The BCCG problem

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by theseeker

I'm not a PSA fan. However, their 1-10 scale was established as the industy standard by virtue of their early, dominant entry into a fledgling market. Beckett's use of the past and present standard of a 1-5 grading scale for it's card price guide and a 1-10 grading scale for it's premium grading service is all well and good. BUT, the use of a 1-5 grading scale that starts at 6 through 10, for a substandard service branch, is an obvious attempt at deception. It sets up an avenue for unethical sellers to submit cards to BCCS with the intent to deceive prospective buyers. Other than that, there is no real reason for anyone to use that particular service AND Beckett's knows it. I really lost all repect for Beckett's when they hatched that plan.

Yeah, sure, as always, it's buyer beware. It's also yet another industry eyesore stemming from greed and adding to an ever declining market.

Exactly!!! You can't tell me that the people at Beckett didn't know what would happen from the start...They had to. They knew the significance of the number 10, and they found a way to get people to give them money in exchange for a 10 on sub-par cards that otherwise probably would've never been submitted. They played off of the deceptive nature of the hobby and decided to cash in on it.

[mintacular]

...

[David W]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Exactly!!! You can't tell me that the people at Beckett didn't know what would happen from the start...They had to. They knew the significance of the number 10, and they found a way to get people to give them money in exchange for a 10 on sub-par cards that otherwise probably would've never been submitted. They played off of the deceptive nature of the hobby and decided to cash in on it.

If there wasn't at least some intent to satisfy some large bulk submitters with misleading grades of "10" it seems more logical they would have run their five point scale from 1 to 5.

But ever since Bo Derek a "10" has been what people wanted, not a "5".

And HSC wouldn't have submitted as many cards hoping for "5's"....

So grandma surfing ebay or watching HSC hears "This Derek Jeter card has been graded a "10" by Beckett" and doesn't understand the difference in grading scales and plunks down $50 for a birthday present thinking she got a deal.

So I guess everyone is happy, HSC/Ebay dealer makes money, BCCG makes money, BCCG stockholders make money, and granny thinks she got a deal.

And that folks is the beauty of the free market system......

[tonyo]

I prefer raw, but do like the extra security of buying more expensive cards (for me) in a slab just for the increased odds that I'd be buying an authentic unaltered card. Despite the difference in grading scales, is there any reason to think a BCCG card has any more chance of being a fake or altered than PSA, SGC, or BGS ?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by David W

So grandma surfing ebay or watching HSC hears "This Derek Jeter card has been graded a "10" by Beckett" and doesn't understand the difference in grading scales and plunks down $50 for a birthday present thinking she got a deal.

Wow, what a nice grandma. OK, how about this one. Using your example above, let's say grandma is surfing eBay for a Derek Jeter card that has been graded a "10" and comes across one from SGC (their lowest grade possible) and doesn't understand the difference in grading scales and plunks down $50 for a birthday present thinking she got a deal.

If grandma doesn't understand the grading scale and thinks a 10 is a 10 is a 10, then what's the difference in my example and yours? There is none!

So by your logic SGC is being deceptive as well by offering a grade of 10, right? So if you're complaining about BCCG's 10, why not complain about SGC's 10? Come on, you can't have it both ways! How can you tell me that BCCG's 10 could be confusing to someone that doesn't know the grading scale, but SGC's 10 isn't? Please answer that!

That question isn't only addressed to DavidW, but also to the others that said BCCGs 10 was deceptive.

[David W]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Wow, what a nice grandma. OK, how about this one. Using your example above, let's say grandma is surfing eBay for a Derek Jeter card that has been graded a "10" and comes across one from SGC (their lowest grade possible) and doesn't understand the difference in grading scales and plunks down $50 for a birthday present thinking she got a deal.

If grandma doesn't understand the grading scale and thinks a 10 is a 10 is a 10, then what's the difference in my example and yours? There is none!

So by your logic SGC is being deceptive as well by offering a grade of 10, right? So if you're complaining about BCCG's 10, why not complain about SGC's 10? Come on, you can't have it both ways! How can you tell me that BCCG's 10 could be confusing to someone that doesn't know the grading scale, but SGC's 10 isn't? Please answer that!

That question isn't only addressed to DavidW, but also to the others that said BCCGs 10 was deceptive.

I don't know (or really care) if they are being deceptive or not, my point is that uninformed casual buyers don't know BCCG grades on a five point scale from 5 to 10. It's no coincidence they don't go from 1 to 5. As for SGC and their weird grading scale, at least a "10" from them is labeled "Poor", not NM/M. I've got no idea why SGC doesn't go to the 1 to 10 scale like everybody else (except BCCG)..... Maybe stubborness as the counter culture grading company or something??????

BCCG is just a way for everybody to make more money and for granny to get "DEALS" on Jeter and A Rod and Peyton Manning and Jeremy Lin "Super Shiny Jumbo Refracting limited edition # of $20,000" cards.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by David W

As for SGC and their weird grading scale, at least a "10" from them is labeled "Poor"...

David, the premisis for your original argument (which is the same point others have made) is that "granny" (or any uneducated buyer) could be confused by BCCG's grading scale by assuming that one TPG's 10 is the same as another TPG's 10.

My counter argument was that if "granny" (or any uneducated buyer) could be confused by BCCG's 10, then why couldn't they be confused by SGC's 10?

Now you try to prove your argument by stating "at least a "10" from them (SGC) is labeled "Poor..." Sorry, but that's where you lose your argument and here's why. We've already covered this objection. See post #17 where I tried to defend BCCG by saying that they are putting a description of the grade on their flip, and then the following post where the OP said that buyers aren't reading the description, only the number grade. So, the word "Poor" or anything else doesn't matter - only the number (grade) assigned to the flip.

So, I ask my question again. How can you tell me that BCCG's 10 could be confusing to someone that doesn't know the grading scale, but SGC's 10 isn't?

Edited to add 2 things:

1.) At least David came back on here to try to defend his position. Nothing but silence from the others who tried to make the same argument that David did.

2.) I agree with David that it is just a way for BCCG to make more money. But he says that likes it a bad thing. What's wrong with making money? When did companies that make a profit become evil? Didn't PSA exapand their grading scale (the use of half grades) to make more money?

[David W]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

David, the premisis for your original argument (which is the same point others have made) is that "granny" (or any uneducated buyer) could be confused by BCCG's grading scale by assuming that one TPG's 10 is the same as another TPG's 10.

My counter argument was that if "granny" (or any uneducated buyer) could be confused by BCCG's 10, then why couldn't they be confused by SGC's 10?

Now you try to prove your argument by stating "at least a "10" from them (SGC) is labeled "Poor..." Sorry, but that's where you lose your argument and here's why. We've already covered this objection. See post #17 where I tried to defend BCCG by saying that they are putting a description of the grade on their flip, and then the following post where the OP said that buyers aren't reading the description, only the number grade. So, the word "Poor" or anything else doesn't matter - only the number (grade) assigned to the flip.

So, I ask my question again. How can you tell me that BCCG's 10 could be confusing to someone that doesn't know the grading scale, but SGC's 10 isn't?

Edited to add 2 things:

1.) At least David came back on here to try to defend his position. Nothing but silence from the others who tried to make the same argument that David did.

2.) I agree with David that it is just a way for BCCG to make more money. But he says that likes it a bad thing. What's wrong with making money? When did companies that make a profit become evil? Didn't PSA exapand their grading scale (the use of half grades) to make more money?

1 - SGC's grading scale confuses the bejeebers out of me, are you happy>>>>
:-) - I think an 84 should be about the same as an 8.5, but it's not.....so I'll concede you the point.

2 - I own my own business, I have no problem with BCCG making money, or anyone else. :-)

3 - As for TPG companies, I've only got a handful of graded cards, they serve a purpose, and I hope they all succeed but I never renewed my PSA membership a couple years, and they never seemed to miss me, so I never went back. :-)
4 - Never, never argue with anyone named David. You will never win. :-) Unless it's my wife, in which case she wins (but only when I let her)

[alanu]

The one difference I see with Beckett is that they are one company with 2 different grading scales... which can create some confusion.

I'll have to admit that when Beckett first came out with BCCG I was somewhat confused and I consider myself a somewhat avid collector. Now I just ignore all BCCG slabs.

[MikeU]

If I had a brand like Beckett, I would not want BCCG floating around to tarnish it. BCCG must get far more submissions than I realize or BCCG really does nothing to tarnish the brand. Not sure, but has always puzzled me a bit.

[HRBAKER]

David,
Whether you start the thread or post in one started by someone else to me is an irrelevant distinction. The point is that you shared a POV just like the poster that started this thread. NO ONE is forcing their POV down anyone's throat. Just like if you don't like a company's product - don't use it, if you don't like a thread or the direction or the content - don't read it, or comment in it or let it make you irate.

BCCG put themselves out there when they came up with a scale that was radically different from the norm. To think that it wouldn't or shouldn't generate discussion is implausible (to me).

Jeff