SGC on centering
 

This is inexcusable:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Topps-B...EAAOSwSlBYsHqP

And people wonder why SGC brings so much less $$$. You can't operate like that.

Each grading company has it's own guidelines/rules for how they grade cards.
http://www.sgccard.com/GradingScale.aspx

I have seen a lot funny things from all the top 3 graders since joining, but I will say SGC, is by far, the most consistent when it comes to grading, bar none.

And no, I have never sent any cards in to anyone.

Card is clearly either o/c or m/c on two sides and certainly not a "7." This example illustrates why their grading standards are a joke. :(

Forgive me for trying to learn something here but I have a question. I assume the card is in pretty great shape otherwise to qualify for a 7 (corners look sharp to me) though the centering is off considerably left to right and (maybe?) top to bottom, too. I say maybe since I don't really collect hoops cards and don't know that set too well.

If we pretend the card is otherwise flawless and centering is the only issue, what grade should it get? More than 3 points off seems unfair. And I prefer it being factored in to the grade rather than calling it, say, an 8 (OC). But I may be in the minority there.

I use (and buy) SGC exclusively because I love the look of the holder but rarely buy high grade cards and have no plans to resell any cards any time soon. In my small experience, I agree that PSA does seem to do better in terms of resale all things being equal. But I started with them when they were in NJ and despite some disappointment on my end with the some grades given, I never disagreed with an SGC ruling either. Maybe I'm foolish but I trust that they're better at it than I am - and made me better at appraising cards as a result. Nothing better than a card that grades BETTER than advertised when you bought it. There are also subtle variations a to what each company lets slide, too. Back damage flies better at PSA, from what I've seen in low grade cards. Point being, there seems to be a bit of a science to it - identifying which place will grade your card based on its flaws.

And now someone much more experienced will hopefully elaborate better than me.

To be honest I find psa's centering thoughts all over the map just as often. When I see a 10 on my screen that looks 60/40 it kills me.

I admit to being someone who will walk by a off centered 9 to grab a centered 5. It is my OCD in action. :D

I don't see this as an SGC thing only, the others do much of the same. I think those unfamiliar with companies that don't use qualifiers just think it's something. If in hand this is a pristine card and I sent it to psa with no qualifications allowed it could just as easily be a psa 7 without an O/C. Buy the card not the holder.

The main difference is that PSA defines what their centering requirements are for a grade, while SGC does not. So yes, a 60/40 card could still be a 10 if every other characteristic is flawless, according to their definition. Normally they will give it a 9.
Would the OP gripe if it was a 9(OC) rather than the 7, but this would probably get a 6 from PSA if no qualifiers was selected. BGS is the toughest of all three on centering, although this got a BGS 7.5 centering subgrade:
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1992...inal&side=back
1992 Topps - Stadium of Stars #BOCO - Bob Costas [BGS*8]
Courtesy of COMC.com

SGC guidelines here: http://www.sgccard.com/GradingScale.aspx

Their escape clause seems to be "Other factors that may or may not contribute to the final assigned grade might not be specifically noted in these descriptions."

That said, the L/R seems to be within their guidelines but T/B is definitely not. Looks like about 85/15. Their 84 NRMT 7 requires 70/30 or better so not really even close.

Despite the questionable centering I think it's a lot closer to a 7 than this, where the centering is about the only thing that might be right for the grade!


http://siriussportsauctions.com/Item...810039_lg.jpeg

Thanks for the correction; didn't realize they posted that.

And I would have expected a 6(MK) if I sent in that 1952 card, or even a 5(MK).

Agreed, I can't believe there is no qualifier

OK, everybody has different opinions so I'll throw mine in. In general, for vintage I prefer SGC, as I purchase a lot of 6s to 7's, and SGC cards graded at those grades consistently, in my opinion on the cards I look at, are nicer cards than similarly graded PSA versions.

Secondly, I enlarged the pic of the Alcindor, took out my ruler and checked ratio left to right and it is 70/30 with the left side of course being the '30' side.

Left to right centering isn't great, but you really need to look at the top to bottom centering.

Does the old SGC holder come into equation for anyone ? Idk maybe they were a little easier on centering back in the day.

It could be worse, they could call a card with paper loss a 5...............

My thoughts exactly. Just like the PSA 7 shown. That is an older graded card and no way, imo, does that receive a 7 today.

Right on Dale

If you are referring to the 52 PSA 7 Barney, that was probably graded within the past month. The current sequence is at about "270". If I sent that 52 Barney in, the expectation without qualifiers would be a 4.

In all honesty, I didn't see the hologram and thought that was an older graded card.
Are you sure it just wasn't a reholder? If not, I can't believe that card received a 7 recently, especially with those corners and ink stain.

Personal opinion here, but I actually find it kind of ridiculous that centering is even a factor in grading.

Grading should be about the handling/care of the card over the years, not whether you got lucky enough to get one that was cut well by the manufacturer...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SGC is fine.
Card is too off center for your taste, so don't buy it.

PSA is fine.
They make mistakes too.

BGS is fine.
see above

Not a reholder. Reholders keep the original Cert number. This one was graded recently.

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1910...&size=original
1910-11 Sporting Life - M116 #DOBU - Donie Bush [SGC*10]
Courtesy of COMC.com

Here's another interesting one for the discussion. What would PSA grade this card? It has two typed letters on the front of card, but very minor wear otherwise. Maybe a 6(MK) or a 5(MK)? Which grade is more accurate for the value of this card? 1 or 3 or 4.

And the graders have always taken off for centering/miscut issues because perfect cards (gem, pristine) shouldn't be off-center or hard to look at. They're supposed to be visually appealing; and people don't pay similar amounts for cards with centering flaws that are raw, do they?

Well, that surprises the h*ll out of me!

Just when you think you have a pretty good handle on grading, a card like this comes along and throws everything you have learned out the window.

I've pegged most of my cards between 3-4, some are 2's and some are 5's, but now, after seeing that card, I think most of mine could easily jump a grade or two, maybe even 3 grades?

I know it is likely an error, or there is something that I am obviously not seeing, so I am not getting my hopes up, but it sure would be nice to know that I have been undergrading my cards all along. :D

Yet, this doesn't stop the seller from trying to get psa 7 money for a card that should sell for half that. Lots of buyers who fall for the number on the label, rather than looking at the card itself.

So what your issue with the card, the fact that it may be improperly graded or that the seller is asking what you feel is too much? Two different issues, the second one not really an issue at all, as a seller is free to ask whatever they want.

I challenge you to find me the person who doesn't overvalue their own cards to the same degree that they undervalue the cards of others. I think it is human nature. I am definitely guilty of this. That said, I agree with your point. The grade should be a factor in the price and not the be all end all. I still much prefer buying raw cards rather than graded like I have since my youth - though I will buy a graded card at a reasonable auction or BIN price once in a while. But a nice centered 5 can beat the look of a higher graded, off center card.

The moral of the story?
 

Buy the card, not the holder.

Swarmee, or anyone else, can you tell me, or tell me how to find out myself, if this is a new submission or a reholder?

I know it is only a 4 but that grade surprises me as well, especially considering the condition of the back. I wouldn't think any higher than a 3 for this card, but maybe I am being too critical?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-H...UAAOSwCU1Yvbdx

Thanks. :)

Recently graded. Would it have been a 6(ST) otherwise? I think it's overgraded too.

If it were a 2 or 3 and an older graded/slabbed card, I could be somewhat forgiving/understanding, but knowing this is a recently graded/slabbed card, I can only think PSA is really screwing up bad lately, or they have lowered their standards again? :confused:

Well said... PSA vs. SGC, not even close....

I'll say! I'd take that much older graded SGC 7 over that much newer/recent graded PSA 7 McCosky anyday.

Can someone explain to me what in heck the reasoning is behind SGC's numerical grading system??

With PSA, a 7 is a 7 out of 10. Pretty simple and extremely straightforward. But an SGC 60 is only a 5? Even though 60 is higher than 50? An SGC 84 is a 7? Even though 84 is higher than 70? An SGC 98 is a 10?????? Why not an SGC 100 for that?????? Or, to follow their logic, a card rating a 10 should be something like SGC 115, right??? It makes no sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know they have their 'weird' number on top with the 'real' number below it these days (and probably have had it there for quite some time), but what in high heck is their numbering system all about?????????????????

I think SGC's grading system is more of a percentage of mintness, rather than a 10 point scale with half grades. So a NM card is 84% mint, while a gem mint card is 98% mint, but a pristine card is 100% mint. At least that's how it seems to me.

I think a big reason is to have something of significance that is different from PSA. From a legal standpoint, I'd guess there was some issue with having the exact same 1-10 grading system as a new niche market entrant against the biggest, most established market competitor. Beckett also differentiated their product with a grade breakdown; I'm sure this is no coincidence. But, I'm not a lawyer, either. Just an educated guess.

However, I also remember reading somewhere that part of the rationale was the recognition that half point grading (and perhaps in the future, even smaller incremental grading) was inevitable. A 'better than average' 5 that could almost be a 6 can be 5.5! So, they set their scale 'wider' so to speak to be able to better distinguish between cards of different caliber within the grade. I believe PSA may have been first in half point grading but SGC was not far behind at all. And when PSA start giving out tenth of a point grades, SGC will have a complete, 1-100 scale to match. In line with that differentiation, SGC 98 is a card that is by all reasonable standards (read PSA and Beckett) a '10.' However, SGC reserves the 100 PRISTINE grade for that '10' that is literally flawless in every sense that a card can be. PSA can't really distinguish their 10's even though subtle differences among 10's must exist.

I think SGC's holder looks MUCH nicer than the PSA holder. Go look up your favorite card on ebay, sort by highest price and be objective on two similar graded cards. Which holder makes the card look better? Since I think it's clearly SGC and I only buy and keep, when I get cards graded they're for me and I want them to look their best.

All three companies miss. All three companies have tried to do things to innovate - some initiatives being better than others. However, what no one can beat PSA in is longevity and resale value and they're not unrelated. However, I think SGC does a great job every step of the way.

Great analogy, Tim.

It's not that bad...lol

There's a PSA 6 with similar centering.


I'm a fan of their grading consistency and have always thought they were just as good as PSA when it pertains to vintage pieces.