SGC Labels

[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.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Robextend

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.

At the risk of causing trouble for my favorite grading company..., I think they'll be open Monday.

[Robextend]

They are my fav too...I don't wanna see anymore "SGC is Closed" threads from Brian!

[teetwoohsix]

I agree Kenny.What I guess I don't understand is-have the grading standards really changed "that much"?

Maybe someone who has taken an old SG graded card and resubmitted it to them could chime in with their outcome...........

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kenny I am not sure what your point is any more. Should SGC simply have frozen their grading system even though it clearly was out of sync to avoid inconsistency, and remained forever out of sync? Should SGC blindly cross over cards graded under the old system even if they are clearly overgraded under the new system? What are you suggesting?

[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)

[chaddurbin]

with prewar cards, stay away from bgs holders with the subs...because beckett sucked and there's alot of altered and trimmed cards in there.

[Robextend]

I agree with Quan, I know I have heard on at least 3 occasions where those old BGS slabs were not able to crossover due to trims and other alterations.

[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?