7th Inning Stretch
 

Posted By: <b>Mike Williams&nbsp; </b><p>Just stretching a bit after reading the latest board "debate" when this one popped up on my screen. There's no way this should be Ex based on the upper left corner (and for the record, SGC IS my grading company of choice!)<BR><BR><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2730899434&category=31 718" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2730899434&category=31 718</a><BR><BR>

7th Inning Stretch
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>You are right. It always bother me when I see stuff like that becuase I ahve 2 cards that I think should be roughly 2 grades higher. And when I see cards like that, it convinces me more tha my cards are undersgraded. I'm really tempted to resubmit them, but haven't made up my mind yet.<BR><BR>Jay

7th Inning Stretch
 

Posted By: <b>BcD</b><p>If this was Pete's card it would be in a 40 holder. His cards always looked super tough on the grade especially compared to this one.I suspect the new improved more stringent standards are correct but this junker is more like what people have exspected for years on the grade.In the last year or so the PSA cards are much tougher on corners et as well.

7th Inning Stretch
 

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>I got a submission from SGC back recently, had a T205 graded Vg-Ex that is WAY better than that Jennings card. A substantial minority of cards graded at least one grade lower than I expected, about 10% were graded 2 grades lower, bad enough I've cracked the cards out. Only 1 card out of 80 was graded higher than I expected, and that was borderline. What I would like to see is for SGC and PSA to give a much more detailed description with a number of scans to show what they look for to justify their grades. <BR>Discerning collectors seem to discount the grades. That Jennings card has been listed at least 4 times and would had sold if that EX grade was justified. Conversely, way undergraded cards seem to get close to the proper ebay market price. I usually get a bid I am happy with even on cards that would grade NrMt-Mt where a very good large scan is posted. <BR> I don't see why people on this board rave about SGC, they inacurrately labelled 2 cards I submitted and refused to grade another card due to improper color, the card was good. Frankly, I could do a better and more consistent job of grading sports cards. Bottom line, I'll have cards graded occasionally in the future where the time and expense justifies it, as it does provide a safeguard against some of the scams on ebay. Where it comes to collecting, I'll take an ungraded card, grading is only a tool to help sell a card.

7th Inning Stretch
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p><i>&lt;&lt;...they inacurrately labelled 2 cards I submitted and refused to grade another card due to improper color, the card was good. &gt;&gt;</i><BR><BR>Could you provide some specific examples/images?

7th Inning Stretch
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>What are your thoughts on the card, in the thread right near this one, about the NRMT SGC 84 OJ with corners that don't look near mint?......best regards

7th Inning Stretch
 

Posted By: <b>julie</b><p>I ALWAYS crack cards out of their holders, and thus did I with this one...I can't see anything wrong with it. White borders and almost white back, neat printing, beautiful colors, sharp corners. Of course, I haven't looked at it under my new microscope (which I bought to look at my OTHER winning, the M.F. Walker team photo of the U. of Michigan Baseball Varsity, 1882). Guess you would expect Mastro to have the best possible PSA 6 there was....<BR><BR>I've gotten in the past some really DREADFUL PSA graded cards: a '64 Rose that belongs in the wastebasket, a '34 Frisch that i swear to God is a reprint. never gotten a bad SGC, and I swear, GAI undergrades...<BR><BR>All those pretty holders go right in the trash...

7th Inning Stretch
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>My biggest gripe with grading companies is that if they find flaws under magnification, then they should disclose these. Otherwise you left wondering why card got hammered on it's grade. I have an Indian card with blue boarders and looks spectacular, yet got only a 60. I have 1971 Topps cards with mroe corner wear tahn this card has, and they got graded anywhere between 84-92, so I would love to know why this particular card got a 60 becuase I can't find anything under magnification that would lower the grade on this card so much. My only thought is that since it is an issue they have never graded before, that they are unaware that the specks int eh paper are part of the paper stock and not print defects/spots.<BR><BR>Jay

7th Inning Stretch
 

Posted By: <b>ROB</b><p>Incorrect label: First- 1927 British American Tobacco Company Bobby Jones as 1926 Lambert Butler. I have also seen a 1930 British American Tobacco Babe Ruth card labelled by SGC as 1929 Churchman's Tobacco. This should not be happening as these cards are listed separately in the Beckett online catalog. Finally, I put it down on the order form correctly, which was apprently ignored. Second: seems like T213's should be labelled as Type I, II or III, given the different surfaces & type paper, but as the correct year's noted, perhaps that's being picky.<BR> <BR>Finally, I submitted a T205 with the Gold from the borders notably lacking, which wss rejected for grading. I had sold other cards like it in a group to a very experienced vintage card collector/dealer, who in turn sold some of the cards as singles I had sold him. I hope my belief this card was wrongly rejected wasn't misplaced with those observations.<BR><BR>I should emphasize I do agree with a majority of the grades I received back and most of the undergrades were a matter of one, with relatively few cards in the 2-3 undergrade range. I note the Brucemo web site is rather good explaining the card corner wear with great illustrations, so I know my solution for card grading companies providing more detailed illustrated explanations for card grdes is achievable.<BR><BR>I phrased my complaint in rather blunt terms what other people have politely commented about on this board as well as other places: that SGC/PSA appear to had been downgrading cards by 1/3 to 1/2 grade more recently. <BR><BR>I disagree that this is "improved grading", or "stricter grading" as explained by those who apologize for the Grading companies. It's simply inconsistent grading with past standards and is not providing the service that is, at a minimum, implied by product that can be observed in the marketplace, as well as the written critieria. <BR><BR>For comparision, I had developed some skill in grading diamonds a long time ago. I never had a problem with a Jeweler with grade as to color and clarity of a diamond, in contrast to sports card grading companies. The best explanation I can come to is that card grading companies are sloppy, careless or rushed, with the rule being to assign the lowest grade on the quickest glance. The fee for grading a card is less than appraising a diamond, so time being money comes into play here.<BR><BR>I will submit cards for grading again, but the value of the card will need to be higher and/or the grade of the card not as readily apparent from a quality scan, as is the case with better condition cards, or with another reason to add value to the card that is above the cost of grading. <BR><BR>Getting shortchanged one grade on a high value mid range condition card does not seem to be damaging, as it's more important to ascertain there are no alterations to the card. Getting shortchanged one grade of a better condition card simply means cracking out the card for resubmission to get a higher grade, which seems to be a common game of collectors and dealers from which the card companies benefit, which is why I don't see PSA/SGC providing an illustrated card grading guide, it will ocst them money and such a service will not enhance their revenues.