SGC crossover to PSA success

[maximus35]

I was looking for some input on guys that tried crossing over some of their SGC cards to PSA. What kind of success have you guys had? Judging by pricing off VCP it seems like PSA would grade an 8 down to a 7 or so. I was looking at buying a 1938 Goudey Joe Dimaggio #274 SGC 88 (8). The VCP lists it at $10,000…..but PSA 8 lists for$24,000-33,000. A PSA 7 to 7.5 is slightly over $7000. So what would PSA grade an SGC 8? Do I buy a PSA 7 for $7000 and save $3000? LOL It gets confusing because I feel better buying PSA graded cards knowing I am getting a card that was graded with very strict standards. It seems when I buy SGC graded cards, I wonder if I overpaid because the card might have gotten a higher grade than it deserved. I like the look of pre war cards in SGC holders but I feel better knowing the card I own got the grade it truly deserved. What are some of your thoughts?

[1952boyntoncollector]

This has been discussed at length on this board. Many on net54 will say SGC has higher standards and then many others will say thats PSA , many will say PSA sells for more but they love SGC holders. Then some will say older cards sell just as well in SGC as PSA etc etc..

i just make it easy, if you love the card buy the card not the holder. For resale, though i usually bid on a SGC card as i would be bidding on PSA but a grade lower. So for a SGC 7 i am bidding a PSA 6ish price

you will find that many cards sell in between..like a psa 6.5 for sgc 7 cards. The true classic cards like the 52T on great examples of the card, you dont see much of a difference especially on lower grades

[bnorth]

It really depends on the individual card. They grade cards differently.

[swarmee]

I just sent in a crossover submission to PSA and had the following results:
1976 OPC Ken Singleton was SGC 98 (Gem Mint), did not get my required PSA 10.
1975 Topps Mini Gary Carter RC was BVG 6.5, now PSA 6 (would have taken 5.5 or above).
1959 Topps Don Drysdale was BVG 6, requested PSA 5.5, did not meet 5.5 grade.
1970 Topps Nolan Ryan was BVG 4.5, requested PSA 4, did not meet PSA 4.
1963 Topps Mickey Mantle was BVG 4.5, requested PSA 4, got a PSA 4.5
1984 Topps Don Mattingly RC was GAI 9, requested PSA 8.5, got a PSA 9.
1909 T51 Tufts University was SGC 5, requested PSA 4.5, got a PSA 5.
1909 T51 Dickinson College 2nd Ed was SGC 4.5, requested a 4, got PSA 4.5.
1972 Topps Archie Manning RC was SGC 7, requested PSA 6.5, got a PSA 7.

These were all done in holders. I will probably not crack out the ones that didn't cross, just keep them in the holders they came in.

[Leon]

Thanks for sharing the info. My guess is that if you sent that exact same submission back to PSA, as if it was never sent in, there would be several different outcomes. Grading is a crap shoot imo.....

It is always best to know the attributes of card series yourself. The graders don't know some of our pre-war cards as well as we do.

Originally Posted by swarmee

I just sent in a crossover submission to PSA and had the following results:
1976 OPC Ken Singleton was SGC 98 (Gem Mint), did not get my required PSA 10.
1975 Topps Mini Gary Carter RC was BVG 6.5, now PSA 6 (would have taken 5.5 or above).
1959 Topps Don Drysdale was BVG 6, requested PSA 5.5, did not meet 5.5 grade.
1970 Topps Nolan Ryan was BVG 4.5, requested PSA 4, did not meet PSA 4.
1963 Topps Mickey Mantle was BVG 4.5, requested PSA 4, got a PSA 4.5
1984 Topps Don Mattingly RC was GAI 9, requested PSA 8.5, got a PSA 9.
1909 T51 Tufts University was SGC 5, requested PSA 4.5, got a PSA 5.
1909 T51 Dickinson College 2nd Ed was SGC 4.5, requested a 4, got PSA 4.5.
1972 Topps Archie Manning RC was SGC 7, requested PSA 6.5, got a PSA 7.

These were all done in holders. I will probably not crack out the ones that didn't cross, just keep them in the holders they came in.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

It really depends on the individual card. They grade cards differently.

That's pretty much it.

I don't think either company has stricter standards, but they do put more emphasis on different things. PSA sometimes seems to ignore paper loss especially if it's minor or doesn't affect the image. Like a bit on the back of a T206 that doesn't remove any of the design. SGC seems to penalize any paper loss more. On the other hand, PSA seems pretty strict on centering, while SGC is less so. They both are somewhat inconsistent on corners, I've seen some SGC 60 T206s that look a lot closer to VG, some a whole lot closer. Both also seem to vary on creases. Sometimes really coming down hard on them sometimes not.

Anyone trying crossovers should spend some time learning what stuff their favorite company penalizes more and avoid those cards.

Steve B