The BCCG problem

[vintagetoppsguy]

I disagree. I'm not sure what you mean by "inflated numerical grades." There is no universal grading system, so TPGs can use whatever system (numbering) that they want. It's up to the buyer to do their homework. The grade and a description of the grade is right there on the BCCG flip.

If I want to start my own TPG service and use alpha letters rather than numbers, isn't that my choice as long as a description of the grade is on the flip?

I just don't see how it's deceitful. It's a matter of uninformed people not knowing what they're buying. I think your guide is great and hopefully will educate people, but people should buy the card, not the flip.

[HRBAKER]

I disagree. I think it was a system devised/developed for primary use by TV sellers to allow them to tie in and take advantage of the grading phenomenon and hype and oversell their wares to typically under-aware and non savvy purchasers.

I do agree it's on the buyer at the end of the day, the under educated are typically always taken advantage of. This particular vehicle I think gives them (Sellers) - whether intentional or not - a tool to do so.

And you are right - there is no universal grading system. It's a mere coincidence that all others (generally accepted) use "8" as NRMT.

At the end of the day it's a matter of who your audience is, most collectors know these cards and flips for what they are and you can't blame a company for finding new ways and places to sell their services.

[mintacular]

I strongly AGREE with the original poster...BCCG adds confusion to the marketplace for newer/novice collectors...Their 5-10 scale makes no sense whatsover and most newbies could logically assume that there would be lower grades from 1-4....All of their grades are "NM or Better, Excellent or Better": Well, those graders should s*** or get off the pot, a grading service is supposed to make a definitive judgement. BCCG is a money-making fraud/scheme and Beckett should not offer such a piss-poor service. But since Beckett is actually a junk operation today it is way too late to save their once good name

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by mintacular

BCCG adds confusion to the marketplace for newer/novice collectors

Pat, just the opposite is true. Nobody has added more confustion to the marketplace than PSA. Go look at the very first issue of Beckett. It came out years before PSA was ever in business. In that magazine, there is a 5 point grading scale with a definition for each grade - Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent and Mint.

Notice you don't see Poor, VG/EX, EX/MT, NM, NM-MT, etc. There were only 5 grades and the system worked. Then came PSA and they told us we've been doing it wrong and that there were 10 grades. BULL$HIT!

I can't say for sure Beckett was the first to define the grading scale, but it's the first time I've ever seen it in print. So, if they defined the grading scale, years before PSA (or any other TPG) shouldn't they have the right to change it? Absolutley! It's THEIRS! I just don't see how the OP can say Beckett "inflated numerical grades" when obviously PSA did it first by going from a 5 point scale to a 10 point scale, and then from a 10 point scale to a 19 point scale.

[campyfan39]

I agree that PSA is to blame for the confusion by expanding the scale from 1-5 to 1-10

[HRBAKER]

If there is a BCCG problem then it's a small one.
Few cards and even fewer folks who probably care.
I don't think they've graded enough cards to cause confusion.

[vintagetoppsguy]

If I submit a card to PSA, it could come back one of 46 different grades. And you guys think BCCG is confusing?

PSA Authentic
PSA 1
PSA 1 MK
PSA 1 OC
PSA 1 MC
PSA 1.5
PSA 2
PSA 2 MK
PSA 2 OC
PSA 2 MC
PSA 2.5
PSA 3
PSA 3 MK
PSA 3 OC
PSA 3 MC
PSA 3.5
PSA 4
PSA 4 MK
PSA 4 OC
PSA 4 MC
PSA 4.5
PSA 5
PSA 5 MK
PSA 5 OC
PSA 5 MC
PSA 5.5
PSA 6
PSA 6 MK
PSA 6 OC
PSA 6 MC
PSA 6.5
PSA 7
PSA 7 MK
PSA 7 OC
PSA 7 MC
PSA 7.5
PSA 8
PSA 8 MK
PSA 8 OC
PSA 8 MC
PSA 8.5
PSA 9
PSA 9 MK
PSA 9 OC
PSA 9 MC
PSA 10

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I can't say for sure Beckett was the first to define the grading scale, but it's the first time I've ever seen it in print. So, if they defined the grading scale, years before PSA (or any other TPG) shouldn't they have the right to change it? Absolutley! It's THEIRS! I just don't see how the OP can say Beckett "inflated numerical grades" when obviously PSA did it first by going from a 5 point scale to a 10 point scale, and then from a 10 point scale to a 19 point scale.

What's wrong with taking a 5 point scale and expanding on it? There's always variances within each grade, some cards that are borderline up or down.. The 10 point scale is perfectly fine...The 19 however, I will agree is pushing it.. PSA's half grades, are really quarter grades in the overall scheme of things..That to me, might be a little too much. But then again Beckett, I believe was the one to initiate half grades..

Now as far as BCCG is concerned. You can't go around having a 5 point scale that runs from 5-10... Why not just have it run from 95-100?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by novakjr

What's wrong with taking a 5 point scale and expanding on it?

Absolutley nothing wrong with it, but you missed my point. My point is that Beckett invented the scale, so why gripe about it when they want to change it? Nobody griped when PSA expanded it to a 10 point scale.

Originally Posted by novakjr

Now as far as BCCG is concerned. You can't go around having a 5 point scale that runs from 5-10... Why not just have it run from 95-100?

Why can't you have a scale that runs from 5-10? Why does it have to start with 1? Why did George Lucas start the Star Wars series with Episode IV? Because it's HIS movie. He can do whatever he wants. Likewise, it is Beckett's grading scale and they can do whatever they want.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Absolutley nothing wrong with it, but you missed my point. My point is that Beckett invented the scale, so why gripe about it when they want to change it? Nobody griped when PSA expanded it to a 10 point scale.



Why can't you have a scale that runs from 5-10? Why does it have to start with 1? Why did George Lucas start the Star Wars series with Episode IV? Because it's HIS movie. He can do whatever he wants. Likewise, it is Beckett's grading scale and they can do whatever they want.

Bad analogy. Lucas didn't start with Episode IV. Through a series of events and a few decades, it eventually became what is know as Episode IV, but originally, it was what it was. Numbers on any scale start at 1(or 0, depending on your view), that's just how it is. Using the number 5, the uninformed can easily be led to believe that it's at least better than 4 possible other grades...And using the number ten on a scale that ends at 10, one should be led to believe that it's the best possible, when we all know that isn't the case with BCCG. Compared to a standard 10 point scale, BCCG managed to skip number a 5 point scale that encompasses random grades between 1 and 8(on that 10 pt. scale) and numbers them from 5-10... The numbers are a clear intent to deceive. If it were just the grades I'd be fine with it, but the obvious bad math is not only retarded but shady as hell.

[RobertGT]

Here is the point of my original post:

Buyer pays $1,500 for a BCCC 10 Jordan RC. Check out the corners and edges. It's an 8. He should have paid $700.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1986-87-flee...item53eadcbeed

Here we have someone paying $420 for a VG Nolan Ryan rookie worth $185:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1968-Topps-C...item19cc2f90f6

And here we another buyer paying $420 for a BCCG 8 Gretzky rookie that's a 5 and worth $170:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1979-80-TOPP...item3f129b9323

I could pull up hundreds of examples like this happening every day on Ebay, so I wouldn't say it's a small problem. There are still plenty of novice collectors out there who only look at the numerical grade or have no clue what the Beckett grading scale is all about. And they are dropping big money. It's the little "don't ask, don't tell" secret among some sellers - and almost every one will have a title like "1975 Topps Joe Blow BGS BCCG 8" in the auction listing as a way to 1) capture search traffic and 2) fool the novice collector.

Should these buyers know better? Of course, and at the end of the day it is on them. I'm simply trying to help people understand what's going on and how they are being taken advantage of. I'm all for everyone making a buck where they can, but let's be honest, this is preying on beginners (or the stupid - whatever you prefer).

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by RobertGT

There are still plenty of novice collectors out there who only look at the numerical grade or have no clue what the Beckett grading scale is all about.

Are you really telling me that they buyers are only looking at the number on the flip, but not looking at the description of the grade which is like 2 millimeters below the number? I just don't buy that. I think they're just stupid.

I keep seeing these phrases like "intent to deceive," "shady as hell" or "preying on begineers" to describe Beckett's business practices. The submitter of the card is getting exactly what they are paying for so I just don't see any of that. They're offering a service which is clearly defined on their website.

It's real simple. If one doesn't like BCCG's system, don't use them.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Pat, just the opposite is true. Nobody has added more confustion to the marketplace than PSA. Go look at the very first issue of Beckett. It came out years before PSA was ever in business. In that magazine, there is a 5 point grading scale with a definition for each grade - Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent and Mint.

Notice you don't see Poor, VG/EX, EX/MT, NM, NM-MT, etc. There were only 5 grades and the system worked. Then came PSA and they told us we've been doing it wrong and that there were 10 grades. BULL$HIT!

Sorry, but PSA didn't invent VG/EX, EX/MT, NM, NM/MT.

Those were around long before the TPA's.

Beckett never fit those grades in their "Price Guides", because the font would be too small, and the price research would be too daunting, the publication landscape being what it was in those days.

Dealers used them all the time.

I will also add, back in those earlier days and being a weekend warrior doing shows all the time...........I never once used the term MINT, to describe a card.

I'd use NM or even NM/MT, but there was always some sort of bug in my head that made me tell myself a true MINT piece of cardboard coming out of a pack of gum, was inherently impossible.

Maybe I was just being silly, I don't know.