Harsh SGC grades

[rats60]

The upper right hand corner of the Ruth is missing the top layer of the card. The Cobb has wear on all 4 corners and is missing part of the top left corner. The Johnson has some minor wear on all 4 corners. I have had cards nicer than those receive those grades or lower.

[RedsFan1941]

every card ever submitted has been undergraded, according to the submitter.

every card being offered for sale is undergraded, according to the seller.

Every card being offered for sale is overgraded, according to the buyer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

The upper right hand corner of the Ruth is missing the top layer of the card. The Cobb has wear on all 4 corners and is missing part of the top left corner. The Johnson has some minor wear on all 4 corners. I have had cards nicer than those receive those grades or lower.

Man, if you were a grader nothing except a 2018 card out of a pack would ever get a 9 or even an 8. Brutal assessment lol.

[lowpopper]

Man, I didn't like this whole sticker thing at first, but now I like it.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Man, if you were a grader nothing except a 2018 card out of a pack would ever get a 9 or even an 8. Brutal assessment lol.

No, I just don't like pieces of the card missing. Cards getting above 6.5 should look like this

[orly57]

I’m loving the new SGC flips. And the SGC holders frame cards so beautifully.

[irv]

Another example of SGC harsh grading.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-...r&LH_Auction=1

[RedsFan1941]

here’s the thing: these examples of “harsh” grading likely are actually examples of why TPG’s can save a collector from overpaying for an overgraded card. does anyone really think that SGC or PSA haphazardly slaps a 4 on a card that appears to be a 7 or 8? i see a card like that and i think there’s obviously a reason the card isn’t a 7or 8 and I just don’t or can’t see it in a scan. I couldn’t care less about the subtle difference between a 5 and 6. but when i see something like the examples in this thread, I’m happy there is professional grading.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by irv

Another example of SGC harsh grading.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-...r&LH_Auction=1

While I dont think it would look out of place in a "5" holder. with all the border damage (possibly rubber band?) a 4 isn't a travesty of justice.

[sportscomicfantasy]

Originally Posted by irv

Another example of SGC harsh grading.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-...r&LH_Auction=1

There appears to be touches of damage to all three corners and also small damaged spots along the right hand border especailly.

I personally find that PSA is the easiest of the three big ones, and beckett on averages percentage wise I have taken on older cards is the harshest of the three with SGC closer to Beckett in harsher grading than it is to PSA.

If I was going to grade a card to sell, I would likely send it to PSA thinking I am more likely to get a better grade, easier to sell and get more money. If it was a card I want to keep, I would likely send it to one of the other two as I think they are closer to how I would grade if I had a good pair of eyes still.

[Zact]

My opinion and experience are the opposite of yours. I only deal with post war Regular and a lot of regional and food oddball issues. PSA is number 1 for me, Sgc a close second. BVG is horrible and inconsistent with corner assessment on post war vintage they are usually overgraded by 1/2 to 1 full grade in comparison to the other 2 companies. A small percentage are accurately graded. sgc gives too many numerical grades to miscut cards that are out of square and miscut on the obverse. They also are not great with postwar hand cut issues- too lenient with missing borders and surface issues- my experience with postwar only


“I personally find that PSA is the easiest of the three big ones, and beckett on averages percentage wise I have taken on older cards is the harshest of the three with SGC closer to Beckett in harsher grading than it is to PSA.

If I was going to grade a card to sell, I would likely send it to PSA thinking I am more likely to get a better grade, easier to sell and get more money. If it was a card I want to keep, I would likely send it to one of the other two as I think they are closer to how I would grade if I had a good pair of eyes still.”

[irv]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

here’s the thing: these examples of “harsh” grading likely are actually examples of why TPG’s can save a collector from overpaying for an overgraded card. does anyone really think that SGC or PSA haphazardly slaps a 4 on a card that appears to be a 7 or 8? i see a card like that and i think there’s obviously a reason the card isn’t a 7or 8 and I just don’t or can’t see it in a scan. I couldn’t care less about the subtle difference between a 5 and 6. but when i see something like the examples in this thread, I’m happy there is professional grading.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

While I dont think it would look out of place in a "5" holder. with all the border damage (possibly rubber band?) a 4 isn't a travesty of justice.

Originally Posted by sportscomicfantasy

There appears to be touches of damage to all three corners and also small damaged spots along the right hand border especailly.

I personally find that PSA is the easiest of the three big ones, and beckett on averages percentage wise I have taken on older cards is the harshest of the three with SGC closer to Beckett in harsher grading than it is to PSA.

If I was going to grade a card to sell, I would likely send it to PSA thinking I am more likely to get a better grade, easier to sell and get more money. If it was a card I want to keep, I would likely send it to one of the other two as I think they are closer to how I would grade if I had a good pair of eyes still.

Rather than using the word "Harsh", maybe "tough" as in SGC grades tough would be a better choice of words.

Comparing the card I posted to others I have seen, I do still personally think the card has been graded tough, but as we all know, scans/pics don't always tell the whole story.

Maybe reading PWCC's assessment of the card is influencing my opinion but I have seen far worse looking cards getting the same grade or higher.

Does anyone know, since SGC came out with these new flips, have they also decided to grade tougher?

A stunner for the grade assigned. Shows like a NRMT card in almost every way with white borders and great centering for the issue. Easily the best '4' we've seen in our history. Very faint wear exists at the extreme corner tips but otherwise this card appears truly world class. Appears free of the wrinkles or creases that might explain the harsh technical assessment. As it sits this card is an outright steal for the technical grade

[Republicaninmass]

Sgc has decided that "centering all of a sudden counts" yet doesnt use qualifiers, resulting in the appearance of stricter grades. I've always like sgc because I could judge the card centering for myself, and they could assess the other aspects. Recently, I was told a psa 7 OC would cross to an SGC 30! Normally this might be a 7 or a 6 at worst.