SGC Labels

[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.

[egbeachley]

Are there ANY products sold today that are the same as sold 10-20 years ago?

When the counterfeiters have mastered the art of copying slabs and flips, whether it occurs 2 years or 10 years from now, another service (by existing or new company's) will take its place.

[Kenny Cole]

The question, to my way of thinking, is whether the product is sold as being the end-all and be-all. That is the way card grading has ALWAYS been promoted. I suspect that no one will be able to provide any literature from any of the big grading companies that is in any way hesitant about the accuracy, wonderfulness or permanancy of their grades. I also suspect that there will be lots of stuff promoting the accuracy, wonderfulness and permanency of the given card grading companies' grades, particularly back when they were trying to promote the brand.

I'm a simple guy but I'm also a lawyer. Maybe the two go hand in hand. In any event, if you sell me a product on the basis that there is some numerical standard which it meets (and will always meet) and that later proves not to be true, that is, at least where I live, probably actionable as constructive fraud. Where I live, constructive fraud has the same legal consequences as actual fraud. Fraud damages can be really ugly.

[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.

[Kenny Cole]

Peter,

First, let me say that this is a purely theoretical discussion because I agree that SGC's customer service has always been good (at least so I hear -- fortunately I have never had a problem that required me to test it). Nonetheless, I could not disagree more with your last post.

If I pay to have a card graded today, it should retain the same grade tomorrow. No ifs, whens or buts about it. It shouldn't matter that the company was sold, that a different grader is looking at it, or anything else. I paid for an accurate grade-- "Consistent, accurate grading" as quoted from SGC's website -- not for a grade that might change tomorrow when management does. What you are suggesting seems to me to be the antithesis of what is supposedly being sold when you purchase their service.

[barrysloate]

Kenny- you don't need something as drastic as management change to get a different grade. Just resubmit a bunch of cards and I'm sure a few will come back with different grades, almost every time. The accuracy you feel you are entitled to, and I agree with you wholeheartedly, may not really exist.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

If I pay to have a card graded today, it should retain the same grade tomorrow. No ifs, whens or buts about it. It shouldn't matter that the company was sold, that a different grader is looking at it, or anything else. I paid for an accurate grade-- "Consistent, accurate grading" as quoted from SGC's website -- not for a grade that might change tomorrow when management does. What you are suggesting seems to me to be the antithesis of what is supposedly being sold when you purchase their service.

I couldn't disagree more. A company that doesn't change with the times will go bankrupt. If centering (or creases, etc) is now considered critical, then the grading companies must adapt or lose all their business. There is no other option!

The best way to make a change is to change the flip or something to show consistency within the grading timeframe.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter,

First, let me say that this is a purely theoretical discussion because I agree that SGC's customer service has always been good (at least so I hear -- fortunately I have never had a problem that required me to test it). Nonetheless, I could not disagree more with your last post.

If I pay to have a card graded today, it should retain the same grade tomorrow. No ifs, whens or buts about it. It shouldn't matter that the company was sold, that a different grader is looking at it, or anything else. I paid for an accurate grade-- "Consistent, accurate grading" as quoted from SGC's website -- not for a grade that might change tomorrow when management does. What you are suggesting seems to me to be the antithesis of what is supposedly being sold when you purchase their service.

Of course consistency would be preferable, no one is disputing that. But the fact is that SGC's original grading was fundamentally flawed -- it took centering too little into account in arriving at the overall grade. The new owner to his credit recognized that, and to improve the quality of the brand, implemented change. Why should that mean people whose cards were overgraded before are entitled either to a fresh overgrade -- which would hurt the value of the brand -- or to compensation where they had no loss? The flaw in your analysis, as I respectfully see it, is that you assume people were hurt -- I don't think so -- they still have the same card and the same opinion, just one under a different set of standards. And, the fact that the label was changed mitigates against any confusion.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Robextend

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.

The card never changes, so don't blame the grading company opinion.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

The card never changes, so don't blame the grading company opinion.

So then who is held accountable, the card owner? What is the whole point of third party grading if a company is not going to stand behind their service?

[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.