SGC vs PSA in postwar

[pokerplyr80]

I think there is a big difference between someone who works for a company and someone who owns or runs one to be involved in this kind of activity. Although obviously both situations are a problem.

Personally I don't believe the owner of a grading site should be able to grade his own cards and sell them in any auction, shilled or not. Seems like the definition of a conflict of interest. What do you think the result would be if he asked for a grade review before selling a card? Imagine him buying a nice SGC 7 52 Mantle and then selling the same card in an SGC 8 holder.

I would hope PSA has procedures in place if employees want to submit cards for grading, or bans this all together, but I do not know the answer to that.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Personally I don't believe the owner of a grading site should be able to grade his own cards and sell them in any auction, shilled or not.

I would hope PSA has procedures in place if employees want to submit cards for grading, or bans this all together, but I do not know the answer to that.

Steve Hart authenticates his own packs (and graded through PSA) and sells them on his site (BBCE). What's the difference?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Steve Hart authenticates his own packs (and graded through PSA) and sells them on his site (BBCE). What's the difference?

David, everyone who sells raw cards and gives an opinion on their authenticity and grade is grading his own cards too. But I guess the difference is that they are not purporting to be THIRD PARTY graders?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Steve Hart authenticates his own packs (and graded through PSA) and sells them on his site (BBCE). What's the difference?

I don't see much of a difference there. I don't feel either should be allowed, but my opinion doesn't count for much. I think if I was grading my own packs, cards, autographs, or anything else the temptation to over grade, or at least overlook flaws in borderline situations, would be too hard to resist. Especially in cases where a grade, or even half a grade, can mean thousands of dollars.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I don't see much of a difference there. I don't feel either should be allowed, but my opinion doesn't count for much. I think if I was grading my own packs, cards, autographs, or anything else the temptation to over grade, or at least overlook flaws in borderline situations, would be too hard to resist. Especially in cases where a grade, or even half a grade, can mean thousands of dollars.

Yup, agreed.

[sbfinley]

If I'm not mistaken (correct me if I am), Steve Hart does not "grade" packs for PSA, he only authenticates them. From my understanding PSA bulk mails all unopened subs to him once a month and he only judges the authenticity. When they return to PSA with with his approval are they assigned a number grade. And yes, his seal of approval is worth a premium (IMO) because he's the best at what he does. I nailed PSA for some shenanigans earlier in this thread, but they get a pass from me on this process.

[glynparson]

Psa. With very few exceptions they just are more liquid and bring more money. I also think most of their graded items over the last 3 years are consistent and strictly graded. I am rarely disappointed buying sight unseen I can not say the same for sgc anymore. Sorry that's just how I feel. They used to be harsher graders than they seem to now be. I also hate the cheap 1980s look of the slab. The new tags are an improvement but not enough of one and they also scratch far to easily. I prefer the size of the Psa holder and I prefer the new security measures they have incorporated. I also am not a fan of the sgc insert as I think it occasionally has damaged cards and I am not sure of the long term effects it may have on a card. I think both are light years ahead of Beckett as far as grading ability. the only items I send to sgc are those Psa does not slab like the 1974 topps puzzles. I think sgc does a good job I just think Psa now does a better job.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

If I'm not mistaken (correct me if I am), Steve Hart does not "grade" packs for PSA, he only authenticates them. From my understanding PSA bulk mails all unopened subs to him once a month and he only judges the authenticity. When they return to PSA with with his approval are they assigned a number grade. And yes, his seal of approval is worth a premium (IMO) because he's the best at what he does. I nailed PSA for some shenanigans earlier in this thread, but they get a pass from me on this process.

Correct, Steve Hart does not grade the packs, he only authenticates them. I think my point was missed though. Earlier in the thread, someone inferred that grading companies (owners or employees) should not be allowed to grade their own cards and sell them. I agree with that. That same person then said there is too much temptation to over grade or overlook flaws. I agree with that too, not to mention there is also too much temptation for corruption.

My point was that Steve Hart authenticates his own unopened product and then sends it to PSA for grading. What's to keep Steve honest? Who is verifying his work? Can I authenticate my own packs and send them to PSA for grading? I guarantee you I can authenticate just as good as he does. He's made his mistakes, but we won't get into those. But my point is that graders/authenticaters should not be allowed to grade and/or authenticate their own stuff and then sell it - it's just too much room for corruption.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Correct, Steve Hart does not grade the packs, he only authenticates them. I think my point was missed though. Earlier in the thread, someone inferred that grading companies (owners or employees) should not be allowed to grade their own cards and sell them. I agree with that. That same person then said there is too much temptation to over grade or overlook flaws. I agree with that too, not to mention there is also too much temptation for corruption.

My point was that Steve Hart authenticates his own unopened product and then sends it to PSA for grading. What's to keep Steve honest? Who is verifying his work? Can I authenticate my own packs and send them to PSA for grading? I guarantee you I can authenticate just as good as he does. He's made his mistakes, but we won't get into those. But my point is that graders/authenticaters should not be allowed to grade and/or authenticate their own stuff and then sell it - it's just too much room for corruption.

I would agree with your point if he wasn't already widely regarded as the best and most honest unopened specialist before PSA contracted him. That marriage notwithstanding, his authenticated packs, boxes, and cases already sell for a steep premium. If it's wrapped by his brand - add 25%. If it comes with a FAFSC sticker as well - add another 15%. He doesn't need PSA. PSA needs him. His prices and reputation don't get to such a place by picking and choosing when to be honest. I don't doubt you could authenticate packs well, but when someone wants to sell or authenticate a high dollar pack or wax box they don't think to themselves "I should have David James look at this." Not knocking you, but you can't short a guy because he's built a brand - and an honest one at that. Yes, he's made mistakes here and there, but I do know he makes it right if he is wrong and the thousands of high grade important cards pulled from his packs speak volumes.

I'm sorry but I don't believe a well respected businessman in the hobby should recluse themselves because they were deemed good enough by a TPG or TPA to work with. Jim Stinson is at the top of my list when it comes to autographs and I trust him implicitly. If tomorrow he were contracted by Spence to authenticate for JSA I wouldn't start questioning his items he still sold until I was given a strict reason to.

You asked "what's to keep Steve Hart honest?" The answer: nothing. This hobby, however, requires you operate with a semblance of trust occasionally - in sellers, buyers, authenticators, etc. If I had none for anyone whatsoever I'd collect thimbles. Because thimbles seem safe.