Crossover Issue

[D. Bergin]

All you guys should just send your cards into PRO grading and get guaranteed 9's and 10's back.

[where the gold at?]

Why be mad at SGC when it is PSA who drastically overgrades in my opinion. I collect SGC cards ONLY....i have bought several PSA cards with hopes of crossing over to SGC only to be let down.......but the difference is that SGC grades accurately in my opinion and PSA over grades. So im not let down i just know this going forward and don't buy PSA unless im paying a real low number. Im sorry to here that you have been effected as you have by this company.
Hopefully this is a learning lesson for everybody.

[danc]

As a person who prefers and respects SGC over PSA, would this thread have been started if there was a tremendous amount of upgrades, over downgrades? I hope this poster sends 106 raw cards to PSA and I want to see what kind of grade they get a second time with them. A kind of a test. If an original PSA 5, got a SGC 50 and now a PSA 4 (or funnier yet, 3 1/2), it would could further frustrate the poster and bemuse the board.

DanC

[rman444]

Dan - first would like to say sorry about what happened. This situation would upset me as well.

However, I don't want to speak for SGC, but I just had a similar discussion with Michael at a show this weekend when we were discussing crossing over my PSA registered set. The impression that I got was that they could take a quick look at the set and give a rough estimate if the majority would cross in the same grade before they started cracking out cards and charging for the grading.

I would think that something like this could have been arranged for your set before any of your cards were cracked out and you were charged any fees. If their initial assessment was that roughly half of your cards were clearly not close enough to make the grade, you could have kept them all in the PSA holders without any damage to your wallet. And, as previously mentioned, SGC doesn't really have any motive to not get cards out of PSA holders. They want as many cards in their holders as possible, but if they don't make the grade, it is probably because they truly don't believe that the condition warrants it.

[barrysloate]

It's unfortunate that the grading standards differ from one company to the next. It would be good for the marketplace if all the major grading companies used the same criteria, but they compete fiercely for market share and I doubt they would ever have a summit to work this out.

I also find it interesting that the majority of posters believe PSA cards sell for more than SGC cards, while just as many believe that SGC cards are more strictly graded. That would suggest given a PSA 5 or an SGC 60, the SGC card should sell for more. But the fact is it probably sells for less.

[botn]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

It's unfortunate that the grading standards differ from one company to the next. It would be good for the marketplace if all the major grading companies used the same criteria, but they compete fiercely for market share and I doubt they would ever have a summit to work this out.

No two graders at a given grading company grade the same all the time. That is an inherent flaw in grading.

I also find it interesting that the majority of posters believe PSA cards sell for more than SGC cards, while just as many believe that SGC cards are more strictly graded. That would suggest given a PSA 5 or an SGC 60, the SGC card should sell for more. But the fact is it probably sells for less.

You are failing to factor in the PSA advantage--their set registry.

[glchen]

I think I agree w/ most posters on this board in that Dan made a huge mistake in not putting min grade for crossover. It will be good luck for going back to PSA because I've read threads on the Collectors saying that PSA gives different grades depending on which day of the week they process the cards. The only mistake I could see from SGC, and this is could be debateable, is that Dan did meet with Brian at SGC. Brian could have looked at the submission sheet, and warned him the he should put minimum grades for crossovers.

Minimum grades for crossovers is absolutely required. I did not have a minimum grade for a crossover once, and that was only because the card (cheap Pedro Martinez RC) was in a GEM holder. (Yes, and graded GEM10, which I am not really expecting it to come back as.) Otherwise, you have to give minimum grade. There is simply too much danger the card will come back as altered, lowered, etc. This past weekend, I dropped off a submission to SGC at the SF Card Show. I had 3 cards for crossovers, 2 GAI and 1 BVG. I put minimum grades for each of these. For one of them, Erving RC, I was fairly skeptical it would crossover, and I had Michael from SGC look at the card, he told me it was possible, so I submitted it anyway. However, Michael gave me plenty of warning that he wasn't a grader, so I made sure that I had put a minimum crossover grade anyway. I think that the rule of thumb pretty much is if you want all of your cards in one holder, it's almost better to sell your cards in the different holder, and buy the cards in the holder you want. That's what I'm planning on doing if my GAI cards don't cross.

About Brian should have warned Dan as a courtesy, I'm just saying that because Michael had checked that for me when he reviewed my submission. Michael also told me my declared values were probably too low, so it would be bad if my package got lost or damaged in the mail coming back. Saying this, I'm obviously biased towards SGC. I really think their customer service is great, and I've spoken with Brian on the phone too, who is really nice. I think Dan made a mistake here which is very unfortunate. I understand why he's pissed. He'll have to spend untold hours of time getting this fixed and obviously significant amounts of money.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

That would suggest given a PSA 5 or an SGC 60, the SGC card should sell for more. But the fact is it probably sells for less.

I would think that a good amount of truth in that comes down to registry purposes. When I see a dinged up PSA 5 outsell a good looking SGC 60 that is usually the first thing that comes to mind.

[GrayGhost]

Well, unless you have an inherent need to have such an amazing set, does it really make ALL that much difference when you have the means to own quality cards like these? Now, if I had a Wagner or a big dollar card, I could see the real concern.

That said, as it apparently does matter a lot to Mr Collins, Im sorry he lost the money in "book value" too, and any additional grading fees. Still, he probably will still have a bunch of really nice cards too, which some of us wish we had too.

Its a shame so much of this is "financially motivated", and you guys just sometimes can't enjoy owning quality cards, and are more worried about grading greed w the companies, etc. , the value based on a small grading difference, etc.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by M's_Fan

But I have to admit that SGC has a big anti-PSA bias....I've quit buying PSA cards and trying to get them to cross over because SGC never gives a PSA graded card a fair shake, I really think they are harsher on cards graded by other companies, it makes them feel superior when they can turn their nose up at a PSA graded card....This was supposedly due to "glue residue" on the back of the card. Huh? The back is clean!

I gave up crossing over after this experience, I'm not going to pay money to boost SGC's ego....The silly part about this is that grading companies are losing revenue because people have become very hesitant to cross cards over. So they've shot themselves in the foot in my opinion with their snobiness.

SGC is not rejecting PSA cards because they have an ego. To suggest otherwise based on a scan of a card that has glue residue that you cannot see in a scan is absurd. The whole purpose of 3rd party grading, especially in the internet/scan age, is to identify flaws in cards that cannot be seen easily in a scan like, e.g., glue residue.

[barrysloate]

The set registry has caused such an excessive valuation of cards at the top end. I wonder if a time will come when that bubble bursts.

SGC has a set registry too, and there are some pretty fine vintage sets represented. But that's one area where PSA has a market stranglehold.

[Griffins]

Other than a head start, I'm still puzzled why SGC's registry lags so far behind PSA's in participation. Certainly it's in part due to availability, but the gap is so huge it can't be just that.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Dan,

You give an example of a Chase in an 80 that is now in an PSA 6.5 after originally not meeting the minimum grade.

Did you by chance call out PSA and tell them the story behind the card and demand it go into a 6 holder?

Lee

[glchen]

The PSA registry is extremely nice, which most people on this board are probably aware. You can add many cards to your inventory, and it will let you know all of the different registries that you can have. PSA validates that only one cert belongs to one user, so that if a card is sold, you won't have the same card in registries for different users. Of course, one of the biggest things is size. It's like ebay which people hate. If you want to compete for best sets, you want to go to the place with the most competition. It's a lot better to say that you're #3 out of 30 sets that #2 out of 4 sets.

[Robextend]

I try and participate in the SGC set registry!!

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/usersets.aspx?user=1304

[Wesley]

Sorry about the results, Dan. I also suspect there is a bias when one company reviews a card that has been slabbed by a competitor. And this works also when crossing SGC card to PSA as well. After hearing this story, I don't think I would ever try to cross without noting a minimum grade.

[E93]

Originally Posted by dancollins

PSA never crosses them over due to minimum grade.

......

Now I am going to rip everyone of them out of their SGC holders and resubmit them to PSA raw. I will never use SGC again it is clear to me that they were biased on the grades due to them being in PSA holders just like PSA does to their holders.

Dan,
I know this sucks and I feel bad for your situation. It is impossible for any of us here to pass judgement without seeing the cards.

I am not clear here why you are willing to give PSA a pass on doing exactly what pissed you off about what you *think* SGC did. You are going to give all your business to PSA when, according to you, they do the exact same thing.

I use both SGC and PSA . My experience on crossovers has been that SGC is generally more fair. I can't remember PSA ever crossing anything over at the same level.
JimB

[tbob]

Dan- I think it's a damn shame. Barry is right when he says he wishes all grading companies use the same criteria, but they don't. Ask Steve M., or Peter T. or myself about how SGC brutalizes 1911 and 1912 Zeenuts with tiny writing on the blank backs, having PSA 5 and 6 MKs go to SGC 20 and 10, it's just the way they grade. Since I like the SGC holders better for the way cards fit and display and now that SGC is catching up in many collector's minds with the value of pre-war cards in their holders, I use SGC exclusively. The caveat is the expensive card in a PSA holder that you would like to get in to a SGC holder but you fear the drop in grade because of a mark on the back or a tiny bit of back paper loss which will cause the grade to plummet. It's a quandry.
The two suggestions made above which I feel are most worthwhile:
1) ALWAYS use minimum grades for a crossover and/or
2) NEVER submit anything to either PSA or SGC in a holder from another company, always break it out and submit it raw if you truly want that company's holder on it.
As Quan can tell you, years ago I was in the "Frank" camp and hated having cards slabbed at all but for protection purposes, display purposes and because of the card is worth much more slabbed, I gave in. I have 100% of my caramel cards slabbed and about 70% of my tobacco cards.
One last note on GAI slabbed cards- I don't use them anymore but I have some beautiful caramels slabbed in GAI holders and properly graded because at one time they were very good at correctly grading cards. I crossed some over and 50% stayed the same, 25% bumped up slightly, 25% bumped down slightly or more. I think the GAI slabbed cards from 2000-2005 get a bum rap, but that's just my personal opinion.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Griffins

Other than a head start, I'm still puzzled why SGC's registry lags so far behind PSA's in participation. Certainly it's in part due to availability, but the gap is so huge it can't be just that.

PSA has always dominated the market in sheer volume of cards graded and collectors and dealers supporting them. That is where everyone is perceived to be. The SGC registry does have some awesome sets registered and most likely those sets consists of cards which are more accurately graded.

I have had to use PSA because that is what is easier for me to sell.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by E93

Dan,
I know this sucks and I feel bad for your situation. It is impossible for any of us here to pass judgement without seeing the cards.

I am not clear here why you are willing to give PSA a pass on doing exactly what pissed you off about what you *think* SGC did. You are going to give all your business to PSA when, according to you, they do the exact same thing.

These are exactly my thoughts. Neither company is any worse than the other for this debacle.

The only thing I take from this thread is further evidence that the whole "crossover" thing is a fool's game.

It is for people who care more about holders than the cards in them. And people who care way too much about Registry standing.

Cheers,
Blair

[dancollins]

Let me start by saying I think many posters have some valid points and I think some are just in another world.

I really should have specified a minumum grade so I will take credit there. I think Brian from SGC made me feel really comfortable about it so I was not worried. Many posters said lets see some examples and they are right. Here are some examples you be the judge......

Now Severoid stayed a 3 while Wilie was downgraded to a 3

How does that make any sense?

Severoid is clearly a 3 and Wilie in my opinion is clearly vg-ex

[Robextend]

Dan,

I think the Wilie card is really a toss up at best. I am looking at the bottom left and right corners and they might be too beat up for an SGC 50. Nevertheless, sweet card, and I wouldn't argue if it was an SGC 40 or 50.

Rob

[dancollins]

Here are four more examples that were all taken down one full grade

Ball to a 4
McLean to a 4
Coulson to a 4
Danforth to a 3

You Judge

[T206Collector]

The 5s that became 4s probably have a solitary wrinkle or back crease. On the McLean specifically, what is going on on the left border on the reverse scan?

[barrysloate]

The Wilie is a strong 3, weak 4.

The Severoid is a 3 but not a great one...maybe 2.5 is more accurate.

[barrysloate]

In the next group of 4 they don't look too strictly graded. Best as I can see, the two 5's at the top have some corner fraying, and shouldn't have been 5's. The two below also look a little weak for their grade.

It's the difference between strict grading and lax grading. Why should each company have different standards? Makes no sense to me.

[rhettyeakley]

I have said it on multiple occasions that IMO all the grading companies are biased when they are grading cards previously graded by other companies.

If SGC had crossed or bumped the vast majority of these cards they are in essense saying "wow, PSA did a great conservative job gradng these cards the first time!" but by downgrading them all they are in essense saying "look at what a crappy job PSA did when they originally graded these, I hope you like that they overgraded them all". The same experience happens when the PSA and SGC names are switched as well. It isn't in the grading companies best interest to confrim what a great company their competitors are. The idea that bias exists in these situations is almost undeniable to me based on experience.

On multiple occassions a card submitted in a GAI holder has been rejected only to be resubmitted raw and then get the numerical grade...bias exists!

-Rhett

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Why should each company have different standards? Makes no sense to me.

I think the best we can hope for is consistency within a company within a card issue. So, e.g., SGC grades T206 cards so much more consistently than PSA that it isn't even funny. That is why I stick with them.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by dancollins

Wilie in my opinion is clearly vg-ex

How can you say that if the damage on the lower right is so significant as to remove the corner of the box containing the name/team?

[dancollins]

Another member posted a picture of the PSA 5 Matty that didn't cross which is a 5 all day long.

This was not meant to turn into a PSA vs SGC thing but many people are doing so. I guees it simply comes down to everyones individual experience with either grading company, mine is definitely now PSA over SGC. With that said believe me I have many issues with PSA grading. Here are 2 cards the PSA one I still own and the other Cobb in the SGC holder I just sold. I see a clear difference in their grading favoring PSA by far in this one. Also here is a link to my T206 registry with a lot of the images and I think my T206 set is graded pretty correctly.

http://www.psacard.com/setregistry/p...et.aspx?s=2289

[dancollins]

Another point I want to make is that while going through these cards when I got them back I do agree that some of them deserved to be downgraded but not 52. That is my problem and the point many is missing. 52 cards out of 103 is a bit over the top and it does clearly show bias. I ask the people that think SGC does no wrong to step back for a moment and see that they have inconsistent grading as well. Since many people talked so highly of SGC I figured I would give them a shot and it didn't work out for me. Now they will never get a hold of my T206's and T205's.

The real lessons learned is grading companies do not like giving crossovers and put a minimum grade on your submissions.

[smtjoy]

Thanks for the scans, my 2 cents-

Wilie- way too much corner damage for a 4, at best a 40/3
Severoid- ouch I think they both got it wrong looks like a 2.5 at best or most likely 30/2
Ball- I think this one is closer to a 5 than a 4 and would agree with PSA
McLean- too much corner wear, correct at a 40/3
Coulson- same as McLean 40/3
Danforth- very borderline, weak 4, strong 3, tossup

On crossovers I have sent over 250 1940 and older PSA cards to SGC for crossover and I have had about 25% get lower grades, while your percentage was higher I dont think off the charts from your couple scans shown.

[Robextend]

I have over 800 cards slabbed by SGC and I agree no grading company is perfect. I have had very few disagreements out of all those cards. Many times when I expect a higher grade then I get, it is often me who missed something. One thing about SGC is that you can always reach out to them and have them explain it.

I do use the crossover service, and when I do, I pretty much know what to expect based on SGCs grading methods.

Again I am sorry it didn't work out for you, but many times you need to examine the card beyond the slab it is in. In the examples you have shown so far, a good argument can be made for downgrades.

Rob

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by dancollins

The real lessons learned is grading companies do not like giving crossovers and put a minimum grade on your submissions.

If you learned that SGC does not like giving crossovers you have shown no objective evidence in support of this lesson.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Dan,

You have made a few replies since I posted and others have pointed out the grading company differences.

But the underlying question to me is would you have posted or complained to PSA is the situation was reversed.

The cards you have all posted to me are either tweeners or definately should have been down graded.

I currently have about a dozen PSA 5s that have small creases in them. They will stay in PSA holders because SGC would not give them an EX and may even drop to VG with them.

Why not show the cards that got up grades not much talk from you about them.

Lee

[nolemmings]

Most of what I would like to say has already been covered, and I have no problem with what SGC did here. I would be upset if there was some wink and an a nod deal where larger submitters or those friendly with the SGC echelon get bumps on that basis. Let the cards stand or fall by themselves.

I would agree with Scott--only one of the cards shown looks harshly graded, and I'm going only on the basis of a scan that might not reveal everything.

While the bias thing might have some visceral appeal, it makes little business sense. SGC has to know it runs the risk of losing customers by downgrading many of their crossovers, who are unlikely to be pleased with such result. Moreover, it would be far easier to just take a batch of 100 cards and give them a straight cross with no real examination. It's not hard for me to imagine a blurry-eyed grader at the end of the day seeing an opportunity to cross 100 off his to-do list in about ninety seconds by just picking 5 to bump, four to downgrade and passing the buck on the rest. Who's going to question, or really even be upset? The fact that they changed grades on so many at least suggests to me that they took the time to look at each card.

Next, what is the point of "they lowered it by a full grade". Of course they did--they have no half grades under 60 that could apply. If it's not worthy of a strict cross, that's what happens. Either request min grade or roll the dice.

Finally, this whole notion in the original post that you could "live with" 10-15 cards being lowered, but now your collection is devalued by "thousands" is bogus to me. If the cards truly are 5s and you want them in SGC holders, crack them out and submit them raw. They will come back 5s and you'll be out 52x the grading fee of $6 or $7. No devaluation, no "bias". Of course, if they are accurately graded at less than 5, then why blame SGC? If the number on the holder is so damn important, send them to PSA for 52x their grading fee--again, you will not be out thousands and your faith in humanity will be restored.

[barrysloate]

This whole concept of graders having a bias when they see a card holdered by their competition is very troubling to me, assuming it is true.

Are they grading the card you submit to them, or are they playing politics? If it's the latter, then they are not doing their job, which is to grade cards, period.

[Orioles1954]

Of the last ten cards I crossed over from PSA to SGC (all 1933 Delong or Tattoo Orbit) the results were.....

4 came back higher in a SGC holder
4 came back the same in a SGC holder
2 were retuned because they didn't meet the minimum grade.

When dealing with a grading company, it's virtually impossible to have exact, 100% robotic results time after time after time. The sheer volume they deal with and that pesky human factor won't allow it. I grade hundreds and hundreds of cards a day at my job. I like to think I'm very consistent and one of the best in the business. However, there are times on a day to day basis where there is a slight variance. I think it's unreasonable to expect a complete, scientific approach to grading....it is what it is. For my money, I collect SGC.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by dancollins

52 cards out of 103 is a bit over the top and it does clearly show bias.

Or it clearly shows original overgrading.

[T206Collector]

What Nolemmings said is completely spot on.

[botn]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

This whole concept of graders having a bias when they see a card holdered by their competition is very troubling to me, assuming it is true.

Are they grading the card you submit to them, or are they playing politics? If it's the latter, then they are not doing their job, which is to grade cards, period.

The same "bias" occurs when you review SGC graded material with SGC and PSA material with PSA. Most of the time you will not get the desired result of a bump. So do we conclude the submitter thinks his/her cards are nicer than than they are or do the graders get influenced by the number of the flip and hesitate to change the grade?

[Orioles1954]

When I attempt a *bump* at SGC, I often include a short and honest note about why I feel that particular card should be graded higher than it is. More often than not, it works.

[rhettyeakley]

I disagree w/ the notion that bias does not come into play when grading a previously graded card as I don't think it is bad for business in the long run. I'm not surprised by the reaction on this board in regard to their quickness to agree w/ what SGC does, even I find myself more in agreement w/ SGC on cards than PSA. It is clear that this board will never agree w/ PSA on almost anything so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Ask those that are PSA apologists and they will have just as many stories of PSA wholesale rejecting SGC cards to cross over--so it goes both ways.

However, I have seen it done too many times to disregard it as fallacy.

[Orioles1954]

Rhett,

That's why pliers and screwdrivers were invented.

[dancollins]

Thank you Rhett that is the point I have been trying to make.

[rhettyeakley]

James, I kid you not I can crack a PSA or SGC slab in 6.8 seconds flat (I had my wife time me!) so I totally understand. Ironically, those GAI slabs are tough SOB's in relation (and don't even get me started on the Beckett ones!).

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Ask those that are PSA apologists and they will have just as many stories of PSA wholesale rejecting SGC cards to cross over--so it goes both ways.

However, I have seen it done too many times to disregard it as fallacy.

What I am looking for is evidence of a card submitted in an SGC holder that PSA graded higher than the SGC grade. SGC routinely upgrades PSA cards, where warranted. Anyone have any examples of a PSA upgrade from an SGC card that was submitted for a crossover?

[calvindog]

I once had a common 1956 Topps card in an SGC 86 holder which crossed to a PSA 8. Probably a $20 card. And it was the only upgrade I've ever gotten from PSA.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

"Usually PSA is much more strict on its grades than SGC especially with T206."

This is just completely wrong. I once attempted a 40 T206 PSA cross over of PSA 4, 5 and 6 graded T206 cards and only 30 came back graded by SGC. (Of course, I put a minimum grade -- PSA is notorious for overgrading pre-war cards.) I could also give you countless examples/stories of PSA 5 graded T206 cards with wrinkles that SGC would never cross over. SGC is somewhat more lenient when it comes to moderate corner rounding and centering, but otherwise is the stricter company with respect to creasing, wrinkles, paper loss, glue residue, etc.

Your failure to put a minimum grade was a catastrophic mistake and the blame here should not be shifted to SGC. The fact that they have signaled a willingness to work with you on a group of them only confirms that their customer service is second to none.

Finally, the below T206 Cobb was submitted to SGC by me for a crossover. I submitted it in its PSA 4 case, with a "Min. 50" notation. SGC gave it a 60, which I always felt was the right grade. By doing so, they have affirmed for me that I need not crack my PSA cards out before submitted for crossovers.

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Neal

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!

That will be a PSA 4 every day of the week because of the corner rounding, but I have always felt (i.e., pre-PSA/SGC world) that a card like my Cobb is an EX, even with the slightly rounded corners, because it is otherwise clean, has no wrinkles, etc. But I know a lot of folks who collect 33 Goudeys in EX 5 condition do not chase the SGC 60s because they find the corners are often too soft from SGC.

But the point is, know your grader's standards before you dump a few hundred/thousand dollars to have your collection graded by them. Then you won't be surprised by the grades.

I've had SGC grade over 500 of my raw T206 cards over the past decade. Maybe once did I have to go back to them and suggest they under-graded a card. They get it right, folks, with a strong degree of consistency. But the only way you would know that is if you spent the time sending cards in, analyzing the grades, talking to the SGC folk, etc.