BVG is inconsistent

[ethicsprof]

i'm with scott.
there was a time i would've automatically run away from bvg but now i'd say they're ok. still, i'd go sgc first with bvg and psa about the same. IMHO

best,
barry

[tiger8mush]

Put me in the minority, but I liked their system back then. The surface of this card graded a 1.5 (in between "poor" and "fair"). Its otherwise a decent looking card, so the other grades brought it up the max it was allowed to go (I believe "1" grade higher than its lowest mark) so it gets a 2.5.

Had they graded the card a "5", sure lets rip them apart. If it was rebacked and not caught, a reprint, trimmed, color added, etc then I'd see a good reason to called them "terrible". But c'mon, it was graded a 2.5! Haven't we seen SGC and PSA slabbed cards with paper loss graded a 2? So we're ripping BVG cuz they gave a card a 2.5?

[Ladder7]

I think it's good to scrutinize the TPG's. No doubt they read this site.

I owned mostly BVG at one time. Many I'd crossed over to PSA received the same grade and one scored higher. I find them to be accurate -at least with all mine.

I'd have rec'd a 1 or 1.5 on that Murphy, accurately.

Things to consider; Beauty is subjective., It's just a hobby myth, kind people DO exist., This grader's name could have been Murphy. Perhaps he had a blind-date that night and in a hurry to hit the lanes. Or Beckett doesn't provide random substance.

[DanP]

That's funny, I was just looking at this card and thought "I'm sure SGC and PSA would grade it a "1" because of the paper loss on the back". I'd guess that's why it is still in a BVG holder.
http://cgi.ebay.com/1948-LEAF-8-SATC...item230ee9dd56

However, my personal opinion is that this card should be a "2".

I don't think back damage should downgrade a card as severly as it would if the same damage was on the front (I know I'm in the miniority here).

I have quite a few SGC 10's with some back damage that fit this critieria.
https://picasaweb.google.com/danp306...33316378810738

Dan

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Put me in the minority, but I liked their system back then. The surface of this card graded a 1.5 (in between "poor" and "fair"). Its otherwise a decent looking card, so the other grades brought it up the max it was allowed to go (I believe "1" grade higher than its lowest mark) so it gets a 2.5.

Had they graded the card a "5", sure lets rip them apart. If it was rebacked and not caught, a reprint, trimmed, color added, etc then I'd see a good reason to called them "terrible". But c'mon, it was graded a 2.5! Haven't we seen SGC and PSA slabbed cards with paper loss graded a 2? So we're ripping BVG cuz they gave a card a 2.5?

Rob hit the nail on the head on this one. If you'll look at any BVG graded card that lists the sub-grades, the final grade will always be 1 grade above the lowest sub-grade - at least 99.99% of the time. I believe that they got the surface sub-grade right on this card - between poor and fair. Therefore, they were consistent with their grading scale on this card even though we wouldn't usually expect a card with paper loss to receive a 2.5.

[Leon]

Personally I will buy BVG graded cards all day long. I think they are consistent and a bit harsh in their grading.