Bccg

[GehrigFan]

Originally Posted by Matt

Mark - any response?

Sure - we are still a business. A lot of people still choose to use this for inexpensive authentication and grading of their cards, and no sensible business model would turn that much revenue away.

[hunterdutchess]

Originally Posted by GehrigFan

Sure - we are still a business. A lot of people still choose to use this for inexpensive authentication and grading of their cards, and no sensible business model would turn that much revenue away.

Thats why I think you should not change your current policy. If someone has a Mantle rookie or a high value card and they want it in a BCCG slab then why turn them down?

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by hunterdutchess

Thats why I think you should not change your current policy. If someone has a Mantle rookie or a high value card and they want it in a BCCG slab then why turn them down?

Because someday, some dealer will sell that Clemente to a kid, or a spouse, or a new collector, maybe sight unseen, by claiming: Becketts graded this a 5! You know it's pretty nice!"

Once that person finds out they have been ripped off, (And to clarify, it's NOT Beckett that ripped them off. It will be the dealer.) they will have a sour taste for the hobby for a long time.

Ever since Dudley Moore and Bo Derek, our country has graded everything on a scale of 1 to 10. We haven't been asked to adjust to a scale that starts at 5.

[hunterdutchess]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

Because someday, some dealer will sell that Clemente to a kid, or a spouse, or a new collector, maybe sight unseen, by claiming: Becketts graded this a 5! You know it's pretty nice!"

Once that person finds out they have been ripped off, (And to clarify, it's NOT Beckett that ripped them off. It will be the dealer.) they will have a sour taste for the hobby for a long time.

Ever since Dudley Moore and Bo Derek, our country has graded everything on a scale of 1 to 10. We haven't been asked to adjust to a scale that starts at 5.

If some one has $ to spend on a Clemente or any other high value card and they can not read BBCG 5 "poor or better" than not to be mean but a fool and his money are soon departed. I have problem with the other b.s. grading companies that have every card graded a "10" or have trimmed cards graded with a high number, not BCCG.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by hunterdutchess

If some one has $ to spend on a Clemente or any other high value card and they can not read BBCG 5 "poor or better" than not to be mean but a fool and his money are soon departed..

Isn't "Poor or Better" already confusing? When a card is graded "Poor - 1" you at least know what flaws to expect. I agree 100% with Matt's suggestion on making BCCG only for high volume submissions.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by hunterdutchess

If some one has $ to spend on a Clemente or any other high value card and they can not read BBCG 5 "poor or better" than not to be mean but a fool and his money are soon departed. I have problem with the other b.s. grading companies that have every card graded a "10" or have trimmed cards graded with a high number, not BCCG.

I guess my ethical standards are higher than yours. I want more from a grading company, especially one associated with a good company like Becketts. I don't want my wife, or yours, to think she's doing a nice thing and pick me up a BCCG 7 for Christmas some year.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

Because someday, some dealer will sell that Clemente to a kid, or a spouse, or a new collector, maybe sight unseen, by claiming: Becketts graded this a 5! You know it's pretty nice!"

Once that person finds out they have been ripped off, (And to clarify, it's NOT Beckett that ripped them off. It will be the dealer.) they will have a sour taste for the hobby for a long time.

Ever since Dudley Moore and Bo Derek, our country has graded everything on a scale of 1 to 10. We haven't been asked to adjust to a scale that starts at 5.

you asked....

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Leon

you asked....

I knew I could count on someone. I didn't think it would be you. My money was on David M.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by GehrigFan

Sure - we are still a business. A lot of people still choose to use this for inexpensive authentication and grading of their cards, and no sensible business model would turn that much revenue away.

I think a responsible one might - sometimes businesses make decisions that are for the overall good, even if it adversely effects their bottom line, though the number of such companies is diminishing all the time.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by GehrigFan

Sure - we are still a business. A lot of people still choose to use this for inexpensive authentication and grading of their cards, and no sensible business model would turn that much revenue away.

Mark,

I realize that BCCG wasn't your idea (at least I think it wasn't) and that the decision to use this system is one you defend, for your employer. But I have to disagree with the statement you made above.

"...no sensible business model would turn that much revenue away."

Not every business decision can be boiled down to just dollars and cents. Coachs Corner has a business model that has worked for them for many years. It generates plenty of revenue. But it's bad for the hobby.

Beckett's has always been about things that are good for the hobby. Catalogs, checklists, price guides, magazines, honest grading. Heck, I can even look the other way while you guys are grading and running auctions. The integrity of you company has convinced me that there is enough separation between these divisions that I can live with you doing both.

But BCCG is bad for the hobby as it exists now. The grading scale is confusing to many, especially any novice collectors. While the intention of BCCG is acceptable, the system that allowed anyone to use it, for any card, was bad. To many cards were entombed with numbers between 5 and 9, that aren't what they first present themselves to be.

The change to establishing a $ value cut-off of $300 is a huge step in the right direction. Whoever thought of this, decided for this, or implemented this should be commended.

But Matt's suggestion of a minimum number of cards on a submission is a great additional step. Maybe 1000 is too high for you, but there should be something that stops an individual collector from using this system.

[Jay Wolt]

Originally Posted by GehrigFan

Sure - we are still a business. A lot of people still choose to use this for inexpensive authentication and grading of their cards, and no sensible business model would turn that much revenue away.

Mark, but if you didn't offer this service, wouldn't the submitter just use your other service to submit their cards?
Quite possibly you may not lose as much revenue as you think

[Exhibitman]

No matter what justifications are posted BCCG is just a way for Beckett to make money by enabling TV hucksters to sell worthless crap to ignorant rubes at a vast profit. It is reprehensible in every respect.

No offense personally to Mark...

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No matter what justifications are posted BCCG is just a way for Beckett to make money by enabling TV hucksters to sell worthless crap to ignorant rubes at a vast profit. It is reprehensible in every respect.

Thank you for someone finally acknowledging the elephant in the room. Lunch is on me.

[hunterdutchess]

How about changing the scale to this:

1-poor or better
2-good or better
3-very good or better
5-excellent or better
7-near mint or better
9-mint or better

Problem solved?

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by hunterdutchess

How about changing the scale to this:

1-poor or better
2-good or better
3-very good or better
5-excellent or better
7-near mint or better
9-mint or better

Problem solved?

That would be an improvement, but I don't understand the "or better" part. More importantly, how do you deal with all the cards already out there under the BCCG label?

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No matter what justifications are posted BCCG is just a way for Beckett to make money by enabling TV hucksters to sell worthless crap to ignorant rubes at a vast profit. It is reprehensible in every respect.

No offense personally to Mark...

That's kinda the way I see it. Certainly no disrespect meant as well to Mark, oh sure to the TV hucksters.