Crossover Issue

[nolemmings]

Most of what I would like to say has already been covered, and I have no problem with what SGC did here. I would be upset if there was some wink and an a nod deal where larger submitters or those friendly with the SGC echelon get bumps on that basis. Let the cards stand or fall by themselves.

I would agree with Scott--only one of the cards shown looks harshly graded, and I'm going only on the basis of a scan that might not reveal everything.

While the bias thing might have some visceral appeal, it makes little business sense. SGC has to know it runs the risk of losing customers by downgrading many of their crossovers, who are unlikely to be pleased with such result. Moreover, it would be far easier to just take a batch of 100 cards and give them a straight cross with no real examination. It's not hard for me to imagine a blurry-eyed grader at the end of the day seeing an opportunity to cross 100 off his to-do list in about ninety seconds by just picking 5 to bump, four to downgrade and passing the buck on the rest. Who's going to question, or really even be upset? The fact that they changed grades on so many at least suggests to me that they took the time to look at each card.

Next, what is the point of "they lowered it by a full grade". Of course they did--they have no half grades under 60 that could apply. If it's not worthy of a strict cross, that's what happens. Either request min grade or roll the dice.

Finally, this whole notion in the original post that you could "live with" 10-15 cards being lowered, but now your collection is devalued by "thousands" is bogus to me. If the cards truly are 5s and you want them in SGC holders, crack them out and submit them raw. They will come back 5s and you'll be out 52x the grading fee of $6 or $7. No devaluation, no "bias". Of course, if they are accurately graded at less than 5, then why blame SGC? If the number on the holder is so damn important, send them to PSA for 52x their grading fee--again, you will not be out thousands and your faith in humanity will be restored.

[barrysloate]

This whole concept of graders having a bias when they see a card holdered by their competition is very troubling to me, assuming it is true.

Are they grading the card you submit to them, or are they playing politics? If it's the latter, then they are not doing their job, which is to grade cards, period.

[botn]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

This whole concept of graders having a bias when they see a card holdered by their competition is very troubling to me, assuming it is true.

Are they grading the card you submit to them, or are they playing politics? If it's the latter, then they are not doing their job, which is to grade cards, period.

The same "bias" occurs when you review SGC graded material with SGC and PSA material with PSA. Most of the time you will not get the desired result of a bump. So do we conclude the submitter thinks his/her cards are nicer than than they are or do the graders get influenced by the number of the flip and hesitate to change the grade?

[Orioles1954]

When I attempt a *bump* at SGC, I often include a short and honest note about why I feel that particular card should be graded higher than it is. More often than not, it works.

[Orioles1954]

Of the last ten cards I crossed over from PSA to SGC (all 1933 Delong or Tattoo Orbit) the results were.....

4 came back higher in a SGC holder
4 came back the same in a SGC holder
2 were retuned because they didn't meet the minimum grade.

When dealing with a grading company, it's virtually impossible to have exact, 100% robotic results time after time after time. The sheer volume they deal with and that pesky human factor won't allow it. I grade hundreds and hundreds of cards a day at my job. I like to think I'm very consistent and one of the best in the business. However, there are times on a day to day basis where there is a slight variance. I think it's unreasonable to expect a complete, scientific approach to grading....it is what it is. For my money, I collect SGC.