The BCCG problem

[RobertGT]

I thought by now that most collectors had figured out that a BCCG 8 is not the same thing as a PSA 8 or even SGC 84, but apparently that is not the case. Still seeing way too many examples of novice collectors paying NMMT prices for EX cards due to the obviously inflated numerical grades assigned by Beckett.

Don't mean to belabor the problem, but just posted a new eBay guide that hopefully someone will find useful down the road.

http://reviews.ebay.com/The-BCCG-car...00000175139486

[vintagetoppsguy]

I disagree. I'm not sure what you mean by "inflated numerical grades." There is no universal grading system, so TPGs can use whatever system (numbering) that they want. It's up to the buyer to do their homework. The grade and a description of the grade is right there on the BCCG flip.

If I want to start my own TPG service and use alpha letters rather than numbers, isn't that my choice as long as a description of the grade is on the flip?

I just don't see how it's deceitful. It's a matter of uninformed people not knowing what they're buying. I think your guide is great and hopefully will educate people, but people should buy the card, not the flip.

[HRBAKER]

I disagree. I think it was a system devised/developed for primary use by TV sellers to allow them to tie in and take advantage of the grading phenomenon and hype and oversell their wares to typically under-aware and non savvy purchasers.

I do agree it's on the buyer at the end of the day, the under educated are typically always taken advantage of. This particular vehicle I think gives them (Sellers) - whether intentional or not - a tool to do so.

And you are right - there is no universal grading system. It's a mere coincidence that all others (generally accepted) use "8" as NRMT.

At the end of the day it's a matter of who your audience is, most collectors know these cards and flips for what they are and you can't blame a company for finding new ways and places to sell their services.

[mintacular]

I strongly AGREE with the original poster...BCCG adds confusion to the marketplace for newer/novice collectors...Their 5-10 scale makes no sense whatsover and most newbies could logically assume that there would be lower grades from 1-4....All of their grades are "NM or Better, Excellent or Better": Well, those graders should s*** or get off the pot, a grading service is supposed to make a definitive judgement. BCCG is a money-making fraud/scheme and Beckett should not offer such a piss-poor service. But since Beckett is actually a junk operation today it is way too late to save their once good name

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by mintacular

BCCG adds confusion to the marketplace for newer/novice collectors

Pat, just the opposite is true. Nobody has added more confustion to the marketplace than PSA. Go look at the very first issue of Beckett. It came out years before PSA was ever in business. In that magazine, there is a 5 point grading scale with a definition for each grade - Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent and Mint.

Notice you don't see Poor, VG/EX, EX/MT, NM, NM-MT, etc. There were only 5 grades and the system worked. Then came PSA and they told us we've been doing it wrong and that there were 10 grades. BULL$HIT!

I can't say for sure Beckett was the first to define the grading scale, but it's the first time I've ever seen it in print. So, if they defined the grading scale, years before PSA (or any other TPG) shouldn't they have the right to change it? Absolutley! It's THEIRS! I just don't see how the OP can say Beckett "inflated numerical grades" when obviously PSA did it first by going from a 5 point scale to a 10 point scale, and then from a 10 point scale to a 19 point scale.

[campyfan39]

I agree that PSA is to blame for the confusion by expanding the scale from 1-5 to 1-10

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I can't say for sure Beckett was the first to define the grading scale, but it's the first time I've ever seen it in print. So, if they defined the grading scale, years before PSA (or any other TPG) shouldn't they have the right to change it? Absolutley! It's THEIRS! I just don't see how the OP can say Beckett "inflated numerical grades" when obviously PSA did it first by going from a 5 point scale to a 10 point scale, and then from a 10 point scale to a 19 point scale.

What's wrong with taking a 5 point scale and expanding on it? There's always variances within each grade, some cards that are borderline up or down.. The 10 point scale is perfectly fine...The 19 however, I will agree is pushing it.. PSA's half grades, are really quarter grades in the overall scheme of things..That to me, might be a little too much. But then again Beckett, I believe was the one to initiate half grades..

Now as far as BCCG is concerned. You can't go around having a 5 point scale that runs from 5-10... Why not just have it run from 95-100?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Pat, just the opposite is true. Nobody has added more confustion to the marketplace than PSA. Go look at the very first issue of Beckett. It came out years before PSA was ever in business. In that magazine, there is a 5 point grading scale with a definition for each grade - Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent and Mint.

Notice you don't see Poor, VG/EX, EX/MT, NM, NM-MT, etc. There were only 5 grades and the system worked. Then came PSA and they told us we've been doing it wrong and that there were 10 grades. BULL$HIT!

Sorry, but PSA didn't invent VG/EX, EX/MT, NM, NM/MT.

Those were around long before the TPA's.

Beckett never fit those grades in their "Price Guides", because the font would be too small, and the price research would be too daunting, the publication landscape being what it was in those days.

Dealers used them all the time.

I will also add, back in those earlier days and being a weekend warrior doing shows all the time...........I never once used the term MINT, to describe a card.

I'd use NM or even NM/MT, but there was always some sort of bug in my head that made me tell myself a true MINT piece of cardboard coming out of a pack of gum, was inherently impossible.

Maybe I was just being silly, I don't know.