A Question of Scale

[frankbmd]

This is not a PSA vs SGC thread in terms of preference or in terms of consistency. The only issue I would like to discuss is the scales used by the two companies.

Lets say you tell me that Company A grades on a scale of 1 to 10 like PSA and Company B grades on a scale of 10 to 100 like SGC. They are grading the same cards presumably by the same criteria. It would therefore seem reasonable for a novice to conclude that an SGC 10 card is roughly equivalent to a PSA 1 card and he would be be correct. The novice might also conclude that an SGC 100 is roughly equivalent to a PSA 10 and once again he would be correct.

Then the novice would reasonably conclude that an SGC 40 would be roughly equivalent to a PSA 4 and you say no to the novice and explain to him the an SGC 40 is roughly equivalent to a PSA 3 and the novice says “Huh?”

Furthermore you explain the whole system to the novice including the fact that a PSA 8 is actually a higher grade than an SGC 84. The novice then shakes his head, stutters and wonders how can this be. I think it is a reasonable thing to wonder about as well.

One could argue that to the naked eye the difference between a PSA 8 and a PSA 9 is less than the difference between a PSA 3 and a PSA 4 and therefore the grades should be closer together, but the difference between an SGC 88 and an SGC 96 is only two less than the difference between an SGC 40 and an SGC 50. Do you get where I’m going?

I guess the one I really have difficulty with is the gap between SGC 60 and the SGC 80 vs the PSA 5 and the PSA 6. It really doesn’t make sense to add the half grade as a full 10 points between 10 and 30 and between 60 and 80 and then squeeze the other half grades in at 35, 45 and 55. And then in the 80s, you go from 80 to 82 to 84 to 86 to 88, but then 90 and 94 are omitted. If you are going to compress the scale at the top, it should go all the way to the top and not end at 88.

Certainly when SGC added their new half grades it seemed to add to the confusion and inconsistency of their system, and rather than start all over again with a new scale and invalidate their old grades, they were sort of stuck with adding to their original system rather than adding to it, but it doesn’t make it easier to understand

Once you know what the two systems are, it is easy enough to work with for most of us to work with, but sometimes I look at an SGC 45 on Ebay or elsewhere and momentarily equate it with a PSA 4.5. I suppose this happens to others as well. There is no solution and one company is not right and the other wrong. They are just different and they really didn’t have to be in my opinion.

[GoldenAge50s]

That's exactly why i keep a little "cheat sheet" on my desk for the times I'm confused-(which is just about always!)

I never can be sure after looking at a few card labels that an SGC 45 is REALLY a VG + 3.5 PSA!

[buymycards]

Yup, Frank. I have always wondered about that. Shouldn't an SGC 60 be equivalent to a PSA 6? Kinda strange.

Rick

[sycks22]

It is kind of weird that there are a total of 5 grades all in the 80's
80 = 6
82 = 6.5
84 = 7
86 = 7.5
88 = 8

[MVSNYC]

http://www.sgccard.com/grading_scale.htm

Furthermore, a PSA 10 is not equivalent to an SGC 100...

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

http://www.sgccard.com/grading_scale.htm

Furthermore, a PSA 10 is not equivalent to an SGC 100...

I probably couldn't tell the difference , and neither could the novice.

[sreader3]

Even beyond differences in the numerical scoring scales, I think comparing PSA v. SGC is apples to oranges since the companies seem to assign different "weights" to different kinds of imperfections.

For example, I have found that for PSA corners are a bigger deal whereas for SGC centering is a bigger deal. So if you have a crease free T206 with 80/20 centering and strong corners, PSA might give you a 5 whereas SGC will only give you a 4 (50). On the other hand, if you have a crease free T206 with 50/50 centering and soft corners, SGC might give you a 5 (60) whereas PSA will knock you down to a 4.

Just my personal experience.

Edited to add: I'm sure there are counterexamples; i'm just talking in generalities.

[RGold]

I find it ironic that the original poster is the inventor of the Monster Number. You know, that ingenious system where you take the number of cards you have in your T206 set and multiply times 1.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by sycks22

It is kind of weird that there are a total of 5 grades all in the 80's
80 = 6
82 = 6.5
84 = 7
86 = 7.5
88 = 8

The SGC system as initially conceived made no sense -- 20 points between a 5 and a 6 and 4 points between a 6 and a 7.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The SGC system as initially conceived made no sense -- 20 points between a 5 and a 6 and 4 points between a 6 and a 7.

Peter, you have summarized my thesis in 26 words or less. I thought lawyers were supposed to use more words to say less or at least make it more difficult to understand.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Peter, you have summarized my thesis in 26 words or less. I thought lawyers were supposed to use more words to say less or at least make it more difficult to understand.

Plaintiff's lawyers.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The SGC system as initially conceived made no sense -- 20 points between a 5 and a 6 and 4 points between a 6 and a 7.

Counterpoint.

The PSA system as initially conceived made no sense -- 1 full point between a 60 and an 80 and also 1 full point between an 80 and an 84.

[E93]

Did anybody notice that SGC also puts the 1-10 scale on their slabs. I just wish they would drop the 100 point scale altogether.
JimB

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by E93

Did anybody notice that SGC also puts the 1-10 scale on their slabs. I just wish they would drop the 100 point scale altogether.
JimB

But that would be too easy. After all...what would you do if they didn't include this puzzle on each slab? We might actually figure out the grade without having to do any special decoding

[brewing]

Originally Posted by E93

Did anybody notice that SGC also puts the 1-10 scale on their slabs. I just wish they would drop the 100 point scale altogether.

JimB

I agree. You can add this to the SGC registry of things SGC is doing wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Even beyond differences in the numerical scoring scales, I think comparing PSA v. SGC is apples to oranges since the companies seem to assign different "weights" to different kinds of imperfections.

For example, I have found that for PSA corners are a bigger deal whereas for SGC centering is a bigger deal. So if you have a crease free T206 with 80/20 centering and strong corners, PSA might give you a 5 whereas SGC will only give you a 4 (50). On the other hand, if you have a crease free T206 with 50/50 centering and soft corners, SGC might give you a 5 (60) whereas PSA will knock you down to a 4.

Just my personal experience.

Edited to add: I'm sure there are counterexamples; i'm just talking in generalities.

Agreed. Same with paper loss....


Z Wheat

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

But that would be too easy. After all...what would you do if they didn't include this puzzle on each slab? We might actually figure out the grade without having to do any special decoding

Mike, I suppose it would be some sort of copyright infringement, but there may be a market out there for SGC decoder rings. I'll be in touch.

[Paul S]

What a boring world it would be if every TPG were the same.