Crossovers From SGC's Perspective

[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.