SGC Labels

[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?

[Kenny Cole]

Peter,

My point is people are purchasing a "service" that rather clearly isn't as advertised and promoted. When you pay for a card to be graded, you are supposedly buying expertise, consistency and accuracy. Presumably, you are also buying some degree of objectivity because an 8 is supposed to have discernable characteristics that differ from a 6. Where is the "consistent and accurate" grading if what is graded as an 8 today is a 7 or a 6 under some new standard tomorrow? For some reason, the image of a herd of sheep patiently waiting for their chance to be fleeced comes to mind.

What if some poor schmuck is unfortunate enough to actually believe in the grade given, pay 8 money for a card he can't hold in his hand and can only view in a scan, and later learn that his 8 is now really a 6? Why should he be out the price difference between the two grades when it was purchased based on a reasonable belief that the card was actually in the grade SGC represented it to be? As I understand your position, it certainly isn't the grading company's fault that "things change" so the buyer is just SOL. I have a big problem with that.

I understand that standards may change. When they do and there is a loss suffered as a result of that change, I think that SGC, or any other company for that matter, needs to make things right. That is my point. You obviously disagree which is fine.

[barrysloate]

Kenny- I support your argument but let me play devil's advocate for a moment: suppose you have a card with an old SGC label that is an 84, and you resubmit it to get a new label and it comes back an 86. Would you feel any differently about the lack of consistency?

[glynparson]

but I know for a fact that when i worked there all cards in SGC holders regardless of generation of label were covered by the guarantee 100%. SBC cards were not covered but all the MErkle SGC cards were. I would have to assume that this is still the same policy but I would just give Brian or Mike a call if I needed to know with 100% certainty.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Where is the "consistent and accurate" grading if what is graded as an 8 today is a 7 or a 6 under some new standard tomorrow?

If you paid 8 money for an 8 slab, you got it. If you paid 8 money for a 6 card, you're overpaying. Next time look at the card, especially if we're referring to centering.

[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.