SGC Labels

[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.

[chaddurbin]

i don't think the grading scale changed that much in 10 years...just that the old SGC regime merkle et al before derek grady was not very good graders and the current people at SGC don't want to be held accountable for those mistakes in the old holders.

from personal experience i place the "SG" slabs above GAI but below PSA in term of trust that the card is not altered (and we all know psa's rep).

[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.

[steve B]

The problem is that all grading is subjective, and even one persons standards can change with time. I never used to care about centering. I even collect miscut cards as miscuts. Back when grading was new I was against it because they assigned a grade based partly on aesthetic issues like centering and registration. I felt then that the grade should be based purely on the degree of preservation of the cardboard.

The earlier published grading standards were mostly about corners, creases and other defects. If I recall correctly, centering got added in a fairly brief time before the grading companies started. If you look at the grading standards in the first few beckett guides you'll see a far different standard than is used now. (The same or more lax standards are still used at flea markets and BCCG) None of the standards can cover everything that can happen to a card. And each company treats different defects in its own way. If you really want a strict unchanging standard I'd be perfectly happy to revert to the 1981 standards. And I've a load of "vg" cards that I'll be happy to sell at todays VG prices. I'd be surprised if any of them actually would grade as VG these days.

Steve

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree, and my point is that if you resubmit a card already graded by SGC and it comes back at a lower grade, you receive some sort of compensation. Weather anyone agrees with that or not, I always thought that was what SGC did in these instances.

I am not arguing the fact that standards and opinions change, because they do and I have seen it happen first hand when I have submitted cards for review. My issue is that I believe SGC should be held accountable for the "SG" flips as well. I would not consider those submissions to be a "crossover".

[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.

[terjung]

I'm really not sure what the whole debate is about. I look at it like this...

The card in the SG holder was presumably graded at standards consistent with the standards at that time. That (in the SG slab) has a specific value of X in the market today. Cards in a modern SGC holder are similarly graded at standards consistent with those in place at that time. That (in the SGC slab) has a specific value of Y in the market today. Does X=Y? Maybe, but not necessarily and I don't see it as SGC's responsibility to ensure that X=Y. The standards weren't necessarily the same and the market adjusts for that - just like it does for the perceived overgrading by GAI in the past. So, just like a crossover candidate, you have to weigh is it worth it to try to get it into an SGC slab?

I ask... why is that necessary? It is due to the market reflection of the acknowledgment of the difference (or at least the potential difference). Therein lies your answer. A buyer similarly weighs the risk, determines the value to them in its current holder, and also determines if they even care what holder it is in. Perhaps it will be broken out anyway and put into a raw collection...

[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.

[Kenny Cole]

OK, I get it. An 8 is an 8 unless its really a 7 or a 6, and that's OK. "Consistent, accurate grading" is neither consistent nor accurate and that's fine too because things change. However, the card hasn't changed. Therefore, you can't blame the grader that you paid to do a job if it is later determined that he/she was wrong and the job was poorly performed.

Deep down inside I have always known that card grading was more scam than science. The comments here simply reinforce what I already knew. Where do I sign up for a job that pays me to present a subjective opinion as fact until its wrong, at which time it just becomes a subjective opinion, subject to change, again? Getting paid to not be accountable for what one says or does sounds like a great gig.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Getting paid to not be accountable for what one says or does sounds like a great gig.

But do we know for sure that SGC won't compensate at all? I know the majority feels they shouldn't be held accountable, but can anyone confirm for sure that they treat the "SG" cards as a crossover? So far I didn't hear a definitive answer.

[cozmokramer]

With all the different labels out there... it seems as though collectors always seem to prefer to have the latest one. As crazy as it sounds, cards recently encapsulated with a newer design PSA label sometimes sells for more than the same card with an older label.

[showtime]

Originally Posted by cozmokramer

With all the different labels out there... it seems as though collectors always seem to prefer to have the latest one. As crazy as it sounds, cards recently encapsulated with a newer design PSA label sometimes sells for more than the same card with an older label.

not exactly. those collecting bgs seem to prefer and pay more to have the old bgs label with the subs printed on the back. the explanation for this from buyers and what people list on auction descriptions......"this card has the old bgs label from when bgs had tougher standards with their grading" is this true or not, who knows. also people seem to prefer the old bvg labels that were bronze for grades 8 and up. these cards are believed to be stronger cards again from when bvg was (commonly believed to be) tougher on grading.

i always see auctions with the old bgs label and people saying resub this for a higher grade. to me thats mostly just a sale tactic to try and get more money. i really dont see that working. bgs has always seemed pretty consistant to me. however, bvg hasnt been so consistant (to me at least)

[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?