Crossover Issue

[dancollins]

Jantz get serious

[bobbyw8469]

I can totally understand your frustration! I won't get into my incident with SGC here, but let's just say I can relate. In addition to losing thousands of dollars of value, I am sure you also paid a pretty penny to get them all graded. Did the custom inserts they used even fit (some of my 1952 Berk Ross have a gap, some fit perfectly)?? Talk about annoying!

[barrysloate]

It's unclear to me that the cards were penalized because they were submitted in PSA holders. I don't know what effect, if any, that has on the graders. What troubles me most about this, and about grading in general, is that after you complained about the grades, SGC asked you to send half of them back for a review. Why do they have to go through this procedure all over again? Why not get them all right the first time? If grading really is so subjective then what's the point?

Crossing over cards for a regrade is like walking through a minefield. I'm sorry this happened to you, but my opinion is when you buy a card in say a PSA 5 holder, that is what it is at that point in time. Once you send it for a regrade or a crossover, all bets are off.

[bobbyw8469]

Well said Barry....if I believe a grader got it wrong, I get a second opinion. I do it for dentists as well (as one has said I need 3 crowns, and the other said my teeth are fine). I have only sent cards in review a few times (I have NEVER had any cross) enough to tell me that that avenue is NOT the way to go. I have had cards come back that I was 100% POSITIVE look better than the grade on the card. I got my dremmel tool out and resubbed. Had a 1961 Fleer Bob Cousy turn from a '5' into an '8'. Has a 1956 Mantle "Authentic - trimmed", become a '4 (MC)'. I don't do that often, but I do know that those guys are FAR from perfect!!

[benjulmag]

While I understand how you can be frustrated, this seems like a correctible problem -- resubmit them raw to PSA (as you said you plan to do). Presumably SGC did not damage the cards, so if in fact they were downgraded for reasons other than to do with their actual condition, PSA should reslab them with their original grades. And if PSA was not to give a card its original grade, then that would suggest the card was overgraded to start.

I think one of the reasons many collectors prefer SGC is because of the perception they are more strict then PSA. So maybe it's possible the downgrades had nothing to do with bias against PSA? But if you feel it was, going forward maybe the thing to do is not to submit them for cross over in the other company's slab? Also, couldn't you have told SGC that if they knew they were to downgrade the card, to leave the card in the original PSA holder?

Bottom line, as a previous poster said, is that the cards themselves are unchanged. So, if they were inappropriately downgraded, presumably they can be upgraded. I realize the whole thing might be a pain to get back to that point, but at least the option is there.

[barrysloate]

Of course, if he sends them back to PSA raw there is no way he is going to get the exact same grades. They could end up higher or lower, who knows. And if they are lower he has spent a fortune on grading and will lose because of the downgrades. What a pain in the butt.

[Matt E.]

When I read stories likes this it only reaffirms my faith in SGC and why I primarily buy SGC.

Like you I have received lower grades when crossing expensive cards. Usually T205's from PSA to SGC. Each time they had a reasonable explanation why my card received the grade it did (Seems like I usually get bit by erased writing)

Not bashing PSA here, just my two cents.

Dan, Sounds like your beef is they did not call you.

Barry, By having SGC look at them again could be considered good customer service.

EVERYBODY KNOWS SGC GRADES TOUGHER THAN PSA
Matt

[Bicem]

PSA sucks.

[egbeachley]

I imagine the review was to help Brian explain why they got the grades they deserved and wasn't an attempt to regrade.

To say SGC was wrong is ridiculous. The other posibility is that PSA was wrong. Or maybe they were both right based on their particular standards.

I expect they were both right since PSA has loosened their standards over the years.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by dancollins

Jantz get serious

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

You employ SGC to assess the condition of your cards, which they did. And when you get grades lower than what you expected, what do you do?

You make your first thread ever on the main board and blast SGC for doing exactly what you paid them to do.

Not long ago, a board member started a thread asking other members what they thought they contributed to the board.

So with this first thread of yours, what have you contributed?

By the way, I have looked at your T206 set. You are a very fortunate individual.


Jantz

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

This thread is a great example of one of the problems with our society. People doing things under their own free will but when it goes wrong they always try to find someone else to blame and don't take responsiblity for there own actions.

By the Dan you do a nice job of avoiding the questions and only acknowledge the posts that give you a little positive.

It is time to suck it up and move on, you made the decision to submit the cards to SGC under your own free will.

Lee

[Rich Klein]

Probably everyone is a bit at fault here

1) Dan for not realizing that he could ask for a minimum grade. He may never have done this before. In addition, why did he want to move these cards to SGC from PSA. I think there is little doubt that Dan is looking for a profit motive; but ultimately HE needs to take responsibility for not reading or knowing about a minimum grade request. I find myself agreeing with the Behrens brother that he is not accepting his responsibility

Having said that: the problem is "its called fine print" and Dan missed it -- man up to that and you'll get more respect from the other posters. I am, however, sympathetic to his issue - and there is nothing like seeing grades from one company drop when they go to another company (That is amongst the major companies; obviously GEM and PRO. etc, == most of us expect drops from THOSE companies if and when they cross)

2) Brian from SGC could have mentioned, although he does not need to, that there is a minimum grade caveat. It appears from some of these posts, that a quick disucssion BEFORE these cards were submitted that this whole imbroglio could have been avoided. Perhaps this could also serve as a good learning tool for Brian. (I will say that I have met Brian at Leon's dinners and he is certainly a good rep for SGC). And I know things get harried at shows, BUT sometimes taking another 30 seconds, especially with a new client to see exactly what they want, is time well spent. Better to have all the ducks in order (or whatever that horrible metaphor is) rather than have a situation like this pop up. We've all been guilty of that, but the extra 30 seconds can sometimes save you hundreds of hours on the back end

Regards
Rich

[Peter_Spaeth]

Whatever else comes out of this thread, Dan's pic of the pile of cracked SGC slabs is priceless. If third party grading ever goes down in flames, the pic would make a great epitaph.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Whatever else comes out of this thread, Dan's pic of the pile of cracked SGC slabs is priceless. If third party grading ever goes down in flames, the pic would make a great epitaph.

Hasn't GAI already done this once, or is it twice

[Peter_Spaeth]

"When submitting crossover you must state a minimum grade you will accept for each crossover."

So how did Dan do a large submission with NO minimum grade?

[calvindog]

Rich, I understand that in order for everyone to feel good about what went on with Dan it is important to spread the blame around. But the only mention of crossover submissions on SGC's submission form is as follows:

Crossover Cards from other grading services are reviewed for SGC certification. The minimum grade for a crossover must be equal or less than the original grade. SGC will not accept crossover with a higher minimum grade than originally assigned. When submitting crossover you must state a minimum grade you will accept for each crossover.

How can it be considered fine print when the only mention of crossovers on the form is the above information? Regardless, what experienced collector doesn't know the details of crossovers? And isn't the above info clear enough? Should it come in audio or video form as well on the form?

Everyone here has empathy for Dan as he really got hammered due to a clearly honest mistake. But there is something to be said for the fact that Dan was handled by SGC the way any of us are when submitting cards to SGC. There were no mentions of 'special' deals which only the HOF members or high volume submitters get. Didn't that piss everyone off when we read about one board member getting special treatment when submitting his entire collection for a review at PSA?

I'm not saying that any of the third party graders are without fault -- because they all are in certain areas -- but I can't really see any blame on SGC for this one.

[tbob]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Everyone here has empathy for Dan as he really got hammered due to a clearly honest mistake. But there is something to be said for the fact that Dan was handled by SGC the way any of us are when submitting cards to SGC. There were no mentions of 'special' deals which only the HOF members or high volume submitters get. Didn't that piss everyone off when we read about one board member getting special treatment when submitting his entire collection for a review at PSA?

Jeff, you make a good point because I was one of the many who got ticked when C******* got special treatment from PSA.

[thegashousegang]

Whew - finally caught up on this thread. Nothing much to say that hasn't been mentioned already, except that if you are going to send in that many cards to be graded, how could you not have done your 'homework' beforehand...especially if money was the underlying motive.

[tedzan]

As much as I dislike graded cards....when it is necessary to have any of my cards graded, I submit them to SGC.
Brian Dwyer, Derek Grady, Mike Goldberg and the rest of the crew at SGC are the best.
I've had a bad experience (or two) with PSA in the past and that turned me off.

I don't do crossovers, it is a risky business....and, especially when you are going from PSA to SGC.
Crossing-over graded cards to gain a slight edge (and perhaps more $$$$) is not my style.
I guess I'm just a "dinosaur" collector.

But, to each his own.


T-Rex TED

[tedzan]

Barry......et al

Well stated Barry.... and, your prior post (#124) sums up this situation very succinctly......

"No question Dan that the hobby lives and dies by grading. Too bad it evolved that way, but that's the way it is."


BUT GUYS....it doesn't have to be this way....you have "CHOICE".

Choose to enjoy life, by returning to the age old, time-tested hobby of collecting BB cards in their natural state....

UN--freakin--GRADED


I guarantee you, you will enjoy this hobby much more....spend less $$$$$....and, even live longer


This message is from the handful of Net54er's that have an aversion for Graded cards....and, is posted in honor of
our departed Joe P....who would've said it better than me.

[barrysloate]

Joe P. might have said it better...but we wouldn't have understood a word of it.

[glynparson]

Dan you certainly picked an issue I would not have recommended for crossover to SGC. It is my experience they are much tougher on these cards T207 then PSA. These cards tend to have cracks and/or wrinkles which SGC will almost always hit you much harder for then PSA. I tend to think SGC is more lenient on corner wear across the board on mid grade T cards. The fact is there are certain issues and or flaws that SGC will grade harsher then PSA and vice versa. If you do resubmit to PSA please let us know how you do.