Quote:
Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit
I don't know if I agree that another grading company could be successful much less supplant PSA and even SGC. I would think that a high percentage of high dollar/high grade cards have already been graded by either psa or sgc. If I had a large quantity of say t206 graded 6 or higher what would be my motivation to have them regraded by another company regardless of their reputation? That regrade might result in lower grades and therefore lesser value. Now might a new company emerge that can garner a portion of newer card submissions, sure, there are a plethora of post 1976 card issues that haven't yet been encased but I think they would have a tough time grabbing any market share in the pre-1977 category. If PSA or SGC went bankrupt that would be another story.
|
I didn't say a new company would have an easy time getting established or gaining business that the current big three have now.
What they'd have to do would be to add value in a number of ways.
For the holders, how about a solid holder with better protection from tampering than the current ones.
Add in some sensible customization, and that's a huge plus. Some people prefer the clear PSA cases, some prefer the inserts like SGC has. Both have weaknesses, PSA needs the card to fit the space, undersize is prone to damage, too big and it has to go in a sleeve. And the rush to get them in plastic does damage on occasion.
SGC has the ongoing issue with the gaskets being a bit too thin allowing the card to move. Plus, while the black is great for some sets it's not as good for others.
Becketts holders are simply too thick for a large collection. Great for a collector who will collect a handful of cards - something like rookies of stars, but at nearly 1/4 inch thick the stack for an early 80's set would be around 15 feet.
So maybe a selection of gaskets? Clear, black, maybe colors for the team collectors, a few lighter choices for sets like 71 Topps and 1950 Drakes.
Put into a holder that's more solidly designed and made tamper evident, along the lines of the packing tape that comes apart revealing words like "damaged do not open" (Of course it would have to be different for cards)
All have made some glaring errors in slabbing fakes.
None of them do all that good of a job at identifying flaws, so someone can tell why a card that otherwise looks great might have a low technical grade.
I'm not sure about computer grading, I see it being fairly difficult because of the sheer number of things that would need to be tracked of which some on modern cards are hard to image.
But having a detailed report available would go a long way towards making things make more sense.
Yes, it's more complex as someone pointed out about the Beckett subgrades, but with a simple number shown and the extra info available a collector could ignore it if it didn't matter to them. (I think I've read the sub grades on my handful of Beckett graded cards, but didn't really pay much attention)
This is an example of the sort of process I'd like to see.
http://www.philatelicfoundation.org/...s/the-process/
Steve Birmingham