean really nice cards will sell for premiums regardless of what holders they are in. So as long as you’re buying cards with real eye appeal within their grades i.e. sharp VG’s, EX’s or NM’s and not just buying slabs to check off grade point averages you have nothing to worry about in terms of resell.

Cheers,

John

John, thats sorta what im saying and thats whats fits me better.... buy the card vs the holder.. just saying i like the way the SGC presents them better vs PSA.. for me a G or VG card with eye appeal is what im looking for overall.. lots of lower grade raw cards with eye appeal that are really nice.