Prompt Advice Needed!

[perezfan]

Hey, just soliciting advice from the experts here at net54. SGC really seems to grade the important/key cards tougher than the commons and lower-tier HOFers. I've been noticing this pattern for some time now.

Along that vein, here is an SGC "Reveal" video we just released...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaBNOgG7uOs

I'm quite unhappy with the grades issued for Walter Johnson and Cy Young. My question is whether it's better to keep them slabbed and send in for a review? Or is it better to crack them out and treat as entirely new submissions?

I swore I would not get caught up in the re-submission game, but here I am.

So what's the best tactic, given the fact I only want to do this once. There's a local show here on Saturday, and SGC will be there. So looking for some quick thoughts and advice.

Many thanks for your help!
Mark

[Vintagedeputy]

I just watched the video and I agree with every grade that SGC assigned. I see no issues whatsoever. The ones you thought would be 5's, there's no way.

[robw1959]

I can't speak to the grade for Cy Young, as my opinion on that is a solid 4. However, the Johnson card appears to have some staining/toning on the reverse, and that kept the grade below 4 as it most always does.

Finally, my experience over 20+ years of having cards submitted for grades is that they do not grade more strictly just because a player happens to be a big name Hall of Famer.

[Fred]

Mark,

You saw Forrest Gump I bet. Well, grading is like that box of chocolates...

I think one huge consideration for resubmission is the cost of the service.

Just curious, what did it cost for that submission in the video?

Is it worth risking a downgrade? What's the upside if it comes back half a grade or a full grade higher on the cards you plan to resubmit?

If you do resubmit, I wish you the best of luck.

[JollyElm]

It's tough to offer an opinion, because many or most of your pre-grading predictions were right in range with what they received, so I see it as the "if you live by the grade, you die by the grade" disappointment we're all subject to. Know what I mean?

Good luck if you decide to resubmit!!

[ASF123]

Honestly, you did better than I thought you would. I predicted 3s on both Young and Johnson, 2.5 on Wagner and under on a few others as well. I share your view that grading has become far too punitive for vintage and especially for prewar (which is why 99% of my cards are raw). Having watched a lot of reveal videos, I think it’s just that you slightly underestimated exactly *how* punitive it’s become.

[Rhotchkiss]

I watched your video. First, its nice to put a face to the posts/avatar.

A few comments: (i) the Waddell is 100% trimmed. Its short and the right corners (top and bottom) indicate trimming (ii) I think the cards are very good looking, making the grades a little less relevant, especially in an SGC flip. SGC has no registry, and I think most people buying cards in SGC flips are more after the appeal than the grade. Thus, I dont think the value between the Young in a 3.5 is much different than the 4, and so I would not resubmit. (iii) I The Young looks a bit undergraded, especially compared to the Walsh, but overall I think the grades are pretty fair. Regarding the Johnson, it looks like it has a slight diamond cut, which could be the reason for the 3.5 instead of a 4+.

I totally agree that graders are much harsher today than years ago. This is annoying, not because of new submissions, but because cards in an old 6 slab would be in a 3-4 slab today. The lack of temporal consistency, across all graders, sucks

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I watched your video. First, its nice to put a face to the posts/avatar.

A few comments: (i) the Waddell is 100% trimmed. Its short and the right corners (top and bottom) indicate trimming

I didn't get past the Waddell for the reasons Ryan gave.

[bnorth]

I agree with others that SGC got them correct or at least more correct than your guesses. As collectors we tend to highly over grade our own cards and slightly undergrade other peoples cards.

[rand1com]

Sorry but the cards are within a half grade on all of them and you cannot expect better than that IMO.

Yes, we all think our cards are better than they actually are.

I would not resubmit any of them but if I was going to, I would break them out and submit as a new submission. The chances of them reviewing and raising the grades is zero IMO.

[Andrew1975]

Some very nice cards, and they look great in the tuxes. The grades look more or less correct to me.

[Lobo Aullando]

Originally Posted by Andrew1975

The grades look more or less correct to me.

Hell, that's probably some news right there...

[LEHR]

IMO, I'd have been thrilled with those grades.

The Waddell portrait was obviously trimmed and graded correctly. The Cy Young could have went a half grade higher, but I actually guessed the Wheat and Johnson to be 2.5's before I saw the actual grades.

Again, just my opinion.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I agree with others that SGC got them correct or at least more correct than your guesses. As collectors we tend to highly over grade our own cards and slightly undergrade other peoples cards.

I agree

[theshowandme]

I would leave them as is.

They are great cards.

Posting the SGC scans so people can quickly see them

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I'm quite unhappy with the grades issued for Walter Johnson and Cy Young. My question is whether it's better to keep them slabbed and send in for a review? Or is it better to crack them out and treat as entirely new submissions?

I swore I would not get caught up in the re-submission game, but here I am.

Regraded? Look, do you like your cards or not? Do you not have your own opinion as to their aesthetics? What's the point of sending them to be graded in the first place?

[BigfootIsReal]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Regraded? Look, do you like your cards or not? Do you not have your own opinion as to their aesthetics? What's the point of sending them to be graded in the first place?

Watch the first couple minutes of video.....he states that

[jchcollins]

It's easy to get caught up in the game and the decisions, but I quit doing that a long time ago.

ALL grading is subjective at the end of the day, and ALL reputable graders make mistakes and are prone to give the exact same card a different grade either higher or lower upon resubmission.

So I would agree it boils down to whether or not you like the cards, especially for PC cards. Unless something is just egregiously wrong (i.e. calling a card you thought was a 3 or 4 altered...) then I'm to the point I don't give much of a hoot what the opinion number on the slab winds up being as long as the card looks good in the slab. Good luck with whatever you decide...

[bbcard1]

Everyone believes:

Their house is worth more than it is.
Their kids are prettier than they are.
Their baseball cards will grade higher than they will.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

Their baseball cards will grade higher than they will.

In certain cases yes, but I will say with SGC they often have a higher opinion of my stuff than I do. I realize that's not the bias trend, but when I write down my guesses before submitting with them, more often than not I will get a few cards back that grade a 6 when I thought whatever it is was a 5, etc...

[ALR-bishop]

I always take a dim view of my house's value around appraisal time

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

Everyone believes:

Their house is worth more than it is.
Their kids are prettier than they are.
Their baseball cards will grade higher than they will.

I might print this and put it on my wall

[perezfan]

Many thanks for all the opinions so far... much appreciated!

Based on your responses, I'm now leaning towards just leaving the Johnson and Young cards as-is. I don't want to get caught up in the re-submission game, as it really only benefits the TPG. I do firmly believe the Cy Young should be a "4" but perhaps not worth going through the hassle of cracking and re-submitting.

Yes, the Walter Johnson has a slight diamond cut, but I have other cards with equal or more severe diamond cuts that are graded 4, 5 and even 6. Probably because they were graded a few years back, when the standards were looser. There is a faint stain on the reverse side... perhaps from contact with tobacco. You can barely see it in-hand, but the still photo above really accentuates it. Perhaps that factored into the grade as well.

I have no issues with any of the other grades... the T206 Waddell portrait is trimmed and properly graded. And if anything, they were somewhat lenient with the Fred Clarke CJ and the Ed Walsh Portrait.

Many thanks to all who provided feedback, as grading "ain't my bag, baby" and I consider this very helpful.

[Touch'EmAll]

Gotta be the stain area on back of Walter Johnson that held it back. I would keep as is in SGC slab. PSA might have been worse giving it (st) qualifier.

First impression of the Cy Young - side boarders look too skinny. Again, be ok with grade and be glad didn't come back trimmed.

Yes, seems grading standards are now tougher. Although older slabs can fully be worthy of their grade.

[gregndodgers]

Those cards have great eye appeal and darn good centering, but the corners are pretty soft to get a 4 or better given the state of today's grading standards. In the old days, 4s for sure but not today. Sad.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

Those cards have great eye appeal and darn good centering, but the corners are pretty soft to get a 4 or better given the state of today's grading standards. In the old days, 4s for sure but not today. Sad.

Well, I did send the Cy Young back for review (along with a few raw cards). I have plenty of recently graded PSA and SGC 4s that are considerably worse off than the 3.5 Young.

I decided to keep the Walter Johnson as-is. I'll report back in 3 weeks or so with results, for anyone who is interested. Thanks again for all the input.

[perezfan]

Here (finally) is the follow-up to where we left off...

The T206 Cy Young came back with a new grade, along with a dozen other cards I had submitted. For anyone interested, here's the video showing all of the results...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcDlLbL_oeA

Thanks again to all, for your stellar advice!

[tireolddawg]

Is anyone able to articulate without having a card in front of you what you look at to determine if a card is trimmed? The main reason I’m weary of buying raw cards is that I don’t think I really know how to tell myself unless it’s just totally obvious. Any tips?

[Fred]

It was good to see the half grade bump on the Johnson.

Just curious, when a card is sent in for a "review", do they charge for the review? In this case, the card was bumped half a grade. Based on the half grade bump, was an invoice required to pay for the higher value for the card?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Fred

It was good to see the half grade bump on the Johnson.

Just curious, when a card is sent in for a "review", do they charge for the review? In this case, the card was bumped half a grade. Based on the half grade bump, was an invoice required to pay for the higher value for the card?

Yes.... they wanted an extra $75 for the half-point upgrade. Perhaps the result of their recent acquisition by Collectors; perhaps not. But either way, the half-point bump cost me $90 ($15 for the Review and another $75 for the upgrade).

[CRT Sportscards]

Random question here but are you all in the Seattle area?

[JollyElm]

Nice result.