Scg

[bobbyw8469]

Post a scan of the card....we can tell if it is undergraded or not.

[ejharrington]

I did. They had a $10 regrade special. I had a card that, while not outed as altered, was listed as part of a submission that included an altered card. This was early in the PWCC scandal. I called them and told them that I couldn’t see anything wrong with card but that they look closely at it. In the end it came back in same grade (EX5).

[Rhotchkiss]

Was the card initially in an SGC flip, and you sent to PSA; did not like the grade PSA gave you; PSA will not return your calls/emails; and now you want it back in the SGC flip? OR, was this a raw card that PSA graded?

[Ben Yourg]

This was a Raw card,that I sent to PSA.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Ben Yourg

This was a Raw card,that I sent to PSA.

Ok. Then I guess I am confused as to why you are calling it a “re-grade” and seeing if their is a special fee. My guess is SGC will view this as any other, plain vanilla submission, and charge you accordingly. I am not a big submitter; that’s just my gut

[111gecko]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Post a scan of the card....we can tell if it is undergraded or not.

This.

[3-2-count]

Originally Posted by 111gecko

This.

This +1

[jchcollins]

PSA has cracked down a bit more since the scandal. For example, card that looks like a 6 or a 7 but has a small hard to find wrinkle might get a 3 or 2.5. I've seen a lot of this. It's not really right, but given that all grading is subjective at some level, I kind of understand what they are doing. If you have something that you think is way undergraded just based on eye-appeal, it's possible you've run afoul of this. All of the big 3 TPG's make mistakes. But at least in my experience, SGC and BVG are more apt to grade a card based on the whole of it's eye appeal than PSA is. At least right now.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

PSA has cracked down a bit more since the scandal. For example, card that looks like a 6 or a 7 but has a small hard to find wrinkle might get a 3 or 2.5. I've seen a lot of this. It's not really right, but given that all grading is subjective at some level, I kind of understand what they are doing. If you have something that you think is way undergraded just based on eye-appeal, it's possible you've run afoul of this. All of the big 3 TPG's make mistakes. But at least in my experience, SGC and BVG are more apt to grade a card based on the whole of it's eye appeal than PSA is. At least right now.

I love the way PSA has "changed" their "grading" standards over the years. But then again...I guess they've just changed their "opinions" over the years...because that's all they are selling...expensive...opinions...that change with the wind?

Sounds like good value to me?

PSA is the worst...and has been a s scourge on the hobby!

SGC has been much more consistent over the years...it's too bad there are so many sheeple in the collecting community.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

PSA has cracked down a bit more since the scandal. For example, card that looks like a 6 or a 7 but has a small hard to find wrinkle might get a 3 or 2.5. I've seen a lot of this. It's not really right, but given that all grading is subjective at some level, I kind of understand what they are doing. If you have something that you think is way undergraded just based on eye-appeal, it's possible you've run afoul of this. All of the big 3 TPG's make mistakes. But at least in my experience, SGC and BVG are more apt to grade a card based on the whole of it's eye appeal than PSA is. At least right now.

I completely agree that SGC has been far more consistent over the years.

But hasn't it always held true that any wrinkle or crease (no matter how small or faint) should keep the card from grading no better than "4"?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by perezfan

But hasn't it always held true that any wrinkle or crease (no matter how small or faint) should keep the card from grading no better than "4"?

In theory. In reality, I’ve seen plenty of PSA 5’s that have subtle wrinkles somewhere. I wasn’t arguing that a card with a wrinkle should necessarily be more than a 4. But PSA lately has been giving many cards like that 2 and 2.5’s, which is a bit harsh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[perezfan]

Yeah... really harsh, if the tiny wrinkle/crease is the only flaw of significance.

I agree that they’re grading tougher now, in light of this year’s “developments”.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I completely agree that SGC has been far more consistent over the years.

But hasn't it always held true that any wrinkle or crease (no matter how small or faint) should keep the card from grading no better than "4"?

I once had a '58 Topps Yogi Berra card PSA 5 card that had a 1/2" diagonal crease through the upper right corner. Not a subtle crease either, and when I sent it in to them for a review, PSA refused to admit it was a grading blunder. That was about ten years ago.

[Republicaninmass]

I had one as well with paperloss that graded a 4.5. I called and sent them a scan, as I wanted it accurately graded. They said it was fine because of eye appeal.