A Question of Scale

[sreader3]

Even beyond differences in the numerical scoring scales, I think comparing PSA v. SGC is apples to oranges since the companies seem to assign different "weights" to different kinds of imperfections.

For example, I have found that for PSA corners are a bigger deal whereas for SGC centering is a bigger deal. So if you have a crease free T206 with 80/20 centering and strong corners, PSA might give you a 5 whereas SGC will only give you a 4 (50). On the other hand, if you have a crease free T206 with 50/50 centering and soft corners, SGC might give you a 5 (60) whereas PSA will knock you down to a 4.

Just my personal experience.

Edited to add: I'm sure there are counterexamples; i'm just talking in generalities.

[RGold]

I find it ironic that the original poster is the inventor of the Monster Number. You know, that ingenious system where you take the number of cards you have in your T206 set and multiply times 1.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Even beyond differences in the numerical scoring scales, I think comparing PSA v. SGC is apples to oranges since the companies seem to assign different "weights" to different kinds of imperfections.

For example, I have found that for PSA corners are a bigger deal whereas for SGC centering is a bigger deal. So if you have a crease free T206 with 80/20 centering and strong corners, PSA might give you a 5 whereas SGC will only give you a 4 (50). On the other hand, if you have a crease free T206 with 50/50 centering and soft corners, SGC might give you a 5 (60) whereas PSA will knock you down to a 4.

Just my personal experience.

Edited to add: I'm sure there are counterexamples; i'm just talking in generalities.

Agreed. Same with paper loss....


Z Wheat