![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just pick PSA. Thread should end here.
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
LOL, only if you are a seller and selling now.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
(Deleting duplicate post).
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 02-16-2017 at 06:03 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() No it shouldn't. PSA may be the most popular grading company along with a litany of fanboy buyers and customers, but purely as a grader they are subjective and inconsistent like the others, and have a C-grade track record at best when it comes to standards over time. Look at a card graded PSA 5 from 2000 vs the same grade last year. It's all over the map. The controversy with PSA started on day one, when they knowingly encapsulated a trimmed Wagner card as "PSA 8". Can't argue with their bet on the publicity - it clearly worked in their favor. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 02-16-2017 at 04:44 PM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Agree John. I've seen many ugly cards for there grade in their holders. I also feel much more comfortable buying a SGC card over PSA. I trust they get it right more often then PSA. Just my opinion, both companies are fine, I prefer SGC hands down.
Last edited by Johnny630; 02-17-2017 at 04:32 AM. Reason: spelling |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I have never seen anyone regret selling a card in a PSA holder. I have never seen anyone wish they crossed over a PSA to a SGC card before selling it. However the opposite is not true with SGC. If you plan on never selling your cards then yeah i agree, use whatever, even use KSA or old GAI holder, or SGC or any other initials |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'm not disagreeing with anyone who says that PSA will probably provide the max return on investment or resale value, but just mentioning things that for other reasons should not end the conversation.
It should also be pointed out that PSA has a well known reputation for treating their high volume dealers preferably. There are lots of PSA 5's and in some cases 6's floating around out there with creases that really should have been 3's or 4's - but for the fact they came in through a known dealer. To me this and things like inconsistency of the grading scale over time totally defeats the purpose of TPG. I can grade a heck of a lot more consistently than that myself, and I've known how to since the 1980's. Cards with creases or even "wrinkles" should not be called Excellent, and in my opinion any card with a noticeable "tilt" or slight diamond cut should not be PSA 9 or 10. Yet there are countless examples of both.
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 02-17-2017 at 06:54 AM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Id rather have a PSA card and talk bad about it but have more medication at the end of the day if i was to sell the card then have some other company which i can say on a message board is the best but at the end of the day i now have less medication or anything else i can afford. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Grading companies | Snapolit1 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 15 | 12-05-2015 08:50 PM |
Grading Companies | EvilKing00 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 11-29-2012 08:07 AM |
Grading Companies | Ben Yourg | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 13 | 02-04-2010 10:38 AM |
What if grading companies could do this??????? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 11-20-2007 09:17 PM |
Grading Companies 1-10 | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 13 | 11-19-2003 11:37 AM |