Nat Turner is for a combined set registry

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know why some people seem to have concluded that it is now going to happen? A lot of wishful thinking it seems to me.

People aren't just wishing it into existence though. Last year, Nat Turner expressly stated that this was on his to-do list after he acquired SGC. He said the timing would come down to resources and priorities, which is why people started speculating that it might be something near the end of 2024 (that goal appears unlikely). However, it sounds like this is currently lower down on his priority list? But it is coming. I do believe that.

Also, there is evidence that it is in the works already. At least on the back end. The first step in building that out would be to coordinate the pop reports to ensure that they are in alignment with respect to how they identify various cards & sets. And those changes are already under way at SGC. One example of a recent change made at SGC to align with the PSA pop report is the 1929 Churchman's Babe Ruth. Previously, SGC put Ruth's name on the flip. Now, they've aligned with PSA in removing his name and only putting "Baseball, USA Sports & Games" on it. It's safe to assume that this change was made to align the databases with respect to which cards count on the registry as official "Babe Ruth cards". The Churchman Ruth is not counted in his master PSA Registry set (even though the Shonen Ruth is lol).

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

People aren't just wishing it into existence though. Last year, Nat Turner expressly stated that this was on his to-do list after he acquired SGC. He said the timing would come down to resources and priorities, which is why people started speculating that it might be something near the end of 2024 (that goal appears unlikely). However, it sounds like this is currently lower down on his priority list? But it is coming. I do believe that.

Also, there is evidence that it is in the works already. At least on the back end. The first step in building that out would be to coordinate the pop reports to ensure that they are in alignment with respect to how they identify various cards & sets. And those changes are already under way at SGC. One example of a recent change made at SGC to align with the PSA pop report is the 1929 Churchman's Babe Ruth. Previously, SGC put Ruth's name on the flip. Now, they've aligned with PSA in removing his name and only putting "Baseball, USA Sports & Games" on it. It's safe to assume that this change was made to align the databases with respect to which cards count on the registry as official "Babe Ruth cards". The Churchman Ruth is not counted in his master PSA Registry set (even though the Shonen Ruth is lol).

Collectors announced their intent to buy SGC at the end of Feb 2024, not last year. The deal closed sometime after that.

I have neither read nor heard anything from Nat or anyone at PSA or SGC about blending the brands into one registry. In fact, every statement I heard or read was how SGC would remain a separate company and Collectors would be providing resources to further enhance SGC's operations. In fact in mid April Nat spoke with Rovell and expressly stated a combined registry was not forthcoming. https://www.hobbynewsdaily.com/post/...ors-buying-sgc

As far as the Churchman example goes, I hope your assumption is correct but I think that is merely for a universal checklist as the Rovell link above states would be coming in the near future. I am seeing more of an alignment, like your Churchman example, between SGC and PSA that would support a universal checklist.

I suppose once there is a universal checklist then you have the basis of starting to blend a set registry but I remain skeptical this will happen.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So if SGC cards as graded are equivalent for registry purposes, why wouldn't PSA also automatically cross them? If not, seems inconsistent.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if SGC cards as graded are equivalent for registry purposes, why wouldn't PSA also automatically cross them? If not, seems inconsistent.

Expecting consistency now from the great TPG monolith seems a bit like wishful thinking given our collective experience to date.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if SGC cards as graded are equivalent for registry purposes, why wouldn't PSA also automatically cross them? If not, seems inconsistent.

Maybe at some point they will. It might be inconsistent but it makes sense from a set registry purpose to accept the grade. This future blended registry might identify if the card in the set as an SGC or a PSA card as opposed to simply going by the grade. Most would likely value a purebred PSA set over one with the same GPA that contained SGC cards.

Grading standards have changed over time and each company at various times in their history has graded with different emphasis for the final grade. If we were to crack out almost any PSA 7 that was graded 10 years ago, my guess is that today PSA would not deem them 7s yet there are numerous sets that contain these older graded cards that carry the same weight as a card in the same grade that was graded today.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by Snowman

People aren't just wishing it into existence though. Last year, Nat Turner expressly stated that this was on his to-do list after he acquired SGC. He said the timing would come down to resources and priorities, which is why people started speculating that it might be something near the end of 2024 (that goal appears unlikely). However, it sounds like this is currently lower down on his priority list? But it is coming. I do believe that.

Also, there is evidence that it is in the works already. At least on the back end. The first step in building that out would be to coordinate the pop reports to ensure that they are in alignment with respect to how they identify various cards & sets. And those changes are already under way at SGC. One example of a recent change made at SGC to align with the PSA pop report is the 1929 Churchman's Babe Ruth. Previously, SGC put Ruth's name on the flip. Now, they've aligned with PSA in removing his name and only putting "Baseball, USA Sports & Games" on it. It's safe to assume that this change was made to align the databases with respect to which cards count on the registry as official "Babe Ruth cards". The Churchman Ruth is not counted in his master PSA Registry set (even though the Shonen Ruth is lol).

Interesting. How long before a change to SGC pricing for new submissions comes along with all of this?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Interesting. How long before a change to SGC pricing for new submissions comes along with all of this?

I believe them when they say they have no plans to phase out SGC and that they want to continue to operate them as separate brands. It's what I would do. I think they will just continue to allow market demand to dictate pricing. It's the dial they use currently to increase or decrease submission demand.