T206 Honus Wagner SGC 5 - John D. Wagner Collection

[Rocketcards]

What many of you understandably don’t realize is that cards at this level are graded against each other rather than graded on the normal scale your typical Hunky Shaw would be.

These high profile cards have all been overgraded since the beginning of time or since card 00000001 rolled off the assembly line. Have any of you held the PSA 5 Wagner in your hand? While it looks nice in pictures if you saw it in person you would see there is a crease running down the middle that has been rubbed out but is still noticeable. Would it grade a 5 if it was Danny Murphy? Of course not but it’s still nicer than the lone copy of PSA 4 so that’s how the grade is justified.

Would your Orval Overall that looks exactly like this SGC 5 Wagner grade a 5? No, but is it the cards fault that these Wagner’s have all been overgraded since card 00000001? These cards get slotted into the grade they deserve AGAINST EACH OTHER and not against your typical common. Would it be fair to the card if this one gets graded on a regular scale while the rest of the Wagner’s haven’t been? Thus if you look at the Wagner’s in totality this one falls where it belongs, better than the 4 and equal to the 5. I’m not sure if it’s reasonable for it to be anyway else and certainly not the card’s fault that every other Wagner before it has been graded on a different scale than commons. So if you compare apples with apples and not Wagner’s with commons it presumably makes more sense as to why these cards are graded as they are. And if you google images of Wagner 3’s, 4’s and 5 you will see it better. Not sure it’s fair but remember it all began with card 00000001 and proceeded from there so that’s really where the blame, if any, belongs and not on a specific card that’s just being slotted where it belongs in the universe of all the Wagner’s preceding it. While I understand the frustration, don't blame the player, blame the game.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rocketcards

What many of you understandably don’t realize is that cards at this level are graded against each other rather than graded on the normal scale your typical Hunky Shaw would be.

These high profile cards have all been overgraded since the beginning of time or since card 00000001 rolled off the assembly line. Have any of you held the PSA 5 Wagner in your hand? While it looks nice in pictures if you saw it in person you would see there is a crease running down the middle that has been rubbed out but is still noticeable. Would it grade a 5 if it was Danny Murphy? Of course not but it’s still nicer than the lone copy of PSA 4 so that’s how the grade is justified.

Would your Orval Overall that looks exactly like this SGC 5 Wagner grade a 5? No, but is it the cards fault that these Wagner’s have all been overgraded since card 00000001? These cards get slotted into the grade they deserve AGAINST EACH OTHER and not against your typical common. Would it be fair to the card if this one gets graded on a regular scale while the rest of the Wagner’s haven’t been? Thus if you look at the Wagner’s in totality this one falls where it belongs, better than the 4 and equal to the 5. I’m not sure if it’s reasonable for it to be anyway else and certainly not the card’s fault that every other Wagner before it has been graded on a different scale than commons. So if you compare apples with apples and not Wagner’s with commons it presumably makes more sense as to why these cards are graded as they are. And if you google images of Wagner 3’s, 4’s and 5 you will see it better. Not sure it’s fair but remember it all began with card 00000001 and proceeded from there so that’s really where the blame, if any, belongs and not on a specific card that’s just being slotted where it belongs in the universe of all the Wagner’s preceding it. While I understand the frustration, don't blame the player, blame the game.

We are very much blaming the people running the game, because they claim it works differently and that big cards are not graded on a separate scale designed to juice those cards. No grading company is admitting there are separate 1-10 scales for the peons and for the marquees. I don't think anyone is unaware or does not understand that they do this in reality; the problem is the dishonesty absurdity.

[Rocketcards]

I totally understand and agree but simply by looking at all of the PSA and SGC Wagner's it is clear that is not the case. All of them are overgraded on the typical scale and I suspect it will have no choice but to continue. Its just not fair to the next card to be graded any differently than all of it's predecessors.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rocketcards

I totally understand and agree but simply by looking at all of the PSA and SGC Wagner's it is clear that is not the case. All of them are overgraded on the typical scale and I suspect it will have no choice but to continue. Its just not fair to the next card to be graded any differently than all of it's predecessors.

It’s not fair to tell people it’s an orange when it’s obviously an apple. If they want to adopt a new scale for investors that grades 1-10 they can do that, but they are pretending that a 5 EX is a 5 EX quality card whether it is Wagner or Billy Purtell. The people doing this dishonest absurdity will receive some judgement for that because it’s a lie. “We lied in the past so we have to keep lying” is absurdist. Makes good business, got to juice for the big boys, but it’s absurdism.

[Rocketcards]

I get it and share your frustration but the reality is that it is what it is and at this point short of regrading all of them it would seem to be far more of a disservice to the next one to grade it accurately when nearly all before it haven't been. Slotting them where they belong in the hierarchy seems a much fairer solution as new ones come down the pike.

[Rocketcards]

Here's one of 6 PSA 9 1952 Mantle's. Think PSA might want to grade this one again?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rocketcards

I get it and share your frustration but the reality is that it is what it is and at this point short of regrading all of them it would seem to be far more of a disservice to the next one to grade it accurately when nearly all before it haven't been. Slotting them where they belong in the hierarchy seems a much fairer solution as new ones come down the pike.

I think we sometimes have to apply some logic. "SGC lied about A, B, C, D, therefore they must lie about E" is not really logical or reasonable. If a claim is made, that claim should be true, or if it is a claim of opinion, that opinion should be consistent with evidence and reasonable. If I say a card I'm selling or trading is in EX condition, it should be reasonably within the parameters of an EX card. If it is not, I will get lambasted on these boards for my dishonesty, and rightfully so. We all know right off the bat that this is not a 5 EX and there is no argument that it is. SGC is not special because they are a corporate entity. If a claim is untrue or unreasonable to hold as an opinion, it should be abandoned and corrected. Many people will not go along with a lie just because it is convenient for some. If SGC wants to make a brand new "i5 - Investor Excellent" grade and slap that on cards, they can do so. But as long as they blatantly lie, some people will continue to observe this fact and criticize the obvious dishonesty.

[Rocketcards]

I imagine SGC would admit to it around the same time PSA looks us in the eye and says the Mantle is a 9.