Crossovers From SGC's Perspective

[spacktrack]

Each case has its own set of circumstances, but we will always work with the customer to make sure they are made whole. You may remember that earlier this year, we broke a Fan Craze card out of another company's holder only to discover ball point pen was added to the surface. In that case, we graded the card Authentic, given the alteration, and made up the difference in value.

[barrysloate]

Brian- in the example you cited, you made up the difference in value based on the other company's grading error. So in the end your company was financially penalized for their mistake. Somehow that doesn't seem right.

[spacktrack]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Brian- in the example you cited, you made up the difference in value based on the other company's grading error. So in the end your company was financially penalized for their mistake. Somehow that doesn't seem right.

Barry--yes, it does stink, but it's part of the business for us. We view crossovers as a very important element of our business. We know it's a legitimate service and a way for customers to submit cards. There are a few instances where we are left "holding the bag", but stepping up and making things right is the best way to handle it. Try and explain to a customer that a crease that was missed before the card was cracked out wasn't put there by someone at SGC accidentally.

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Brian,

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response. I agree that it would be irrational for a business trying to attract new customers to let petty bias come in way of "calling it as you see it", and that often you bear the brunt of the "shoot the messenger" mentality. That said, based on substance of the previous thread, it would seem that maybe SGC, to minimize the prospects of future disgruntled customers, should revisit its practice of making sure customers are aware that they have the option to have the card stay in the original holder and not be downgraded. Something seems to have slipped through the cracks with the previous poster and perhaps with more attention to communication future occurrences could be avoided. Maybe one way to accomplish this is before you execute a consented downgrade, you a second time correspond with the customer to reconfirm that he/she is okay with that. Sometimes people might change their minds when they realize that such an outcome is no longer a hypothetical possibility but instead an imminent real occurrence. Also too SGC should be particularly careful not to inadvertently give a prospective customer a false impression of what to expect. I recognize that SGC is not intentionally trying to do that, but sometimes in the zeal to attract new business, poeple can say things that can be misinterpreted. I'm not saying that happened in this instance, only that you should be particularly sensitive to the issue and err on the side of overly pessimistic assessments. It's always nicer when a customer is pleasantly surprised with the results. Whenever I send things to my conservator, he always downplays what to expect. Maybe that is why I keep going back to him.

Corey--it appears to us that the issue with the poster on the other thread is not that SGC failed to follow his instructions, it is that he was not pleased with the outcome. As mentioned, we have customers who take downgrades for any number of reasons. The original poster mentioned himself that continuity in his collection was a goal.

To your point about checking before a downgrade...The reason for minimum grades is so that the order can proceed through grading with clear instructions for the graders. If an order had to be reviewed by a grader, a preliminary grade given, a phone call made to the customer for approval of the grade, and then back to grading, it would bottleneck the operation. We will call in circumstances where us or the customer is not clear on the instructions.

As for false impressions, we rarely send a grader to accept submissions at a show, so no promises are ever made about the outcome of a submission because it would be foolish to do so. We always say that the cards will be graded the best way they can.

We understand your points--just outlining our take.

[kmac32]

In general, I like SGC grading and have had only one situation Where I was unhappy with the service. I had a Koester's bread Elmer Miller that I cracked out of a PSA slab for submission. The card came back labled as a W575-1. Looking in hindsight, should have submitted it while still in the PSA slab. The grade this card should have received was not the issue, it was the classification. Not happy with the result and the explanation from SGC was borderline at best. With all that said, My collection is all in SGC holders and will continue to be in SGC holders.

Kmac

[T206Collector]

Thank you Brian for taking the time to come on here and give us a full and detailed explanation.

[glchen]

Brian,

Does the declared value or the grading tier under which the card is submitted have any effect on how a card is graded or how many graders or which graders (i.e., more experienced graders) look at the card?

[Exhibitman]

FWIW, I had a question raised by SGC on a submission where they wanted to make sure I was OK with cracking out the card and putting it into a lesser SGC slab. Their customer service is first-rate.

[spacktrack]

Originally Posted by glchen

Brian,

Does the declared value or the grading tier under which the card is submitted have any effect on how a card is graded or how many graders or which graders (i.e., more experienced graders) look at the card?

All cards are graded the same way. The more expensive cards may have more time spent on them, but all of our graders are experienced. We have had the same grading team in place for roughly ten years with a brief departure of Derek Grady before his return to the company.

[benjulmag]

Brian,

Thanks for the reply. I understand your point about the adverse impact upon your operation from the making of confirmatory calls before executing downgrades. That is a business decision whether the inconvenience/inefficiencies caused by such a practice is worth the potential reduction in bad publicity such as the thread we just had. I wasn't saying you did anything wrong, only that sometimes businesses find it in their interest to go above and beyond to try to avoid customer disappointment. There have been times in my business that, despite having a consent to take a particular action, when I learned that it would have an unexpected adverse impact, I sought a second consent before going forward. My business is different from yours though, so I hear you that this may not be practical for SGC. I'm sure you must find it frustrating to so often be on the receiving end of the "shoot the messenger" mentality, and in some cases to be lambasted for simply being better than the competition by detecting previously unnoticed defects.

[glchen]

Thanks, Brian. Appreciate the response.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"We will never assume that a customer will accept a lower grade. Any cards that are lowered as part of the crossover service are done so because the customer has consented to it."

So does this mean Dan consented? And if so what is he complaining about?

[yanks4]

Brian`s well thought out and thorough post is exactly why many of us use SGC exclusively....A couple of years ago I sent a number of cards for cross over and because the graders were not sure about a large percentage crossing over I received a call from Bryan to ask me wether I might accept possible downgrades...He did this I believe to save me my time and money...They could have just sent them back marked didn`t make minimum grade........Frankly since then I look at PSA cards very carefully......