Thoughts on Grading Cards...

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

John...I easily read 2/3rds of the threads here on this page and the main page (that's about it except the B/S/T boards) and no, I have never seen any legit issue's on SGC, especially the only reason I deem any value on graded cards - Authentic.

The synopsis of the threads I have read are: sometimes the black gaskets wrap around and damage the cards in SGC holders, making "protected" cards worth less than they should be, since they're now damaged or ripped and no longer worthy of their grades.
They have also been known to grade trimmed or altered cards and grade them with a number. That's what was confirmed in the JustCollect thread I referred to.

[Leon]

BGS, BVG and SGC are far, far more consistent in their grading than PSA. For cards I have seen there is no comparison. It seems PSA WANTS resubmissions and grades low to get them. There are thousands of lemmings lining up too. To that I say, BS. If someone wants to buy my erroneously graded cards they will have to pay for the card and not the idiot's opinion on the flip. And with that statement I will buy this kind of '51 Mantle, in a PSA 2 holder, for SMR 2 prices all day long. Please someone PM me with some for sale.....I will buy all of them.

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by Leon

BGS, BVG and SGC are far, far more consistent in their grading than PSA. For cards I have seen there is no comparison. It seems PSA WANTS resubmissions and grades low to get them. There are thousands of lemmings lining up too. To that I say, BS. If someone wants to buy my erroneously graded cards they will have to pay for the card and not the idiot's opinion on the flip. And with that statement I will buy this kind of '51 Mantle, in a PSA 2 holder, for SMR 2 prices all day long. Please someone PM me with some for sale.....I will buy all of them.

It's a nice card ( again) Leon, but not sure where it fits into your consistency statement. The card is graded correctly . Good, 2

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

It's a nice card ( again) Leon, but not sure where it fits into your consistency statement. The card is graded correctly . Good, 2

I guess opinions can differ. If you think that is a 2 so be it. I don't. I have heard too many resubmission stories but maybe they are all wrong. Happy collecting...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-Bowman-...oAAOSwgApW~WWs

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-Bowman-...p2047675.l2557
.

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by Leon

I guess opinions can differ. If you think that is a 2 so be it. I don't. I have heard too many resubmission stories but maybe they are all wrong. Happy collecting...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-Bowman-...oAAOSwgApW~WWs

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-Bowman-...p2047675.l2557
.

Well PSA 3 and 4 does allow for light crease. Your runs nearly to to bottom and is clearly visible. Don't get me wrong, I love the card! I can't see it ever being awarded more than 2.5. I think they got it right. Just an opinion of which there are many

[irv]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

Well PSA 3 and 4 does allow for light crease. Your runs nearly to to bottom and is clearly visible. Don't get me wrong, I love the card! I can't see it ever being awarded more than 2.5. I think they got it right. Just an opinion of which there are many

I have 52 yr old eyes mind you but I do not see a crease in, Leon's card anywhere?

The worst I see is a small stain on the back of his card but there is no way in hell that card is a 2.

Like what Leon has shown, his card is "clearly" nice/better than those 2.

[Stonepony]

Ok Dale, there's no crease. Agree it's a really nice card.

[DBesse27]

Originally Posted by Leon

I guess opinions can differ. If you think that is a 2 so be it. I don't. I have heard too many resubmission stories but maybe they are all wrong. Happy collecting...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-Bowman-...oAAOSwgApW~WWs

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-Bowman-...p2047675.l2557
.

Leon, you're a hobby veteran, so I'm surprised, but you're mixing up "eye appeal" and "technical grade." It's a beautiful card, but PSA's grading standards state that if a card exhibits a clearly visible crease, it will get a PSA 2 or lower. That is black & white and not open to opinion. But again, the card is gorgeous, and exhibits eye appeal that FAR exceeds the technical grade. I believe that in an auction the card would sell for much more than other PSA 2 copies of the same card. But that does not mean it is not technically graded correctly as a 2. A card can be both a beautiful specimen and a PSA 2. These 2 attributes are not mutually exclusive.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by DBesse27

Leon, you're a hobby veteran, so I'm surprised, but you're mixing up "eye appeal" and "technical grade." It's a beautiful card, but PSA's grading standards state that if a card exhibits a clearly visible crease, it will get a PSA 2 or lower. That is black & white and not open to opinion. But again, the card is gorgeous, and exhibits eye appeal that FAR exceeds the technical grade. I believe that in an auction the card would sell for much more than other PSA 2 copies of the same card. But that does not mean it is not technically graded correctly as a 2. A card can be both a beautiful specimen and a PSA 2. These 2 attributes are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, not to be too much of a hardhead but You are wrong about a crease, to start with, according to the written standards. Not that it matters but this "crease" is a wrinkle as there is NO creasing on the back, it's a wrinkle. Even if it were a crease it wouldn't matter it should still be a higher grade ACCORDING TO PSA'S WRITTEN RULES. It should have easily been a 3 imo.....

I am surprised of the pushback and apparent ignorance of PSA's written standards on the PSA grading of the Mantle. It is clearly misgraded to me but of course I am bias. I am surprised though, the PSA advocates don't know these guidelines by heart. From their website-

"A PSA VG 3 card reveals some rounding of the corners, though not extreme. Some surface wear will be apparent, along with possible light scuffing or light scratches. Focus may be somewhat off-register and edges may exhibit noticeable wear. Much, but not all, of the card's original gloss will be lost. Borders may be somewhat yellowed and/or discolored. A crease may be visible. Printing defects are possible. Slight stain may show on obverse and wax staining on reverse may be more prominent. Centering must be 90/10 or better on the front and back."

Even when going to a PSA 4 their site says "A light crease may be visible."

With those standards this card easily qualifies for a 3 possibly a 3.5, imo......


.

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by Leon

Actually, not to be too much of a hardhead but You are wrong about a crease, to start with, according to the written standards. Not that it matters but this "crease" is a wrinkle as there is NO creasing on the back, it's a wrinkle. Even if it were a crease it wouldn't matter it should still be a higher grade ACCORDING TO PSA'S WRITTEN RULES. It should have easily been a 3 imo.....

I am surprised of the pushback and apparent ignorance of PSA's written standards on the PSA grading of the Mantle. It is clearly misgraded to me but of course I am bias. I am surprised though, the PSA advocates don't know these guidelines by heart. From their website-

"A PSA VG 3 card reveals some rounding of the corners, though not extreme. Some surface wear will be apparent, along with possible light scuffing or light scratches. Focus may be somewhat off-register and edges may exhibit noticeable wear. Much, but not all, of the card's original gloss will be lost. Borders may be somewhat yellowed and/or discolored. A crease may be visible. Printing defects are possible. Slight stain may show on obverse and wax staining on reverse may be more prominent. Centering must be 90/10 or better on the front and back."

Even when going to a PSA 4 their site says "A light crease may be visible."

With those standards this card easily qualifies for a 3 possibly a 3.5, imo......


.

If you feel that strongly- and I understand- what could you possibly have to lose by a resubmission. The card has a wrinkle/ crease. Resubmit to the TPG of your choice and if the card comes back any higher than 2.5- I will personally reimburse your submission fees. Go for it. And once more...Nice card

[steve B]

Originally Posted by swarmee

The synopsis of the threads I have read are: sometimes the black gaskets wrap around and damage the cards in SGC holders, making "protected" cards worth less than they should be, since they're now damaged or ripped and no longer worthy of their grades.
They have also been known to grade trimmed or altered cards and grade them with a number. That's what was confirmed in the JustCollect thread I referred to.

Well, ok here's a bit from a pro SGC guy that's not all rah rah.

As far as the gaskets go - Wrap around isn't really correct, They're sometimes a bit too thin, and thinner cards can slide under them. Hasn't happened to me, but I've seen the pics and yeah, those really should be done better. Thicker for sure, and I'd love to see them in colors besides black. T51s are really thin, so I think you were better off with PSA. On the other hand, they make the slab very adjustable. So odd sets don't have to get a weird looking plastic bag, and oversize cards can be holdered easily. that's more of an issue for prewar than postwar.

Resale - PSA does have an advantage in a number of areas, not all, but a lot especially postwar. And that's entirely because of the registry. Love it or hate it it's probably there to stay.

Registry - SGC was a bit too late to the game, to get much traction there, and I will say their new setup for pop reports and registry needs work. The old one wasn't great, but worked. The new one is really hard to navigate at times. When I started grading a few cards PSA didn't make the pop reports public? They do now and that's a huge improvement.

The holder overall - SGCs could use some major updating physically. But as we saw when they tried going to a really different flip, there was a LOAD of resistance. PSA did some upgrades, but apparently still sneaks a few of the old slabs in here and there. I haven't really looked at the new one, but everyone says it's harder to compromise and that's a good thing.
Retooling the slabs might be considered as too expensive, but really needs to be done by SGC. (Why neither company laser etches the SN onto the slab itself is a puzzle.)

Grading fakes /altered cards - If it's fair to take SGC to task over stuff supposedly done 15+ years ago, then it should be fair to say the same about PSA.

Consistency - I will say that the last year or so I've seen some pretty weak mid grade T206s from SGC. 50's that look to me more like 40's, that sort of thing. Overall I think they're more consistent, maybe having fewer cards to do helps. PSA certainly has a much larger volume, so even if they have the same rate of mistakes we'll see more from them. Probably also because the customer base is more into grading for immediate sale rather than grading and holding the card for a few years. (Just my impression, could be wrong)

Overall business approach - I don't like the "Pay us for the privilege of paying us " approach of PSA. Just as I'd be pretty put off by a bar charging $100 as a cover but saying it included my first 8 beers. I dropped off my first few cards with SGC at a show, and they were pretty nice about answering some questions I had about the slab itself - was it totally sealed? No (That's good, at least if there's acidic outgassing from the cardstock it won't be totally sealed inside to make things worse) How do I figure the value of the cards I'm sending in? Based on what I think the grade might be, or on what it's worth ungraded? - Quick look, "Mid grade T206s put 100 each" They were also very nice and quick about showing me the stuff I'd missed on a couple where I really questioned the grade. Also at a show, and for free. I haven't talked to anyone from PSA since they were new, so nothing really to compare. When they were new my questions were about grading cards that might be factory miscut oversized, and the answer was sort of a dismissive "meh, if it won't fit the holder there's not much we can do" But that was during their first year, so not a good comparison.

Overall, I think either one is fine *, and I'll include Beckett in that as well although I only have maybe one or two cards they've done and don't look at many.


*I do however think that the tiering and turnaround for both (Maybe Bekett too? ) Is totally backwards. My other current active hobby has certification, and the leaders take their time doing it, and more time on the expensive stuff. They're also more willing to not offer an opinion if something is really unusual to the point where it cant reliably be deemed authentic.


Steve Birmingham

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

They (SGC) have also been known to grade trimmed or altered cards and grade them with a number.

To me, this is hilarious. The very foundation of PSA is built on a trimmed card...

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, you should make that image your avatar.

[DBesse27]

I didn't know that saying they correctly graded one card made me a "PSA advocate." Now I know. Regardless, your card is a 2, and if you subbed it 10x it would never get higher than a 2.5 . Nevertheless, I love the card and would be proud to own it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by DBesse27

I didn't know that saying they correctly graded one card made me a "PSA advocate." Now I know. Regardless, your card is a 2, and if you subbed it 10x it would never get higher than a 2.5 . Nevertheless, I love the card and would be proud to own it.

Ok then Dan, no worries. You aren't a PSA advocate. Thanks for the kind words about the card too. Let's just forget the part about creases and it will be all better. No way could a 3-4 have any. Just like it doesn't rate a 3.... No way. (unless we go by PSA's written quidelines)

I am sure Please Submit Again would love for it to be sent in 10 more times. That would be $800 in fees and about $250 in gouged shipping costs.
I have heard of people doing that. It's a great racket. My question is if PSA got it wrong then why are they charging to change a mistake? LMAO

I fix my mistakes for free.


.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There is probably a disparity between their written grading standards and how they really grade. Especially on a major card. According to the written word yes it could be a 3 but I would be surprised if they bumped it.

[DBesse27]

Originally Posted by Leon

Ok then Dan, no worries. You aren't a PSA advocate. Thanks for the kind words about the card too. Let's just forget the part about creases and it will be all better. No way could a 3-4 have any. Just like it doesn't rate a 3.... No way. (unless we go by PSA's written quidelines)

I am sure Please Submit Again would love for it to be sent in 10 more times. That would be $800 in fees and about $250 in gouged shipping costs.
I have heard of people doing that. It's a great racket. My question is if PSA got it wrong then why are they charging to change a mistake? LMAO

I fix my mistakes for free.
.

I admit I misstated their stance on creases. Nevertheless, that doesn't change my opinion that the card is correctly graded. Just my opinion and I'll agree to disagree.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by DBesse27

I admit I misstated their stance on creases. Nevertheless, that doesn't change my opinion that the card is correctly graded. Just my opinion and I'll agree to disagree.

It's only cards and a conversation, no more and no less. I don't think PSA is a bad company. I would guess 80%-90% of the value of my card holdings are now in PSA holders (with rookies included). I just think they are way, way, way overrated. But too, I have to go with the perceived notion they are better, for buying and selling, as that is the game in the hobby so it seems. I will have to pay (and sell for) less, the other TPG companies holders in certain parts of the hobby. And I agree, we can politely agree to disagree. It's all good....take care

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The very foundation of PSA is built on a trimmed card...

Exactly, glad to see someone finally make this distiction. I've cited this very thing when people in other threads or in online sales want to get all high and mighty about PSA. Have you watched the ESPN 30-for-30 short "Holy Grail" with Keith Olbermann, where he just (very convincingly) rips the entire history of that card and exposes it and Bill Mastro as total frauds? The worst part is where PSA founder David Hall's reasoning for the slab on the Gretzky Wagner is "well, it didn't look trimmed to me." Come. On. The company whose very reason for being is that they are ostensibly the experts and know more about cards than anyone to the point where they can be the unquestioned authority - and that right there proves it's built on a foundation of total rubbish. Other graders in the room said they knew it was trimmed but to give it an Altered designation would be too detrimental to the hobby. They may have been right, but it does not change the fact that yes, the whole foundation of PSA essentially is built on a gigantic lie. If they ever just hand out Wagner cards one day, I'd much rather have Mr. Burdick's from the Met - even though it's in worse shape and has a few visible wrinkles.