Quote:
Originally Posted by Orioles1954
I will say that Trent’s original premise of a highly functional SGC is just as valid as surmising that business is poor as mass lay offs are in the future. In reality, none of us know the truth.
|
No one ever said or insinuated that SGC is not a highly functional business. Also, no one ever disputed SGC's overall turnaround times are faster than PSA's. But are you honestly suggesting that SGC's organization and efficiency could be the reason that SGC has a faster turnaround time than PSA?
The only real way to get a more true and accurate reflection of either one's turnaround time would be if you could send a similar card in for grading to each of them, that arrives on and at the exact same date and time, and most importantly, neither SGC or PSA has any backlog at all. As such, both cards would be available for immediate examination, grading, encapsulation, and return. That way you really could tell which of the two TPGs, SGC or PSA, actually may have the faster turnaround time due to their respective organizations and efficiency.
Aaahhhhhh, but the problem is they both have backlogs of cards to look at first before looking at the two cards you just sent in to test how fast their turnaround is. And I'm going to go out on an extremely thin limb and guess PSA's backlog is going to be waaaaaayyyyyyyy bigger than SGC's, so you'll probably get your graded card back way faster from SGC than you ever will from PSA. But what the hell does that faster turnaround time have to do with SGC's organization and efficiency then? Most likely not really a damn thing.
The backlog is currently the main thing likely impacting how fast either one of them can turn a card around. And what impacts that backlog, a combination of how many graders they have, how many cards on average each grader can examine every day, and lastly, how many new card submissions you have coming in on average every day. Pretty basic and simple math, more cards coming in every day than going out, the backlog grows, along with the turnaround time. More cards on average going out every day than coming in, the backlog shrinks, as does the turnaround time.
Funny how I don't really see where a TPG's organization and efficiency really have a significant impact on that very simple and basic formula. Especially when talking about SGC and PSA, since they have both been in business for decades now. And as they are both for-profit companies, one would highly expect they have both tweaked their organizations and efficiencies long before now in their efforts to maximize profits, to the point they have their graders going as fast as they can. And even if not for profit, one would logically think both TPGs would have tweaked their organizations to maximize efficiencies first, before even starting to hire more graders, in combatting the huge backlogs these past couple of years.
Now I've given you some logical and sensical business and real life arguments as to what mostly likely impacts these TPG turnaround times. And the fact, as other have posted, that the turnaround times of all TPGs appear to now be going down, is most likely due to a TPG hiring/adding more graders, and/or the number of submissions coming in to them every day on average going down. And there are multiple reasons the submissions could be going down. Among them, overall demand across the hobby for grading cards is going down (possibly influenced by the current economy), pricing differences when one TPG lowers their grading fees and therefore steals submissions from a perceived higher priced competitor, or even the formation and start-up of CSG as a new grading company definitely has them taking some submissions from all the other TPGs, as people in the hobby may want to try out the new TPG on the block.
So having said all this, want to explain to me again how Trent's original premise, that SGC's fast(er) turnaround time versus PSA apparently has something significant to do with their organization and efficiency, is actually as valid as the many points I've outlined and made, along with the logic, common sense, and facts I've presented with them? And by the way, just saying none of us know the truth is not going to cut it in this case. Can you give us any mature, logical, arguments or facts to really support the organization efficiency theory. He sure as hell couldn't/wouldn't.
And for the record, responding to someone's innocuous post and telling them what they said is definitively "very dangerous" implies that someone is potentially subject to harm or loss for merely giving their opinion on this forum. And without further explanation, reasoning or context, such a response can easily be seen and taken as an implied threat. The old carpenter's rule is pretty apropos in this instance - "Measure twice, cut once!". Except in this case it should be - "Think twice, post once!".