T206 Honus Wagner SGC 5 - John D. Wagner Collection

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 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.

There we agree, I have no doubt at all that both firms will continue to lie and pretend up is down if it suits the bottom line. After all, their customers have 0 standards for conduct for them and will go with whatever the companies say no matter how obviously untrue it is because everyone's investment relies on accepting the fictions as truth.