This is why I use SGC only

[Tcards-Please]

Although I agree that the numerical value is a little misleading, they do have the written determination below that. How is this different from any other advertising from major companies. When you go buy a car that advertises 0%financing, do you read the fine print below that or do you just go in there thinking everyone is entitled to 0%?

This is a cheap alternative for the beginners, along the same lines as PRO & GEM. If they can read the 5, then they can read the description below that.

Hopefully SGC and PSA will not follow suit.

Just my 2 pesos.

r/
Frank

[drdduet]

I disagree with it being along the lines of Pro and Gem...

BCCG is all it advertises to be, a less sophisticated grading service. It has its own scale and is not misleading to those who care to know what they are getting. It is a watered down service from BVG. It's a way to slab cards in a more general fashion. Nevertheless they are accurate within their own descriptors, whereas PRO and GEM are not.

I would like to see them, however, stick with the modern stuff with this service, and not allow prewar cards to be graded in this manner.

[Tcards-Please]

drdduet

I wasn't comparing grading styles between BCCG and PRO/GEM, I was stating that it was a cheap alternative to grading like the services of PRO & GEM.

r/
Frank

[Leon]

Originally Posted by drdduet

I disagree with it being along the lines of Pro and Gem...

BCCG is all it advertises to be, a less sophisticated grading service. It has its own scale and is not misleading to those who care to know what they are getting. It is a watered down service from BVG. It's a way to slab cards in a more general fashion. Nevertheless they are accurate within their own descriptors, whereas PRO and GEM are not.

I would like to see them, however, stick with the modern stuff with this service, and not allow prewar cards to be graded in this manner.

Well, I just now shot Mark (their director of grading and board member) an email to have lunch today as they have one of my cards back from JSA and have graded (or not) the card. I do, however, agree with Dr.Duet and his view above.....
Personally, I do think it causes some confusion though and that is not great for the BVG group, who does a nice job. Kind of like saying all chatboards suck.....when they don't.

[GehrigFan]

Ah yes... the great BCCG debate.

Okay, several points, but be forewarned that I am not going to spend the rest of the week in a circular argument. We'll agree right now that most of you (and myself) don't personally have a use for BCCG, but it is a very viable business model that the industry continues to want. As such, it isn't likely to go away anytime soon.

----------------------

The card is accurately graded as a "Poor" card. The numerical grade is a different scale than BVG/BGS. To whomever claims they have seen BCCG 3's, 4's, etc., that is incorrect. The BCCG scale is only 6 points (5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10) and the system won't even allow a lower number to be entered.

Sometimes we don't always agree with every product our employers put out, but there are legitimate reasons for the product to exist. Personally, if I was a graded card collector, I wouldn't want BCCG cards, because I am not a novice or beginner. This system was created back when home shopping channels and other people were churning out new grading companies where every card is a 10. This was misleading and, in my opinion, fraudulent. BCCG was created as a result of major distributors asking for a low-cost, entry-level encapsulating service that actually graded the cards accurately. Hard-core collectors, vintage collectors, and the like were never the target audience. Instead, this was for cards marketed on Shopping Networks, Walmart, K-Mart, Target, etc. The intent on the numerical grade was never to confuse or mislead. In retrospect, I wish the grading scale for BCCG had been skip-numbered somehow (1, 3, 5, 7, etc.), but then people would be wondering why they never saw a BCCG4 or BCCG 6 card. Either way, it would confuse some people. Ironically, this BCCG service that some people feel is misleading was create solely for the purpose of trying to clean up the other services out there that we thought WERE misleading. Would you rather have that card in a BCCG holder clearly labeled as "POOR", or in a XXX 10 Gem Mint holder ("XXX" being one of the many "every card is a 10" companies)?

We can authenticate, grade, and label (as Poor, Good, etc.) these cards correctly. But we cannot control how owners of these cards choose to describe them. If they want to try to trick people into thinking they are something other than a Poor card, in this case, how is that Beckett's fault when we accurately stated the card is in Poor condition? Is the numerical system a little weird? Sure, but how is it any different than a Near Mint card being called an "84 out of 100" and then also being called a "7 out of 10"? (My point not being anti-SGC, as I have no issue with their original system, because, like BCCG, cards are clearly marked as "Near Mint", etc.)

We have always steered people towards BVG on vintage cards and any higher end cards, and in fact, we steer all regular submitters to BVG or BGS. BCCG isn't a product that was designed for regular collectors or dealers. BCCG was supposed to be for corporate entities wanting massive amounts of cards authenticated and graded quickly and inexpensively.

Is there a need or desire for this type of service? I actually track every grading company, and thus far I have recorded 109 different grading companies over the last 15 years! We continue to do tens of thousands of BCCG cards each month, so yes, there is still a desire for this service. But we don't expect or want advanced collectors to use BCCG. The idea is that a new entry-level collector buys a BCCG card, gets interested in graded cards, and then moves up into the BVG/BGS/SGC/PSA services.

On the same note, does anybody remember "SGM" Grading? This was SGC's answer to BCCG a "light" version of SGC's scale. I don't believe it is offered anymore, and I never actually saw a card graded under the scale, but it was an advertised service shortly after BCCG was launched. Beckett obviously wasn't the only one trying to bring some order to the chaos of lower-tiered grading back then.

[barrysloate]

Why does an entry level collector need his own "simplified" grading system? Is the standard 1-10 scale a little too complicated for him? I don't understand the point.

[Ladder7]

Mark, Thankyou for clearing that up... So, when is Beckett dumping this diservice?

[Anthony S.]

BVG. BVS. BCCG.

FDR would have loved it.

[Potomac Yank]

*

[mikedenero]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Why does an entry level collector need his own "simplified" grading system? Is the standard 1-10 scale a little too complicated for him? I don't understand the point.

Funny! Barry, I think the guys from Spinal Tap should start their own grading service and introduce the 1-11 scale!

[barrysloate]

Mike- there actually was a grading service that used an 11 for cards that were removed from unopened packs with white gloves on the premises. I don't remember the details.

[mikedenero]

Originally Posted by T's please

This is a cheap alternative for the beginners, along the same lines as PRO & GEM. If they can read the 5, then they can read the description below that.

r/
Frank

I think that the cheap alternative is a benign enough idea; however, the 5-10 scale is both dishonest and damaging to the hobby, as if it is confusing to us, imagine how confusing it is to beginners. I think we can all agree that we don't want beginners to be confused; rather, we want them to understand the basics of grading with little effort. Thus, the lower the barriers to entry, the better it is for all of us! One last thought. While I agree that if collectors can read the "5," they can generally also read the "poor or better" underneath the numerical grade (reading glasses needs aside). However, if Beckett lists a condition description (e.g., "poor or better"), why do they need a numerical grade at all? Why can't they simply write "poor or better?"

On a side note; I just received a call two days ago from a collector who got his first computer last week. He has been a collector of primarily ungraded material for 40+ years. He asked my opinion of the grading companies (my advice was to buy cards in three holders: SGC (IMO the best); with BVG/BGS (IMO second); and PSA (IMO third) -- but without a huge gap between first and third place). The next day he called me back to ask about BCCG, due to his understandable frustration and confusion. Needless to say, his opinion of Beckett is now neutral, at best.