SGC grading is super fast.

[55koufax]

I still haven't seen a single other poster in this thread agree to or support the premise that SGC has such a shorter turnaround time for grading cards than say PSA, primarily, or even just significantly, because of their organization skills or efficiencies. And what does that tell you?

Bob. Respectfully, and curiously wonder what it tells you?

Are you thinking they are dis-organized and inefficient?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 55koufax

Bob. Respectfully, and curiously wonder what it tells you?

Are you thinking they are dis-organized and inefficient?

Good God no, I, and no one else in this thread, ever said or implied that SGC was disorganized or inefficient. Quite the contrary, it seemed to be the implication of one poster in this thread that it was PSA that was less organized and/or efficient in relation to SGC, and that that somehow, to that particular poster, helped to explain SGC's fast(er) turnaround times.

What no one else really posting their agreement to what that guy was saying tells me is that no one else truly thinks SGC having a faster turnaround time than PSA really has anything significant to do with SGC's organization or their efficiencies either. Yet he kept posting like he's right, others are wrong, and don't know what they're talking about.

Go back and read what I said in post #13. I surmised that the reason(s) behind ALL the TPG turnaround times recently starting to get faster is most likely due to the TPGs having recently hired/added more graders, or that the number of new submissions coming in each day are dropping below the number of cards they have going out and reducing the TPG's backlogs, or possibly even some combination of those factors. SGC is primarily getting cards turned around faster because they have fewer to grade relative the number of graders they have.

Now go read posts #2, 4, 6, and 9, and see how what they were saying was apparently misunderstood and attacked in posts #5, 7, and 11. I came to the defense of the earlier posters as they did nothing wrong in putting forth some of their thoughts and premises. But in countering their statements, the only facts/arguments the antagonist has given to them or anyone else that I can see is the ridiculous Chick-Fil-A/McDonalds drive thru comparison he made. And that is totally wrong as he makes it sound like ChicK-Fil-A gets food to their customers faster than McDonalds does because they are better organized/efficient, and then transfers that same logic/reasoning to SGC being faster than PSA. The joke is on him though because it is a fairly well-known and documented fact that Chick-Fil-A has the slowest drive thru times in the fast food industry. So how that supports an argument of SGC turnaround times being faster than PSA's is laughable. And of course, he didn't ever respond and explain how it could be relevant, probably because it isn't and never was (and he knows, but won't admit it).

[55koufax]

I get it Bob, thanks....

I am just trying to understand (from some of the veteran, quality collector's) if I can get my own mind to believe that SGC is worth the time and trouble to submit at $23 per..

Been thinking for about one year of trying them on a 100 card sub to hit $23 level. That said, of course I am concerned about what their graded value may be if I were to want to flip and sell most of them. We ALL know and agree their sales cannot match other TPGs, and if indeed values in general are dropping, likely not a great time for me to test the SGC waters.

[Republicaninmass]

I chose 1952 topps "gray backs" on their drop down.


They were not labeled as such.


The intern I emailed said they only label red and blacks, not gray backs.

I explained their is a choice in the dropdown menu for this specific variation.


Intern responded it must be a glitch they need to fix.


More than enough for me to never send them another card period.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I chose 1952 topps "gray backs" on their drop down.


They were not labeled as such.


The intern I emailed said they only label red and blacks, not gray backs.

I explained their is a choice in the dropdown menu for this specific variation.


Intern responded it must be a glitch they need to fix.


More than enough for me to never send them another card period.

Huge misstep by SGC. Something more fitting for PSA to do but I know that is not the case.

I like the look of their holder...they used to grade very accurately and fairly but not so much recently from what I have seen. I simply cannot support them because at some point the cards I grade will be sold and while nobody can predict the future, PSA is more of a sure bet for maximizing one's return.

[Zact]

Not wishing to get into a debate, but I do have some anecdotal data to share on this topic. I am predominantly a psa registry set collector with post war master sets for Clemente and Aaron as a focus and other hof sets. I have been submitting vintage cards to sgc for the past 6 months through boca card submissions. They offer a discount of $24 per card group submissions vs $30 per direct per card . The Facebook group shows the specific submitters and numbers etc. SGc has increased their capacity to about 4K cards per day through expansion of physical space and staff over the past year or so. They were consistently running 2-3 week turnaround times for several months for the past 6 months. They are now turning around in a handful of business days. I can see through their page that the volume of group submissions had definitely decreased from 5-600 per day to 2-300 per day. Multiple factors involved here. I think the throughput was increased to 4 k per day for several months and now submission volume is decreasing in 6/2022. Predictioning that they will decrease pricing soon to keep volume at a steady state or decrease overhead

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 55koufax

I get it Bob, thanks....

I am just trying to understand (from some of the veteran, quality collector's) if I can get my own mind to believe that SGC is worth the time and trouble to submit at $23 per..

Been thinking for about one year of trying them on a 100 card sub to hit $23 level. That said, of course I am concerned about what their graded value may be if I were to want to flip and sell most of them. We ALL know and agree their sales cannot match other TPGs, and if indeed values in general are dropping, likely not a great time for me to test the SGC waters.

Hey James,

No sweat just trying to explain where I'm coming from on this topic.

In your situation, I'd have the exact same concern about which TPG to use, if any at all. I think you have to ask yourself if you're really planning to sell, and if so, how soon. As others have mentioned in this thread, TPG turnaround times are dropping, and it is most likely due to decreasing submissions, which as others have also said will probably lead to more lowering of grading prices as competition heats up among TPGs. I don't know the makeup of your collection, or the quality of the cards you're looking to submit, but as you and others have said, you'll most likely get the best prices for your cards when selling from using PSA to grade them.

That said, if there is no dire reason to sell right now, maybe hold off a bit and see if the grading market doesn't continue to promote further competition among the TPGs, and as a result, even lower grading prices going forward. It is possible that by this time next year you may be able to get PSA to grade those cards for you at a much more reasonable cost than now, and closer to what SGC would charge. Obviously can't predict with 100% accuracy, but it would seem that TPG grading prices are way more likely to be going down than up in the foreseeable future.

Also, depending on the quality and desirability of what cards you are looking to sell, you could check with different auction houses that may have an interest in them. They may have a connection with different TPGs and can possibly get you a better/faster grading deal and/or cost if you agree to consign and sell some of your cards through them. Big maybe, but doesn't hurt to ask. Good luck!

[ClementeFanOh]

BobC- you are a complete idiot. The phrase "very dangerous" in my original
post was CLEARLY a reference to a comment that is logically "dangerous",
meaning "erroneous". You are merely making a pathetic attempt to drum up
support for your insane ramblings and it's not going to work. I didn't make a
direct threat, or an implied threat, of physical danger of ANY kind- and would
not do so.

Go away.

Trent King