SGC is cranking on recent subs....WOW!!!!!!!

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Frankish

It's still happening, and it seems clear to me that it's a scam at this point. If they have a new policy, not only should it be explicitly stated at submission (not the vague language they have now) but it should register automatically at the time of submission.

For instance, if you try to submit a 1959 Topps baseball card to PSA under a quarterly special for 1960s cards, you are informed that it doesn't qualify when you try to add it to your order. If SGC doesn't grade certain cards at their advertised fees for non-obvious reasons (such as them being oversized for that category), it should come up in the online submission form. This isn't rocket science. It might have been an execution challenge to small company in 1998, but now? High school kids could handle this.

It seems, rather, that SGC management has decided that it's preferable to have customers send in cards and then, when the customers are already pregnant with the costs of having shipped the cards to SGC and having to pay for return shipping, tell them they need to pay an extra $25/card (or whatever) to process the order.

All of this is, of course, setting aside the absurdity for charging "research fees" for cards they already have in their database. And it's particularly galling that they would charge you given that you helped them identify the cards in the first place.

For myself, at this point I guess I'll stick with the devil I know and just wait for PSA to open up other levels of submission. It's a shame. I thought SGC was smart with the general moves it has made to keep their turnaround times reasonable. And if that involved higher fees or limiting the kinds of cards it grades, that makes sense to me. But the hidden fees and/or uncharges are disappointing.

That's a pretty strong opinion of SGC as a company. Not saying I disagree with you; however, it would be unfair to post something like this without including your name.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Eric72

That's a pretty strong opinion of SGC as a company. Not saying I disagree with you; however, it would be unfair to post something like this without including your name.

Some members don't read the rule in bold letters at the top of every page. That's ok. We have ways of mandating it.

.

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by Eric72

That's a pretty strong opinion of SGC as a company. Not saying I disagree with you; however, it would be unfair to post something like this without including your name.

Fixed it, Eric. Sorry about that. In the past, I've commented on quite a few companies, including SGC, usually in a positive light, and no one has pointed it out before.

As for my opinion, it's not a very strong one. Maybe I worded my initial post a bit strongly. In retrospect, though, it is only that I am disappointed in SGC, who I had hoped to make my new grader of choice. I'm not personally outraged (years of serving on corporate boards and as a private investor has left me thick-skinned to this type of thing), but (as a fellow collector) I do find their charging Robert a research upcharge after he helped educate them on the cards in the first place a low blow.

In general, these TPG companies don't seem shy about making announcements. It would have been an easy fix (and a few minutes work) to make an announcement that, in order to keep turnaround times low, the company has decided only to grade major, widely collected sets in its main submission pipeline. Other cards can expect additional fees due to more experience personnel needed for grading. This would especially helpful since many long time customers of the company are simply sending in the same cards they have had graded before without any upcharges and are suddenly being called for more money.

That this hasn't been fixed yet suggests to me that either the company is hoping to collect these fees (more likely once the customer has already sent the cards in and faces two-way shipping charges than if the initial bill said $55/card instead of $30 (or whatever)) or that it no longer cares that much for a portion of its traditional customer base and would rather replace them with customers breaking out Justin Herbert parallels. That is not a bad business decision. In fact, depending where the company plans to be in a few years, maybe it is the best one for them. But being transparent about it would be the better solution...in my opinion.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Frankish

Fixed it, Eric. Sorry about that. In the past, I've commented on quite a few companies, including SGC, usually in a positive light, and no one has pointed it out before.

As for my opinion, it's not a very strong one. Maybe I worded my initial post a bit strongly...

No worries, sir. As I said, it wasn't me disagreeing with your statements.

[prestigecollectibles]

This is posted on the SGC site below their grading fees. Although it is quite vague. Does this mean they will upcharge on certain "obscure" W cards, E cards, etc?

[Eric72]

Perhaps it would benefit SGC and their customers to publish a list of "Standard Issue Cards" on their website. At the very least, make it part of the back end of the site - alerting the submitter that "...additional charges may apply."

[Pre War Starter]

I wanted SGC to LABEL my W575-1 Keating Candy Eddie Collins, with “W575-1 Keating Candy”.
But when I asked they told me they do not label back stamps anymore.
So I made the decision to just have them do the normal, “W575-1”.

I KNOW it’s a Keating Candy, so what do I care if it’s not on the label?

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by Pre War Starter

I wanted SGC to LABEL my W575-1 Keating Candy Eddie Collins, with “W575-1 Keating Candy”.
But when I asked they told me they do not label back stamps anymore.

Did you offer them $25?