SGC - what is NM?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

Shouldn't this card get a qualifier?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57993&item=5158303276&rd=1

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

Or this?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57993&item=5157803078&rd=1

[Archive]

Posted By: rick

Excuse my stupidity, but what does qualifier mean in this case?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

(MC) = Miscut

Means that it was originally "miscut" at the factory in 1911...

as opposed to having been "trimmed" by Alan Hager in 1991.

I don't know how the graders can tell the difference, but I guess they can somehow.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...are confusing at best and a waste of time at worst. They are like saying, "This card would be mint, except for that horrible paper loss on the back" in a listing. A card with horrible paper loss is in poor condition.

You could have a qualifier for everything, including:

MINT CR (meaning, mint condition except the card has a crease)
MINT CR2 (meaning, mint condition except the card has 2 creases)
MINT CORN1FUZZY (meaning, mint condition except one corner is fuzzy)
MINT CORN2DINGFUZZY (meanig, mint condition except one corner is dinged and another corner is fuzzy).

SGC intelligently builds into the grading scale the condition of the card on the whole, without exceptions or qualifiers. PSA missed the boat on this one a long time ago and have been making the same dumb decisions on cards ever since. Perhaps Beckett got it right when they started to include sub-grades for corners, surface, centering, etc. But even they decided to list a final over all grade and all the centering in the world never made up for one big thick ugly crease across the face of your favorite card.

Buy the card, not the holder. All 7 NM are not alike, no matter how many qualifiers you put on the label.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

We should all be so lucky as to an 80 for our cards that look as horrible as that t201 Matty. Aside form the obvious stains, entire back is completely o/c with part of the frame missing. I'd hate to think what grade it would have gotten if the back was centered. I guess the real graders were on break and the PSA monkeys broke in and graded a few cards.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Love that "Banana cut" on the T201. Never seen that before, must have been moving the sheet as it was cutting?? The condition is nice but that weard cut should have dropped the grade even more. Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

That T201 Matty example is terrible. You have to wonder what the grader was actually doing at the time the card was being viewed. Perhaps it was time for a banana break.

I can almost understand the grade for the CJ card (a bit generous on the grade). One thing I've noticed about SGC grading is that they are not as strict on grading the off center material as PSA. PSA does offer qualifiers and SGC does not.

It just seems that there is so much emphasis on centering and how it impacts the grade of a card. What would happen if you were to find a carton of Piedmonts that was factory sealed. Now lets say that each of those little packages had a pristine T206 card in it. The only problem was the card cutter was a bit drunk the day he sliced them. All of the cards are 90/10 on the centering (front of card). All corners are razor sharp, all edges clean, the surface is pristine and the images are superior.

According to SGC the highest grade the card could get is an SGC40 (3). PSA says that the highest grade the card can get is a PSA3, but PSA does offer qualifiers so it could actually grade much higher (with the qualifier).

Do these "mint", straight from the package cards deserve to be graded no higher than a "3" because of the centering?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Williams

Other side of the pond...and not NM (IMO):

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=31718&item=5157159699&rd=1

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Don't you wish you and I could get grades like that? Those 2 bottom corners are not nmt.....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The upper left corner is brutal too. Frank, That banana cut is normal for t201s. Finding ones with a nice, straight cut is tough. The best that I can figure from the hundreds of t201s I've handled is that the sheet was first cut horizontally. Then the strip was folded and cut. My set only had 41 of the 50 cards with straight cuts, the rest had the banana cut.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

It seems as though the graders are actually grading it compared to other cards of the same time period rather than a standard for all cards. In other words, the Wagner looks like a 7 compared to your typical E95 - a card from the 50's in that condition certainly would not get a 7.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

that companies claim they do not do this. And it would make no sense to do so. Now, if they were grading based on what card looked like new, this would make sense as there are some sets that even new, would never pass the standard for NM/Mint beucase of rough cuts, miscuts, porr paper or printing, etc. That Wagner is EX+ at best, maybe Ex/NM with the one sharp corner.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

A medium o/c front card with otherwise nm-mt characteristics typically draws a near mint from them. Back centering isn't nearly as harshly hit.

The Matty is a mistake. Should not be better than vg-ex with the staining and miscut. Although in their defense a little, the front side looks pretty well centered.

The Wagner is nice but not near mint. I'd say ex+ to ex-mt would be reasonable, but since PSA doesn't have a tweener the 6 would be ok.

Here is how I measure the difference between 6-7-8: nice, damned nice, goddamned nice.

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Remember guys PSA 9 allows for a 90/10 back. Which I feel is absolutely ridiculous.

SGC at times has some screwing grading, I have sent back cards I felt were over graded most because of paper loss, they either were jsut slightly down graded or the grade was not altered. I still wish they would send you a report card on how the card was graded. You would think they take notes while grading a card.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I agree with you that it would be nice to have notes on why the guys at SGC grade a card a certain way...but notes would take "some" time and time is money.....I remember you saying to me that you wouldn't really want to pay $3 extra for a really nice, extremely top quality, archival holder. Would you want to pay an extra $5 to get a card graded? regards (btw, this is not the pick on the Behrens brothers morning, I just thought I would comment on this)......hope to see ya at the National this year....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Am I missing something? THe Reulbach looks nm to me. The tilt cut takes away from eye appeal, but otherwise it seems like a strong card.
As for the E95 Wagner, I agree that from the scan it looks ex+ to ex/mt, but it is difficult to tell with this scan and the white background. It is a nice card.

I agree with Jay that grading companies should not relativize the grades according to how old the card is or the issue. Age and other factors are precisely why some issues are so difficult to find in nice condition
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Leon, I'm not familiar with the grading process, but I imagine that there is some note taking with each card. It wouldn't be that difficult to include those notes when they returnt he cards. It's not like they need to keep them on file or anything. And it would solve a waste issue for them

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

Leon - I agree completely...if you can't sell the 'advertised' product or service at a price that customers are willing to pay, and make a profit, then you have to go into fried chicken.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Scott,
Thanks. I thought there was a question about the grade, not whether or not it deserved a qualifier.
JimB