Greg Morris Overgrading

[bcookie]

Scans added

[Zan]

Snap it and try it again, never know.

My buddy bought this card raw at the National, graded first time, snapped it and sent it back to SGC for a second time. See next post for that result

[Zan]

Originally Posted by Zan

Snap it and try it again, never know.

My buddy bought this card raw at the National, graded first time, snapped it and sent it back to SGC for a second time. See next post for that result

see here

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by bcookie

Scans added

Nice card!



Pity it's entombed in a plastic slab though.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by bcookie

Scans added

Looks like you got a nice looking card for a nice price, why you would pay for an opinion on a $8 + tax card is beyond my scope of knowledge, except for your hope that you bought a lottery ticket, I suppose. What did the opinion cost you "all in"?

Doug "quitcherbitchin" Goodman



PS - you're big mistake was not buying the already opinioned 10 a week earlier (I can't get the link to work).

[Beercan collector]

Thanks for adding the pics Brian. The front looks Great the reverse has some noticeable toning. Looks like GM and SGC we’re a bit overzealous in opposite directions.
Searching eBay GM has sold a bunch of these recently including already graded PSA 7 - This day and age probably best to go after one’s already graded.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by bcookie

Scans added

Did you see anything when you had the card in hand that would make you think SGC was right and Greg Morris was wrong?

[calvindog]

That's a crazy nice 3.5.

[Smanzari]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Did you see anything when you had the card in hand that would make you think SGC was right and Greg Morris was wrong?

Am I the only one seeing the discoloration on the back? I think 2.5 is Harsh, but this card is visibly not "NM-MT+"

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by Smanzari

Am I the only one seeing the discoloration on the back? I think 2.5 is Harsh, but this card is visibly not "NM-MT+"

Just mentioned it in the post before yours - 5.5 would seem like a fair grade , of course TPGs being Inconsistent is an understatement

[Smanzari]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Just mentioned it in the post before yours - 5.5 would seem like a fair grade , of course TPGs being Inconsistent is an understatement

Definitely missed that, was honesty distracted by the photo! Agreed on the grade - definitely somewhere in "EX Land"

[Eric72]

On my computer screen, it appears the back has uneven "blotches" of discoloration. It looks like dots spread out in a somewhat random pattern.

To my eye, it seems the back of that card has something known as "foxing" on it. That's a term very common to collectors of vintage comic books. Unfortunately, it's a form of mold.

If this is the case, I agree with the low "technical" grade of the card.

If I'm wrong, and the card is not speckled with spots, I apologize.

[Zach Wheat]

Shane Dale posted a 25 card test and posted the results in a YouTube vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7YDVE30TVc

TLDW summary - GM was pretty accurate overall.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Shane Dale posted a 25 card test and posted the results in a YouTube vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7YDVE30TVc

TLDW summary - GM was pretty accurate overall.

Or was PSA so inaccurate as everybody on here claims and the cards were not really NM/M or better?

If you think Greg Morris' graders are very accurate and on a supposedly random lot of 25 cards, PSA was at 88% agreement with GM, that should mean they are also very accurate.

Clearly, the Miscut card was mis-graded by GM so I would say based on this small sample, PSA is very good at grading cards IF GM is also very good.

[luciobar1980]

People.. you have to realize.. they list SO MANY CARDS. You can't expect them to look over a card the way PSA does. They take a quick look and give a guess of a grade. If you expect every card to come back as advertised I think you're being unreasonable, sorry. 9 times out 10 a card that presents like that will come back a way higher grade and you can't expect them to see every miniscule flaw. Overall I've been happy with my purchases from Greg Morris.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

You can't expect them to look over a card the way PSA does. They take a quick look and give a guess of a grade.

Er....

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

You can't expect them to look over a card the way PSA does. They take a quick look and give a guess of a grade.

[Balticfox]

It seems to me that most of the complaints in this thread are about PSA/SGC undergrading cards. My complaint is just the opposite. The grading companies don't seem to penalize for toning and thus way overgrade badly toned/tanned/browned cards.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

People.. you have to realize.. they list SO MANY CARDS. You can't expect them to look over a card the way PSA does. They take a quick look and give a guess of a grade. If you expect every card to come back as advertised I think you're being unreasonable, sorry. 9 times out 10 a card that presents like that will come back a way higher grade and you can't expect them to see every miniscule flaw. Overall I've been happy with my purchases from Greg Morris.

I think you are giving PSA way too much credit as to the time spent looking at each card. I doubt very seriously on 1960's commons they are looking at the card for more than 15-20 seconds. My guess is GM graders spend that much time on each card as well. Of course, on high dollar star cards both probably spend a little more time due to possible highly graded values, but for the kind of cards in this 25 lot sample, likely not much time was spent by either and for the most part they came to the same conclusions.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by rand1com

I think you are giving PSA way too much credit as to the time spent looking at each card. I doubt very seriously on 1960's commons they are looking at the card for more than 15-20 seconds. My guess is GM graders spend that much time on each card as well. Of course, on high dollar star cards both probably spend a little more time due to possible highly graded values, but for the kind of cards in this 25 lot sample, likely not much time was spent by either and for the most part they came to the same conclusions.

This.

I have been told on numerous occasion that 15-20 seconds is pretty standard for common cards like these. Probably very similar to the time GM spends evaluating them.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

People.. you have to realize.. they list SO MANY CARDS. You can't expect them to look over a card the way PSA does.

I disagree. Using their published numbers of opinions sold, the opinion sellers spend no more time looking at a card than an ebay seller.