SGC Labels

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Getting paid to not be accountable for what one says or does sounds like a great gig.

But do we know for sure that SGC won't compensate at all? I know the majority feels they shouldn't be held accountable, but can anyone confirm for sure that they treat the "SG" cards as a crossover? So far I didn't hear a definitive answer.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Robextend

But do we know for sure that SGC won't compensate at all? I know the majority feels they shouldn't be held accountable, but can anyone confirm for sure that they treat the "SG" cards as a crossover? So far I didn't hear a definitive answer.

At the risk of causing trouble for my favorite grading company..., I think they'll be open Monday.

[Robextend]

They are my fav too...I don't wanna see anymore "SGC is Closed" threads from Brian!

[teetwoohsix]

I agree Kenny.What I guess I don't understand is-have the grading standards really changed "that much"?

Maybe someone who has taken an old SG graded card and resubmitted it to them could chime in with their outcome...........

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kenny I am not sure what your point is any more. Should SGC simply have frozen their grading system even though it clearly was out of sync to avoid inconsistency, and remained forever out of sync? Should SGC blindly cross over cards graded under the old system even if they are clearly overgraded under the new system? What are you suggesting?

[Kenny Cole]

Peter,

My point is people are purchasing a "service" that rather clearly isn't as advertised and promoted. When you pay for a card to be graded, you are supposedly buying expertise, consistency and accuracy. Presumably, you are also buying some degree of objectivity because an 8 is supposed to have discernable characteristics that differ from a 6. Where is the "consistent and accurate" grading if what is graded as an 8 today is a 7 or a 6 under some new standard tomorrow? For some reason, the image of a herd of sheep patiently waiting for their chance to be fleeced comes to mind.

What if some poor schmuck is unfortunate enough to actually believe in the grade given, pay 8 money for a card he can't hold in his hand and can only view in a scan, and later learn that his 8 is now really a 6? Why should he be out the price difference between the two grades when it was purchased based on a reasonable belief that the card was actually in the grade SGC represented it to be? As I understand your position, it certainly isn't the grading company's fault that "things change" so the buyer is just SOL. I have a big problem with that.

I understand that standards may change. When they do and there is a loss suffered as a result of that change, I think that SGC, or any other company for that matter, needs to make things right. That is my point. You obviously disagree which is fine.

[barrysloate]

Kenny- I support your argument but let me play devil's advocate for a moment: suppose you have a card with an old SGC label that is an 84, and you resubmit it to get a new label and it comes back an 86. Would you feel any differently about the lack of consistency?

[glynparson]

but I know for a fact that when i worked there all cards in SGC holders regardless of generation of label were covered by the guarantee 100%. SBC cards were not covered but all the MErkle SGC cards were. I would have to assume that this is still the same policy but I would just give Brian or Mike a call if I needed to know with 100% certainty.

[Kenny Cole]

Barry,

I suspect the chances of that occurring are somewhat less than it happening in the other direction but I would have to concede that getting a bump up is inconsistent too. However, if there is going to be inconsistency, I would prefer that it work in my favor

[barrysloate]

Fair answer, and I agree the new regime is likely stricter than the old one.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Where is the "consistent and accurate" grading if what is graded as an 8 today is a 7 or a 6 under some new standard tomorrow?

If you paid 8 money for an 8 slab, you got it. If you paid 8 money for a 6 card, you're overpaying. Next time look at the card, especially if we're referring to centering.

[Peter_Spaeth]

These damn plaintiffs' lawyers see a cause of action everywhere they look.

[Kenny Cole]

Peter, I don't think so. Nor is that scenario likely to occur. While the buyer received what could be perceived as a windfall, you aren't out anything and haven't suffered a loss, except, perhaps, a loss of opportunity.

egbeachley, as for paying 8 money for a 6 and "looking at the card" you are missing the point. You paid 8 money for an 8 card that became a 6card. "Looking at the card" isn't going to help because it only became a 6 due to a change in grading standards. Unless you are the Amazing Karnak and can anticipate that change, you can look at the card until your eyes fall out and it won't matter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kenny I think what you are missing here is that everyone knew SGC standards were different from PSA and probably even most people's standards for raw cards due to their weird indifference to centering. So it's not like there was some unfair surprise in the change, the change really was just to conform to what everyone else was doing.