PSA versus SGC

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by orly57

I respectfully disagree. SGC can be impossibly tough. This idea that an sgc card will be graded lower by psa is not necessarily true. It is true on crossovers, where they arrogantly and methodically grade it liwer or cry "trimmed" in efforts to belittle the competition. Here is my ruth sgc 4 on the right and a psa 5 on the left. And before you ask, the back on my 4 is CLEAN

The PSA in the above scan is one of the really old labels. That opens up a whole 'nother debate. Treat the old labels (from BOTH companies) with a grain of salt.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I mentioned it in another thread, but I think it's worth mentioning here too. Here are 2 1965 Topps Pete Rose cards that ended on eBay about the same time. Both are graded NM. Does anybody truly believe that the PSA card (in the new holder, with the new flip) is NM?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I mentioned it in another thread, but I think it's worth mentioning here too. Here are 2 1965 Topps Pete Rose cards that ended on eBay about the same time. Both are graded NM. Does anybody truly believe that the PSA card (in the new holder, with the new flip) is NM?

i cant imagine the psa one sold more than the sgc in this case. if so people are stupider than I ever imagined!!!!

[nrm1977]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

i cant imagine the psa one sold more than the sgc in this case. if so people are stupider than I ever imagined!!!!

Ha! The sgc one probably sold for $80, while the PSA sold for $180!

[pbspelly]

I know I'm in the minority here, but for me, getting a card slabbed is about authentication and preservation of a wonderful baseball artifact. Cracking open a perfectly good SGC slab and paying to resubmit the card to PSA in hopes that you will get lucky with a more lenient grader, thus changing a card's resale value (notice I don't say "worth") from, say, $500, into one now miraculously worth $800 (just making up these numbers as an example), just seems kind of crazy to me.

Probably some of my view stems from the fact that I collect cards due to a family connection and don't look to make money on them. So as I said, I understand that I am in the minority here. But I always find these discussions bewildering.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by pbspelly

I know I'm in the minority here, but for me, getting a card slabbed is about authentication and preservation of a wonderful baseball artifact. Cracking open a perfectly good SGC slab and paying to resubmit the card to PSA in hopes that you will get lucky with a more lenient grader, thus changing a card's resale value (notice I don't say "worth") from, say, $500, into one now miraculously worth $800 (just making up these numbers as an example), just seems kind of crazy to me.

Probably some of my view stems from the fact that I collect cards due to a family connection and don't look to make money on them. So as I said, I understand that I am in the minority here. But I always find these discussions bewildering.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but money is money. I can certainly appreciate your stance about the preservation of the card, but why would you not want that opportunity dollar wise? You don't have to crack the card. If it's a solid SGC grade, submit it to PSA with a minimum requirement of at least the equal PSA grade. Everyone talks about how nice SGC holders look, financially that doesn't mean squat. Also, they are a travesty when it comes to the security of the card between those stupid gaskets. But yet, they haven't done a damn thing about it...

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by nrm1977

Ha! The sgc one probably sold for $80, while the PSA sold for $180!

Close on the PSA > 186.50

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1965-Topps-2...p2047675.l2557

... but SGC came out ahead, or rather the better card did. > 293.88

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1965-Topps-P...p2047675.l2557

[Canofcorn]

My '52 Topps Mantle (SGC 4) didn't meet the requirements for a PSA 4 crossover. $700 down the drain...But...it looks better than most PSA 5s.

That is absolutely at least a PSA 4 per their descriptions:

Very Good-Excellent
A PSA VG-EX 4 card's corners may be slightly rounded. Surface wear is noticeable but modest. The card may have light scuffing or light scratches. Some original gloss will be retained. Borders may be slightly off-white. A light crease may be visible. Centering must be 85/15 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.





They couldn't even tell me why it didn't cross. Spent $700...gave me my card back in SGC holder and didn't even have the courtesy to explain why. Had to call 3 times.
If a big customer that spends a lot of money with them submitted it - then I'm sure it's going to cross over. Politics for sure. Shouldn't be that way, but it is.

If anything, they are inconsistent snobs...especially when you compare old labels vs the new label harsh standards. Doing a 180 to protect current high graded cards.

The current 3s and 4s look better than the older 5s and 6s in many instances. I just want consistency.

[Touch'EmAll]

Sure looks like a lock for minimum 4 grade. Anything more than a hairline crease on one side? Or paper loss or surface indent? $700. - ouch! I feel for ya.

[nrm1977]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I mentioned it in another thread, but I think it's worth mentioning here too. Here are 2 1965 Topps Pete Rose cards that ended on eBay about the same time. Both are graded NM. Does anybody truly believe that the PSA card (in the new holder, with the new flip) is NM?

Great Example to what I briefly touched on in my posting.