SGC Up-charges

[esehombre]

I know SGC advertises prices and grading "tiers" on their website but from my experience this has been loosely enforced (not at all in my case). I can remember a video from the SGC president firing a shot at one of their competitors for constantly upcharging for cards that received the grade you had hoped. I submit through Eric Drew at Boca Subs - Occasionally, I will get a message saying that a card has exceeded the size threshold and the cost would go from $14 to $85 or something like that.

I have submitted in excess of 700 cards in the past 2.5 years. Never an upcharge - not one. Several have come back well in excess of 4 figures. A few 5 figures.

How much value did they place on the cards that were upcharged and what was the breakdown?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by esehombre

I know SGC advertises prices and grading "tiers" on their website but from my experience this has been loosely enforced (not at all in my case). I can remember a video from the SGC president firing a shot at one of their competitors for constantly upcharging for cards that received the grade you had hoped. I submit through Eric Drew at Boca Subs - Occasionally, I will get a message saying that a card has exceeded the size threshold and the cost would go from $14 to $85 or something like that.

I have submitted in excess of 700 cards in the past 2.5 years. Never an upcharge - not one. Several have come back well in excess of 4 figures. A few 5 figures.

How much value did they place on the cards that were upcharged and what was the breakdown?

Here's the breakdown... But to preface it, an SGC Rep at the show walked me through the process and told me what to value each card at, and what the corresponding grading cost would be. It was a 13 card submission, of which the following 3 cards were hit with a second up-charge...

'33 Ruth:
Valued at $7,499 / Paid $250 to grade at show and was assessed additional $250 post-grading

'33 Gehrig:
Valued at $3,499 / Paid $85 to grade, and was assessed additional $415 post-grading

Colgan Chips Wagner:
Valued at $1,499 / Paid $15 to grade and was assessed additional $70 post-grading

The Wagner (which looks near-perfect, with no creases, wrinkles or surface wear) was given a 4.5 grade, which seems absurd (but is an entirely different matter I plan to address).

Anyway, I understand their upcharges are based on perceived value, but was told by many reliable sources that SGC would not hold the cards hostage after the initial submission. Just trying to determine whether this is a typical occurrence, as it may impact my future decisions on which cards to grade.

Many thanks!

[sbfinley]

Yeah, I'm an SGC guy and I can't defend that. The Ruth was probably declared egregiously low, but not in a manner to take advantage of the service. I will say that I have seen SGC gaining popularity on modern forums I frequent and a popular word of advice given out daily is "Send it to SGC. They will grade any card for $15" in response to people asking for grading advice on four and five figure cards. I used to try to correct them, but my life is too short to spend it teaching adults reading comprehension. It's likely you are paying the price incurred by countless idiots trying to sub everything under the $15 service level.

[Lorewalker]

I have heard from several people that they are getting more upcharges from SGC in the last few months. I think this Nat's influence from the acquisition. SGC used to let a lot of stuff slide.

I have no issue with it. I look forward to getting the emails/calls.

[JollyElm]

807. Strung-Upcharge
The futile irritation that comes when - after following all proper valuation protocols with a card submission - the TPG tells you that based on the grades your cards received, you owe them significantly higher fees.

See also: Embittersweet - feeling furious that you’re being stuck with unwarranted additional grading charges, but finding some solace in the fact that a higher grade ‘turned’ your card into a more valuable one.

See also: Slabductee - any card being held hostage by a TPG until the submitter pays the ‘ransom’ of higher service level fees.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

807. Strung-Upcharge
The futile irritation of, after following all proper valuation protocols with a card submission, the TPG tells you that based on the grades your cards received, you owe them significantly higher fees.

See also: Embittersweet - feeling furious that you’re being stuck with unwarranted additional grading charges, but finding some solace in the fact that a higher grade ‘turned’ your card into a more valuable one.

See also: Slabductee - any card being held hostage by a TPG until the submitter pays the ‘ransom’ of higher service level fees.

Those are all three great... very clever!

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Those are all three great... very clever!

Yowza! When I re-read it, I saw how awful the grammar was, so I tweaked/edited it and now I can sleep at night.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I have heard from several people that they are getting more upcharges from SGC in the last few months. I think this Nat's influence from the acquisition. SGC used to let a lot of stuff slide.

I have no issue with it. I look forward to getting the emails/calls.

Concur. I think they simply got too much stuff at the $15 level and now others are paying the price.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Can't all of this be avoided by the companies implementing a simple rule?

The most vomit-inducing buzzword of the last few years has to be "comps". Well, make the customer cite X number of recent hammer prices for what grade they feel the card should be getting. This can then be cross-referenced for accuracy. Yes, that's a very time-consuming task, but someone on each company's end is clearly already spending time ascribing values in one manner or another.

If anything, one could assume that this may end up saving some customers money (on their submissions, anyway) when their delusions of grade grandeur result in a refund due to the TPA disagreeing that their cards truly aren't that minty fresh to accurately correspond with the referenced comps!

(Of course, nothing this simple would ever work out. It was written as a joke more than anything.)

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by perezfan

The Wagner (which looks near-perfect, with no creases, wrinkles or surface wear) was given a 4.5 grade, which seems absurd (but is an entirely different matter I plan to address).

Mark,

Not really sure what you expected it to grade; 4.5 seems very generous considering all the corners are rounded.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Mark,

Not really sure what you expected it to grade; 4.5 seems very generous considering all the corners are rounded.

Excellent.... I can see that now!

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Mark,

Not really sure what you expected it to grade; 4.5 seems very generous considering all the corners are rounded.

Nicer than mine with the 4 corners...

Thatsa gorgeous Culligan man chipwich and the rest are beautiful too Mark

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

Nicer than mine with the 4 corners...

Thatsa gorgeous Culligan man chipwich and the rest are beautiful too Mark

I would advise that you not indulge too heavily on the Culligan Man Chipwich...they are known to cause indigestion.


Brian

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Here's the breakdown... But to preface it, an SGC Rep at the show walked me through the process and told me what to value each card at, and what the corresponding grading cost would be. It was a 13 card submission, of which the following 3 cards were hit with a second up-charge...

'33 Ruth:
Valued at $7,499 / Paid $250 to grade at show and was assessed additional $250 post-grading

'33 Gehrig:
Valued at $3,499 / Paid $85 to grade, and was assessed additional $415 post-grading

Colgan Chips Wagner:
Valued at $1,499 / Paid $15 to grade and was assessed additional $70 post-grading

The Wagner (which looks near-perfect, with no creases, wrinkles or surface wear) was given a 4.5 grade, which seems absurd (but is an entirely different matter I plan to address).

Anyway, I understand their upcharges are based on perceived value, but was told by many reliable sources that SGC would not hold the cards hostage after the initial submission. Just trying to determine whether this is a typical occurrence, as it may impact my future decisions on which cards to grade.

Many thanks!

With those new upcharges PSA would have been a better option.

[jethrod3]

A third party grading company that is willing to charge a flat reasonable rate, regardless of card value, plus actual rates for insurance and shipping, will be able to build a grading site in almost every state because of demand, and still make money hand over first at every site they build. There would be zero bias, since there would be no incentive to charge more money if the grade is higher and no incentive to grade higher to make more money.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

A third party grading company that is willing to charge a flat reasonable rate, regardless of card value, plus actual rates for insurance and shipping, will be able to build a grading site in almost every state because of demand, and still make money hand over first at every site they build. There would be zero bias, since there would be no incentive to charge more money if the grade is higher and no incentive to grade higher to make more money.

Ah yes. You mean like Beckett? I hear they're crushing it!

[jethrod3]

I typically don't send in cards or any material for grading unless they are autographed, so I don't keep tabs on who is "crushing it" and who is not, and why, but wasn't that grading company also swamped during COVID and the increased interest in cards and memorabilia needing grading/authentication? It seems there is an upcharge at least for autographs at some of the third party graders grading autographs on the materials they will slab, but I can tell you that if there was a company that was reputable and charged a flat rate, I would be sending a lot more of my collectibles to that company.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

I typically don't send in cards or any material for grading unless they are autographed, so I don't keep tabs on who is "crushing it" and who is not, and why, but wasn't that grading company also swamped during COVID and the increased interest in cards and memorabilia needing grading/authentication? It seems there is an upcharge at least for autographs at some of the third party graders grading autographs on the materials they will slab, but I can tell you that if there was a company that was reputable and charged a flat rate, I would be sending a lot more of my collectibles to that company.

Beckett charges a flat rate. The only differences in pricing they offer are with respect to turnaround times, not valuations of the cards themselves.

The hobby has nearly abandoned them. Their slabs sell for much less than PSA and SGC, and the pop report data shows them getting less and less market share every month. They are now in 4th place and appear to be destined for extinction.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

With those new upcharges PSA would have been a better option.

Agree, and I have seriously considered cracking and submitting the Colgan Chips Wagner to PSA. The only thing holding me back is... well, check out these FUGLY pics.

[661fish]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Agree, and I have seriously considered cracking and submitting the Colgan Chips Wagner to PSA. The only thing holding me back is... well, check out these FUGLY pics.

Unfortunately Mark, I feel the grading companies have determined they are done giving high grades on Colgan Chips. In a way, it seems like they have conspired together to hammer and undergrade vintage these days. That's just my opinion but I'm sure others will agree.

[perezfan]

So let's see.... much steeper upcharges accompanied by much worse grades. And the sheeple continue to flock to them in record numbers. I'll take it as a sign to stick with rare memorabilia (the type that cannot be slabbed )

[perezfan]

BTW, still no return email from anyone at SGC... 6 attempts with no reply after more than a week. Awesome customer service.