Crossover Issue

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Neal

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

Great looking Cobb!

I personally would grade it VG EX+ but it does not offend me to call it EX. SGC will grade T206s with even more corner wear EX though, and that bothers me.

[dancollins]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

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?

I sure do here i s a card that was an SGC 70 I do not have the original scan... Jerry Totino might because I purchased it from him sent it to PSA for a crossover and it was bumped to a 6

[dancollins]

Originally Posted by Neal

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

Great looking Cobb!

I agree PSA had it right, maybe a 4.5 at best but nice Cobb

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by Neal

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

Great looking Cobb!

I agree. I didn't think either PSA or SGC awarded EX grades for corners rounded to that extent.

[ethicsprof]

sorry to hear about the troubles, Dan.

i must say that every time i've spoken with SGC's customer service, things have worked out well.

best,

barry

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Wesley

I agree. I didn't think either PSA or SGC awarded EX grades for corners rounded to that extent.

SGC will. My past set had a number of examples of this. The corners have to get worn to my Bender to merit an SGC 50:

From SGC Graded Cards

[dancollins]

T206 Collector you should go work for SGC or buy stock in their company you defend them like someone would their Mother or Girlfriend

[tbob]

I've seen cards from both companies with corner problems but otherwise nice getting PSA 5 or SGC 60 grades. I just hate that SGC is death on any kind of backwriting no matter how small (even on blank backs). Maybe PSA has the right idea when they grade PSA 6 MK instead of the grade tumbling to an SGC 10 or 20. Just venting...

[dancollins]

Originally Posted by tbob

I've seen cards from both companies with corner problems but otherwise nice getting PSA 5 or SGC 60 grades. I just hate that SGC is death on any kind of backwriting no matter how small (even on blank backs). Maybe PSA has the right idea when they grade PSA 6 MK instead of the grade tumbling to an SGC 10 or 20. Just venting...

They really hammer Old Judges

[Peter_Spaeth]

Similar to Bender?

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by dancollins

T206 Collector you should go work for SGC or buy stock in their company you defend them like someone would their Mother or Girlfriend

In all fairness when someone starts a thread with the title, "Very Very Disgusted with SGC - Beware" you have to expect a reaction. I am also a believer in SGC, however I feel objective and when they get it wrong I will say it. I don't think your issue warrants a rant matched by the thread title.

[dancollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Similar to Bender?

That card is definitely vg-ex look at the corner wear. No way in the world that card is EX

Nice looking but not an EX

[dancollins]

Originally Posted by Robextend

In all fairness when someone starts a thread with the title, "Very Very Disgusted with SGC - Beware" you have to expect a reaction. I am also a believer in SGC, however I feel objective and when they get it wrong I will say it. I don't think your issue warrants a rant matched by the thread title.

Well Rob we all have opinions thanks for yours!!!

[jbsports33]

I just had some cards graded as well and yes SGC can be tough, but you have to understand both PSA and SGC kind a have a different perspective with grading cards - I still deal with both and for the most part no issues. I would love to get better grades and sometimes I feel SGC maybe off a bit, but I still accept the fact they look at way more cards then me!

Jimmy

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by dancollins

T206 Collector you should go work for SGC or buy stock in their company you defend them like someone would their Mother or Girlfriend

I know. I probably should.

I used to have a lot of value tied up in SGC. Putting aside my autographed pre-war cards, I only have a couple dozen SGC graded cards any more. I have about 200 raw T206 cards.

But having "been there" and "done that" I still find it surprising that people "follow the leader" to PSA. It only took me a couple of years of really bad customer service and inconsistent T206 grading to make a clean break.

You ought to have a sit down with the SGC folk at your local card show. Get to know them. They are really great people, very responsive to customer issues.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Another grade I don't agree with. The point is, both companies grade differently, despite the superficial similarity in numbering.

[dancollins]

I was furious this morning and I am glad I posted because some of these posts were so comical they actually put me in a good mood!!!


The funny thing is that if I would have sent 105 T207's to PSA that were in SGC holders for crossover and the same result happened I guarantee many of these posts would be much different. People would be saying see I told you PSA sucks... Here is my real opinion I think SGC and PSA both suck. Unfortunately for our hobby cards are worth more in the holders. Some posters are saying well who cares what they are graded they are the same great cards. That is a line of crap, whether you want to admit it or not collecting these cards are also an investment with the money they cost, so in an industry dominated by "grading" it absolutely matters. I used to be 100% anti grading.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Similar to Bender?

That Lajoie actually looks like the one I had in my collection -- and may very well be. In any event, no -- the Bender is missing an entire corner (top left), while the Lajoie has a bit more in terms of corner definition on all four. There is, obviously, no black line -- and I had an SGC 60 Schreck that looked a lot more like my Bender and used to get me a little worked up.

[FUBAR]

my opinion on re-slabbing is that i wouldn't do it, i don't care whose slab it is in as long as it is one of the big three. To each their own, but it seems a little narcissistic!

Dan

While i agree it sucks, but "ya roll tha dice, ya takes your chances" with getting a re-grade. When something is subjective like grading, you have to accept the consequences.

Point is, you still have great cards.

[calvindog]

[jcmtiger]

Here is a vg-ex Cobb, compare to the ex Cobb.

Joe

[jcmtiger]

How many think this card is overgraded?

Joe

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by dancollins

I used to be 100% anti grading.

And I used to be 100% pro PSA. You can probably do some archival searches on here from a 6 or 7 years ago where I was trumpeting the virtues of PSA. But then I learned the differences between the two companies and how they saw T206 cards and I had my whole collection crossed over to SGC -- with eyes wide open.

[barrysloate]

No question Dan that the hobby lives and dies by grading. Too bad it evolved that way, but that's the way it is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

And I used to be 100% pro PSA. You can probably do some archival searches on here from a 6 or 7 years ago where I was trumpeting the virtues of PSA.

Probably because you owned CLCT stock.

[barrysloate]

Jeff- that D304 Martens Hal Chase isn't even close to a 3. It's not even a nice 2. But it's a beautiful 1!

Joe- that N172 Brouthers looks more like a 6.

[dancollins]

Here is one more example this is my Plank that I purchased in last years REA auction..... SGC had this one wrong I crossed it over to PSA and excepted the downgrade and the image will show you why. I don't feel it hurt the value at all a Plank is a Plank

[dancollins]

Originally Posted by jcmtiger

Here is a vg-ex Cobb, compare to the ex Cobb.

Joe

That Cobb should be a 5+++

[Tcards-Please]

Dan,

Did you crack out the cards that received a bump from SGC or are they staying in their slab?

On a side note, it would be nice if SGC could adjust the pop report since those cards do not reside in the slab. Unless Dan returns the flips, I'm not sure how that would happen though.

r/
Frank

[calvindog]

I'm missing Joe P. right about now.

[dancollins]

I popped all of them including the ones that were bumped. Its all or nothing with me!!! I unfortunately prefer a set to be graded all by one company.

[barrysloate]

Dan- in the case of the Plank, the 20 it got from SGC is an intermediate grade that PSA doesn't have. It's equal to a 1.5. PSA couldn't give it a 2, so it had no choice but to give it a 1. A 1.5 seems reasonable to me. It's beat up but still has decent eye appeal and no major problems other than wear.

[dancollins]

By the way the pop reports are off beyond belief. Just from crossovers alone they are way off. Its not like SGC alerted PSA that I crossed over 105 cards.

[dancollins]

Who is Joe P ?

[wonkaticket]

If I took these grades seriously I would be way more bald than I already am...

Collect the things inside not the things holding them and you will save your sanity...try and make sense of this grading game and you will lose your mind.

Cheers,

John

P.S. Paul please send in my Cobb this week...

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I'm missing Joe P. right about now.

Well said, LOL Joe would have loved this one.

[sox1903wschamp]

Originally Posted by dancollins

Who is Joe P ?

Probably this threads worst nightmare . RIP Joe!

[Jacklitsch]

Dan says:

"I sure do here is a card that was an SGC 70 I do not have the original scan... Jerry Totino might because I purchased it from him sent it to PSA for a crossover and it was bumped to a 6"

Was this before or after PSA instituted half grades?

If before the only choice PSA had was a 5 or a 6. Card clearly doesn't deserve a 5 so PSA had to grade it a 6. To do otherwise would have been evidence of its bias.

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by dancollins

Who is Joe P ?

Joe Palaez.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Dan- in the case of the Plank, the 20 it got from SGC is an intermediate grade that PSA doesn't have. It's equal to a 1.5. PSA couldn't give it a 2, so it had no choice but to give it a 1. A 1.5 seems reasonable to me. It's beat up but still has decent eye appeal and no major problems other than wear.

PSA has a 1.5 grade.

[dancollins]

Originally Posted by Jacklitsch

Dan says:

"I sure do here is a card that was an SGC 70 I do not have the original scan... Jerry Totino might because I purchased it from him sent it to PSA for a crossover and it was bumped to a 6"

Was this before or after PSA instituted half grades?

If before the only choice PSA had was a 5 or a 6. Card clearly doesn't deserve a 5 so PSA had to grade it a 6. To do otherwise would have been evidence of its bias.

It was last year after the half grades came out

[T206Collector]

...seeing front scans of PSA/SGC 1 cards that look minty mint to which people respond that the card was obviously undergraded is quickly developing into one of my Net54 pet peeves.

People -- card grading is not designed to organize cards on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of beauty or eye appeal. It is designed to capture the flaws in a card and alert potential buyers of those flaws in a way that was impossible prior to the advent of grading, i.e., to avoid me finding a back crease in my friend's 1933 Tris Speaker on the way home from a card show, when he thought the card was EX.

To be sure, people who sell their mint looking 1s for crap looking 1s prices are missing the boat. But that doesn't mean that the mint looking 1s should be graded any higher.

Buy the card -- not the holder; but use the number to help guide your purchase.

[collectbaseball]

In regards to the PSA 4 Wilie T207, why did it not receive an OC qualifier from PSA originlly? It has like 95/5 centering.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Robextend

In all fairness when someone starts a thread with the title, "Very Very Disgusted with SGC - Beware" you have to expect a reaction. I am also a believer in SGC, however I feel objective and when they get it wrong I will say it. I don't think your issue warrants a rant matched by the thread title.

I think Dan deserves some slack here for the rant. He just lost thousands of dollars in grading and the value of his cards. If that happened to most of us, I think we'd be similarly upset. (And Dan has already admitted he should've put a minimum grade for crossover down. However, I'd still be upset if I were him. I recently got in a dispute w/ Chase bank where I lost $70 in overdraft fees because of a mistake where Chase Mortgage didn't communicate with Chase Online, and I was steaming because of that. And that was only 70 bucks!)

[dancollins]

One thing that would keep grading consistent is if the companies kept pictures of cards they graded from sets and used them as a guide when grading. That would actually help them stay more consistent.

T206Collector..... If people bought cards based on appearence instead of the grade no one would know what anything is worth. Unfortunately the grades ultimately determine the value of the cards. We all know grading is very subjective but to a point that is a cop out that bails out the grading companies. People pay money to have cards graded and therefore the grading companies owe it to the hobby, collector, and card industry to do a better job at being consistent especially when the value between grades is so substantial.

The one thing that I do like about the grading companies is they did at least set some standards as to what vg-ex and ex and so on should be. I remember back 12 years a go everything was raw and every dealer claimed everything to be way better than what the cards were.

[barrysloate]

Thanks Daryl. I still don't know all of PSA's half grades.

If that is the case, the card would merit a 1.5, IMO.

[dancollins]

Originally Posted by glchen

I think Dan deserves some slack here for the rant. He just lost thousands of dollars in grading and the value of his cards. If that happened to most of us, I think we'd be similarly upset. (And Dan has already admitted he should've put a minimum grade for crossover down. However, I'd still be upset if I were him. I recently got in a dispute w/ Chase bank where I lost $70 in overdraft fees because of a mistake where Chase Mortgage didn't communicate with Chase Online, and I was steaming because of that. And that was only 70 bucks!)

thank you Gary!!!

[FUBAR]

The OJ that was posted, in my opinion, is way over graded. should be a 4, those corners were rough

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by glchen

I think Dan deserves some slack here for the rant. He just lost thousands of dollars in grading and the value of his cards. If that happened to most of us, I think we'd be similarly upset. (And Dan has already admitted he should've put a minimum grade for crossover down. However, I'd still be upset if I were him. I recently got in a dispute w/ Chase bank where I lost $70 in overdraft fees because of a mistake where Chase Mortgage didn't communicate with Chase Online, and I was steaming because of that. And that was only 70 bucks!)

Of course I have been in situations like that as well, however I would not take it out on someone if it wasn't well deserved. From the few T207 examples I saw, I don't believe anyone should be disgusted with SGC.

The only good thing is that here is that there is a lesson learned. Always use the minimum grade method when you do not want to drop grades.

Dan - Didn't mean to sound unsympathetic., either way you still have great cards.

[calvindog]

I feel bad for Dan only in that he tried to cross cards over and it didn't work out the way he wanted -- and may have cost him money.

I feel less bad for him when he claims that SGC "ripped him off." Because SGC didn't rip him off.