Bccg
 

I was thinking about buying some BCCG graded vintage cards. Does anyone have any horror stories with these cards or do they pretty much come back the minimum gade that the lable says.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=360247313661

1. Buy the card, not the label
2. BCCG grades are very different from PSA, SGC, etc. A BVG 7 is equal to a PSA or SGC 3...

Don't do it! Stick with PSA, SGC, BVG/BGS. There are several threads already about BCCG that you can search for and read. BCCG was created as a "low-cost alternative" for tv shopping networks and discount retailers.

What about a BCCG 9? If I cross it over to PSA or SCG is it going to be NM or is there a chance it could be lower?

if you can get them cheap enough, go ahead, but remember the true grade you are buying. As mentioned above, a BCCG 7 is only a 3 to PSA and SGC.

Bccg
 

Their grading level starts at 5....so a BCCG 9 might very well be a BVG 4. As others said....completely discount the # on the holder, analyze ONLY the card and buy the card. DO NOT look at the holder when buying it. The best thing about the holder is that it will tell you it's not a fake and probably not altered. The grade itself means very little, except confusion. Pre-war vintage cards really should not be in a BCCG holder. good luck!! (btw, I am very Pro-BVG as I think they do a great job and for my money are light years ahead of PSA, but that is just me)

In this world you usually get what you pay for.....
 

Unless you're trying to get a great deal --- then you usually get ripped off.

Forgive me because I am new but I do not see a "thread search" anywhere? Where is it located?

BCCG posts
 

Chris,

Here are a couple threads regarding BCCG.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...highlight=bccg

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=120857

r/
Frank

The search tab is above your initial post and to the right.

I would also be weary of the authenticity and possibility of alteration of any card in a BCCG holder. A friend of mine bought a couple of post-war cards in that slab, tried to crossover and came back as trimmed. Don't buy anything BCCG without expecting the worst outcome.

Rob

I would steer clear of the farce (BCCG).

BCCG is confusing, a BCCG-5 is "Poor or better"
But w/ other grading companies incl the other Beckett sectors
a 5 is EX
In theory this Clemente is graded accurately since it is in "Poor" condition.
But some may think they are getting more of a bargain then if this was in a BVG-1, PSA-1 or SGC-10 slab.

http://www.krukcards.com/Omar/2009/o...9/IMG_5077.JPG

Thanks for the info. I am going to try to buy it and see what happens. Like a post said "buy the card not the grade". Its a BCCG 9 63 Mantle and I will bust it out and send it to PSA, SGC, or BVG for a regrade. When it comes back I will let you know what happens.

Good luck!!

Changes to BCCG System
 

A BCCG 9 should be a BVG 7, 7.5, 8.0, or 8.5.

I'm not going to get into the same old argument we always do, but will add a couple notes below. I know many of you hate it. Yes, I wish the initial product had been rolled out with a different grading scale, but to change the scale itself now would only create chaos. No, it's not going away :)

We have made adjustments to clear up some of the problems, including:

1) Pre-1981 cards must now have a maximum HIGH book value of less than $300 to be eligible for BCCG grading. This rule applies regardless of condition—if the high Beckett value of the card is over $300, it must be graded under BVG standards.

2) We are working on label redesigns to bump up the condition (Poor, etc.) so it is even more obvious.

3) We instituted a code of conduct for large volume submitters and if we find anyone intentionally posting fuzzy scans, or misleading people to think that BCCG is the equivalent of BVG/SGC/PSA, that customer will be banned from submitting.

Also, as an FYI, the general scale is as follows (there may be some rare circumstances where it might be a half point different on a particular card):

BCCG 5 (Poor or Better) = BVG 1 or 1.5
BCCG 6 (Good or Better) = BVG 2 or 2.5
BCCG 7 (Very Good or Better) = BVG 3, 3.5, 4, or 4.5
BCCG 8 (Excellent or Better) = BVG 5, 5.5, 6 or 6.5
BCCG 9 (Near Mint or Better) = BVG 7, 7.5, 8 or 8.5
BCCG 10 (Mint or Better) = BVG 9, 9.5 or 10


Also, if you are resubmitting for BVG, I'd suggest you leave it in the case and just do a crossover, but that is up to you.

Sincerely,

Mark Anderson, Director
Beckett Grading Services

Mark
 

BCCG 10 should not poor or better; you might want to edit that line :D

Rich

Hey Mark
 

I am not trying to beat the dead horse here but I have to say, even though I am a huge BVG supporter, and think ya'll are light years ahead of the biggest grading company when it comes to pre-war knowledge and consistency, this scale still has me a bit confused. Here is why:


BCCG 5 (Poor or Better) = BVG 1 or 1.5
BCCG 6 (Good or Better) = BVG 2 or 2.5
BCCG 7 (Very Good or Better) = BVG 3, 3.5, 4, or 4.5
BCCG 8 (Excellent or Better) = BVG 5, 5.5, 6 or 6.5
BCCG 9 (Near Mint or Better) = BVG 7, 7.5, 8 or 8.5
BCCG 10 (Poor or Better) = BVG 9, 9.5 or 10

When we look at the BCCG 5 the scale for BVG is anywhere from 3.5 grades difference to 4 grades difference. As the BCCG grade gets higher the BVG difference gets smaller. That seems a bit confusing to me. I was just taking 4 grades off of BCCG and thought all was good...I guess not :) We'll have to chat about this one in person again. Is it lunch time yet? :)

(I am sure you meant the BCCG 10 was NrMint/MT or better and not Poor to Better)

Ha! edited... thanks Rich.

It all comes down to why the system was designed. It was specifically created for the Shop At Home Market, where all the lower tier slabbing companies were putting every card in a 10 holder, no matter what. We were asked for a system that could very quickly, and cost-effectively, give a rough overall grade to massive quantities of cards. The market was for modern cards in massive quantities, such as a retailer submitting 5,000+ LeBron James rookie cards or the like. Eventually, people started grading some BVG because they wanted the cheapest way to just know a card was authentic. But honestly, the original concept didn't even plan on more than a tiny handful of cards slabbed in BCCG holders less than Near Mint. It was never designed for vintage cards. The new cap on value will definitely help in correcting this.

As I've always stated, and tried to convince all our customers, vintage cards do not belong in BCCG holders. They belong in BVG holders. Now if you have 500 cheap Jeter RCs you want slabbed fast and cheap, we can talk BCCG. :)

Here is my biggest complaint - if the system is intended for the large volume submitters - why can anyone use it? Make a 1000 card minimum on any BCCG order and that will do a ton to limit the misuse that goes on.

I am suprised that you would make those changes to BCCG. I have seen a ton of pre-1981 cards valued over $300 slabed BCCG. It seems like you are going to lose alot of income by doing so.

Most people
 

realize you should lead with your best; not with something else.

Yes, there are plenty of cards in BCCG holders; but the point is, that the older cards should be fewer and farther between in those holders. You don't want to lead with BCCG; you want to lead with BVG and I could argue that no card pre-1981 should be in a BCCG holder (Hi Mark! :) )

In all seriousness; BCCG has a reason to exist and I think Mark and his crew are finally getting the leeway to do all the correct things with BCCG that they should have been able to a long time ago

Rich

i have to disagree that he states the bccg 10 will cross to anything between 9-10 in a regular bgs/bvg slab. most 10's i see in bccg would be lucky to get 8.5's. if this were truly the case than i would buy many of the bccg 10's at a huge discount from the same cards in bgs/bvg 9's slabs, and have them reslabbed bgs/bvg. It just doesnt happen and its bs. the funniest part is that a bccg 10 really has a shot at a bgs 10. really, because why in the world would someone have bccg give them the 10 if bgs would, talk about a huge value difference.

Once again, remember it is geared for the corporate/retail market. I have no doubt a guy submitting 10 cards will look over his cards very carefully But a company submitting tens of thousands of cards in large runs does not screen them for BGS 9.5's or 10's. We are finishing up a massive order this month in which I would estimate 50-70% of the BCCG 10's would cross to 9.5, 20-30% BGS 9's, and a handful of Pristines, with zero 8.5's. You may well have seen several BCCG 10's you thought were weak, but the vast majority of the millions of BCCG cards we've graded cross at the chart I listed.

BCCG is best for
 

delete

best to keep my options to myself sometimes!!!!

Mark - any response?

Sure - we are still a business. A lot of people still choose to use this for inexpensive authentication and grading of their cards, and no sensible business model would turn that much revenue away.

Thats why I think you should not change your current policy. If someone has a Mantle rookie or a high value card and they want it in a BCCG slab then why turn them down?

I think a responsible one might - sometimes businesses make decisions that are for the overall good, even if it adversely effects their bottom line, though the number of such companies is diminishing all the time.

Mark,

I realize that BCCG wasn't your idea (at least I think it wasn't) and that the decision to use this system is one you defend, for your employer. But I have to disagree with the statement you made above.

"...no sensible business model would turn that much revenue away."

Not every business decision can be boiled down to just dollars and cents. Coachs Corner has a business model that has worked for them for many years. It generates plenty of revenue. But it's bad for the hobby.

Beckett's has always been about things that are good for the hobby. Catalogs, checklists, price guides, magazines, honest grading. Heck, I can even look the other way while you guys are grading and running auctions. The integrity of you company has convinced me that there is enough separation between these divisions that I can live with you doing both.

But BCCG is bad for the hobby as it exists now. The grading scale is confusing to many, especially any novice collectors. While the intention of BCCG is acceptable, the system that allowed anyone to use it, for any card, was bad. To many cards were entombed with numbers between 5 and 9, that aren't what they first present themselves to be.

The change to establishing a $ value cut-off of $300 is a huge step in the right direction. Whoever thought of this, decided for this, or implemented this should be commended.

But Matt's suggestion of a minimum number of cards on a submission is a great additional step. Maybe 1000 is too high for you, but there should be something that stops an individual collector from using this system.

Because someday, some dealer will sell that Clemente to a kid, or a spouse, or a new collector, maybe sight unseen, by claiming: Becketts graded this a 5! You know it's pretty nice!"

Once that person finds out they have been ripped off, (And to clarify, it's NOT Beckett that ripped them off. It will be the dealer.) they will have a sour taste for the hobby for a long time.

Ever since Dudley Moore and Bo Derek, our country has graded everything on a scale of 1 to 10. We haven't been asked to adjust to a scale that starts at 5.

If some one has $ to spend on a Clemente or any other high value card and they can not read BBCG 5 "poor or better" than not to be mean but a fool and his money are soon departed. I have problem with the other b.s. grading companies that have every card graded a "10" or have trimmed cards graded with a high number, not BCCG.

you asked....

Isn't "Poor or Better" already confusing? When a card is graded "Poor - 1" you at least know what flaws to expect. I agree 100% with Matt's suggestion on making BCCG only for high volume submissions.

I guess my ethical standards are higher than yours. I want more from a grading company, especially one associated with a good company like Becketts. I don't want my wife, or yours, to think she's doing a nice thing and pick me up a BCCG 7 for Christmas some year.

I knew I could count on someone. I didn't think it would be you. My money was on David M.

Mark, but if you didn't offer this service, wouldn't the submitter just use your other service to submit their cards?
Quite possibly you may not lose as much revenue as you think ;)

No matter what justifications are posted BCCG is just a way for Beckett to make money by enabling TV hucksters to sell worthless crap to ignorant rubes at a vast profit. It is reprehensible in every respect.

No offense personally to Mark...

Thank you for someone finally acknowledging the elephant in the room. Lunch is on me.

How about changing the scale to this:

1-poor or better
2-good or better
3-very good or better
5-excellent or better
7-near mint or better
9-mint or better

Problem solved?

That would be an improvement, but I don't understand the "or better" part. More importantly, how do you deal with all the cards already out there under the BCCG label?

That's kinda the way I see it. Certainly no disrespect meant as well to Mark, oh sure to the TV hucksters.