Crossover Issue

[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.

[dancollins]

Both SGC and PSA are very inconsistent at best! I would have had put minumum grades on them but I like having a whole set type all graded by the same company. I see problems with both and I am fully aware of PSA issues, I figured SGC would do better. I have bought, sold and upgraded hundreds and hundreds of graded tobacco cards and I have always noticed that PSA was stricter on condition. BOTH SGC and PSA do not cross very often.... Last year I purchased a T206 Chase blue portrait from another member on here it was an SGC 80/6 with a piedmont fact. 42 back and I sent it to PSA and they would not cross it due to minumum grade. I popped it out sent it back raw and got a 6.5 That is just one of many many examples I can give. Bottom line is I feel as though I was ripped off by SGC and Barry is absolutely right they should have done it right the first time. If it were 10 or 15 I could have lived with that not 52. I just spent 2 hours popping all of them out and I can see some of their downgrades but many were just flat out under graded and this has been a very costly lesson and horrible experience. Grading is actually very annoying but the cards are worth more in those stupid holders.

[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.

[D. Bergin]

So in the end these cards will have been graded three separate times, been handled and busted out of plastic cases a couple times over and will somehow be the exact same cards they were before they ever saw a holder to begin with?

I imagine I'm a lot clumsier then everybody else in the world.