Crossovers From SGC's Perspective

[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?

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;809741

So does this mean Dan consented? And if so what is he complaining about?[/QUOTE]



Of course he did thats why he didn't bother with the minimum grade on the crossed cards.

[edhans]

A thoughtful, thorough and well written statement of SGC's position. Your product and service is far and away the best in the industry. Thank you Brian.

[Jacklitsch]

Don't know whether this will add to the discussion but...

Back in 2006 a former board member and I conducted an experiment. I took 10 SGC "AUTH" T206 cards, cracked them out, and submitted them to PSA. The bet was on the over/under as to what PSA would do. My buddy was so sure that PSA would reject most, if not all, that he agreed to pay the grading fees of more than two passed muster.

The results: (Remember all 10 were graded "AUTH" by SGC)

2 PSA 4 (Including a McGraw)
3 PSA 5 (Including Speaker) and
1 PSA 6

6 out of 10 received numerical grades.

[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......