SGC on centering

[pclpads]

Originally Posted by RobertGT

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

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.

[Timbegs]

Originally Posted by pclpads

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.

[JustinD]

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.

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.

[swarmee]

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:

1992 Topps - Stadium of Stars #BOCO - Bob Costas [BGS*8]
Courtesy of COMC.com

[smellthegum]

Originally Posted by swarmee

The main difference is that PSA defines what their centering requirements are for a grade, while SGC does not.

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!

[swarmee]

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

[swarmee]

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

[smellthegum]

Originally Posted by swarmee

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

[Kurri17]

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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by pclpads

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.

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

[irv]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

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

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.

[Johnny630]

Right on Dale

[sox1903wschamp]

Originally Posted by irv

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.

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.

[irv]

Originally Posted by sox1903wschamp

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.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by irv

Are you sure it just wasn't a reholder?

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

[swarmee]

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?

[irv]

Originally Posted by swarmee

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

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.