SGC Labels

[Kenny Cole]

I have some difficulty with the same company disclaiming the grades that it previously gave (and which people paid money for), based on the lapse of time. IMO, if the grade was given, SGC should stand behind it. I kind of thought that was why the money was paid to begin with. Just my .02.

Kenny Cole

[Robextend]

Kenny I agree, also I had purchased a 1933 Goudey card in the same 1st Gen "SG" holder and was told by SGC that it can easily be re-holdered without any issue. But for my collecting purposes I am not concerned about which SGC Flip/Holder I have, I didn't think there was a need to be concerned. Either way this is an interesting topic.

Rob

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I have some difficulty with the same company disclaiming the grades that it previously gave (and which people paid money for), based on the lapse of time. IMO, if the grade was given, SGC should stand behind it. I kind of thought that was why the money was paid to begin with. Just my .02.

Kenny Cole

Kenny,

I bet if there was a big issue SGC would "fix" it for the card owner. Their customer service is pretty good. I wouldn't get all riled up before I talked to them.

[Kenny Cole]

Jim,

I'm not riled up at all, at least not yet. I was simply commenting on what I understood to be a company response that I view as a complete cop-out -- i.e., we didn't do as good a job back then as we do now so we don't stand behind our previous product. IMO, that sort of company response is complete and absolute BS. I hope that my understanding of the company response is incorrect.

Moreover, to the extent its an issue, I don't think it should have to be the screwed consignor's responsibility to contact the company and try to get them to make it right years later. The consignor paid for a correct grade and that is what they should have gotten, be it 2000, 2005, or 2010. I don't even think that a contrary viewpoint is arguable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Many 1st generation SGC cards are improperly graded because they basically ignored centering. Puts the new ownership in a difficult position, I think they made the right call in saying reholdering was not automatic.

[Leon]

As much as I respect what Kenny Cole (hi Kenny) says, above, and am usually about 99% in agreement as to what he usually states, I agree with Peter on this one. It was all different graders and all different ownership when most of the older card holder's cards got graded. I think it would be a disservice to the current group of SGC graders, and customers, to blindly reholder at the same level. That being said I do think that most times the grades will be pretty darned equal, if not exactly equal. I sent in an SGC 92 M116 HOF'er, about a year or three ago, in an older holder and it came back an SGC 92. Now, that being said I would hope that on most (or all) occasions that SGC would mitigate some damages (grading vouchers etc..) if the card didn't cross to an equal grade. Also though, that being said, if it crossed to a better grade would we expect us to give them money for the increased value? It's a tough question and I think could be fairly debated either way. Just my opinion. For the record the card in question, from the scan, looks to be correctly graded, at least to me. I think I might have just said a whole lot of nothing regards

[Jim VB]

Kenny,

I didn't mean to insinuate that you were riled up. My comment was intended to calm the drumbeats of the gathering hordes.

[Kenny Cole]

Peter and Leon,

So its OK to pay for a "service" you evidently didn't get the first time around and be held up to pay for that same service again? I don't think so.

It seems to me that it is SGC's responsibilty to get it right the first time since accuracy is what they sell (and have presumably sold from the get go). Accuracy is precisely what was marketed and presumably what the buyer purchased even back when, according to what appears to be the current position, their grading was, at least sometimes, somewhat subpar.

I am not suggesting that SGC has to stick with the grade it previously assigned. It doesn't even do that now. I am, however, suggesting that if SGC backtracks on a grade it previously gave, it needs to make it right financially. The buyer should not be out because SGC did a poor job to begin with.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I am, however, suggesting that if SGC backtracks on a grade it previously gave, it needs to make it right financially. The buyer should not be out because SGC did a poor job to begin with.

I think that SGC would make it right, but someone from SGC would have to confirm my assumption.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter and Leon,

So its OK to pay for a "service" you evidently didn't get the first time around and be held up to pay for that same service again? I don't think so.

It seems to me that it is SGC's responsibilty to get it right the first time since accuracy is what they sell (and have presumably sold from the get go). Accuracy is precisely what was marketed and presumably what the buyer purchased even back when, according to what appears to be the current position, their grading was, at least sometimes, somewhat subpar.

I am not suggesting that SGC has to stick with the grade it previously assigned. It doesn't even do that now. I am, however, suggesting that if SGC backtracks on a grade it previously gave, it needs to make it right financially. The buyer should not be out because SGC did a poor job to begin with.

Well, yes, since standards have changed the "today" grade could be different than the many years ago grade. Now if we could go back and the exact same grading scale, and definitions of the grades, were exactly the same back then, then I might see your point more. I am sticking to my answer on this one....and we do agree on the mitigation of any lost value but that doesn't seem quite fair vis a vis a higher new grade. This is not a black and white issue in my book and very debatable, as previously stated. I might even be convinced otherwise if an argument is made contrary to my current thinking, that I agree with. But those are my thoughts now. regards

[Kenny Cole]

But Leon, that is sort of the basic problem I have. Grading was supposed to set forth a definitive, concrete, immutable standard that people paid good money to have their cards achieve. It is still supposed to do that, but the previous definitive, concrete, immutable standard evidently now doesn't mean much because there is now evidently a new, different, definitive, concrete, immutable standard that you can once again pay money to achieve. Therein lies my problem.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter and Leon,

So its OK to pay for a "service" you evidently didn't get the first time around and be held up to pay for that same service again? I don't think so.

It seems to me that it is SGC's responsibilty to get it right the first time since accuracy is what they sell (and have presumably sold from the get go). Accuracy is precisely what was marketed and presumably what the buyer purchased even back when, according to what appears to be the current position, their grading was, at least sometimes, somewhat subpar.

I am not suggesting that SGC has to stick with the grade it previously assigned. It doesn't even do that now. I am, however, suggesting that if SGC backtracks on a grade it previously gave, it needs to make it right financially. The buyer should not be out because SGC did a poor job to begin with.

I don't agree. People who submitted under the old regime got what they paid for -- a card graded according to the standards of the day. That new management chooses to go forward with a more accurate grading system does not mean they "owe" anything to people who submitted in the past. If past submitters' cards deserve the same grade, fine; if not, why should they be compensated when they received what they paid for?

Example: I submitted a card that by today's standards deserves a 7 but back then it got an 8. So I have an 8 in an old holder, which the market will value accordingly -- probably the same as a 7 in a new holder. I have what I always had -- why am I entitled to a windfall?

[Robextend]

Hi Peter, I respectfully disagree. It is the same company, new set of eyes. Does that mean anytime management changes we all might be subjected to the same thing all over again? We paid for a service and shouldn't have to find out years later that a $1k card is now worth $500. That just doesn't seem fair without some type of compensation.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Jim,

I'm not riled up at all, at least not yet. I was simply commenting on what I understood to be a company response that I view as a complete cop-out -- i.e., we didn't do as good a job back then as we do now so we don't stand behind our previous product. IMO, that sort of company response is complete and absolute BS. I hope that my understanding of the company response is incorrect.

Moreover, to the extent its an issue, I don't think it should have to be the screwed consignor's responsibility to contact the company and try to get them to make it right years later. The consignor paid for a correct grade and that is what they should have gotten, be it 2000, 2005, or 2010. I don't even think that a contrary viewpoint is arguable.

I don't know what the company response is that you refer to. I have never heard of SGC failing to honor the guaranty in these circumstances. That is why it is a guaranty. If the card would not cross at the same grade under the current standards, they owe the owner some money (usually offered first as grading vouchers...cash is tough to part with).

The change of ownership issue is a red herring. I am 100% sure that when they did the deal there would have been some form of contingent liability reduction in the selling price of the company to account for future guaranty claims that the new owners would have to deal with...standard procedure.

Cheers,
Blair

[Leon]

Hey Kenny
I am not sure what the analogy is for me arguing with a lawyer that I know is very rarely incorrect but there is a good one, I just can't think of it. Maybe I am coming to a gunfight unarmed? At any rate I wouldn't want to put words in SGC's proverbial mouth so I don't have any idea what their official stand is. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that they can't really give a blanket statement to cover every scenario and take them one by one. That being said I have not seen them (ever that I remember) make a poor decision so that is what I am going with. Also, when I buy cards, especially for my collection, and they are in anyone's holder, my main concern is about them being altered. As long as they aren't altered then I can pretty much see how the card looks myself. And I fully undertsand that misses the point concerning value....but that is my thought anyway.

Since there has to be a clause about grading being subjective, and that they are human and can make a mistake, I sort of doubt they have themselves cornered without having an out, concerning any grading. That wouldn't be smart. I don't ever remmber seeing the term "concrete and immutable standard" on the SGC site. kind regards

[barrysloate]

Kenny- I agree with what you are saying in theory, that professional graders should be so precise that regardless of who owns the company or who does the grading, the card should receive the same objective grade very time.

But what we've discovered in the real world is grading is way too subjective. Why do so many people keep resubmitting the same card over and over until they finally get it bumped up? Grading is a flawed system, and quite possibly it was even more flawed with the first SGC regime. So if the new owners come in and want to correct some of the mistakes of the previous one, you very well may get a different grade. It's a system that still needs a lot of work, no question about it.

[egbeachley]

Standards change. So do detection methods.