Crossover Issue

[dancollins]

Tony I submitted them in person at a show to Brian and he reassured me they would do a great job grading but you have a point that I should have took some other steps. None the less I am not happy and I am relaying my story to people so something doesn't happen to them like this and many members with previous posts have nothing better to do but find a reason to argue.

[FrankWakefield]

I love the photo of the mass slab grave.

Dan, if you'd never graded them in the first place with PSA, nor the second time with SGC, nor again with PSA; AND if you'd have devoted all of that grading money to buying more cards, then you'd have one fine pile of cards right now. Maybe the lesson was to bust 'em outa the PSA slabs before submitting to SGC, maybe the thing to do was not fool with slabbing. And if you're content when you get them all back into PSA slabs, then obviously that was the right thing for you. Wish you well with it all.

[3-2-count]

Dan I totally understand. My objective is to not argue here. Gets you no where. I just think it's very important that others know that when submitting a cross over submission, especially a large one like yours you'd better make it very clear to the submitter your "goal". If you throw caution to the wind without it you take a chance of getting hurt just as you did. I hope it all works out in the end for you. As others have mentioned you still have the same great cards so that's a plus, right??

[Peter_Spaeth]

From my observation SGC is less strict about corner wear but more strict about surface wrinkles, paper loss, marks, etc. I don't think you can fairly complain given that each company has its own criteria and you did not specify minimum grade. It is my opinion that recognizing you have significant cards, SGC would want your business and would not deliberately screw you on your submission. That said, all grading is a crapshoot.

[aaroncc]

I'm trying to understand what benefit it is to SGC to lower the grades?

[bobbyw8469]

No benefit that I can think of. On my submission and the OP submission I am sure it was an inexperienced grader....I had 64 cards, and the OP had quite a bit as well. Maybe they are giving their big subs to their graders with the least experience?

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

I am sure it was an inexperienced grader.

As far as I know, they have been using the same small group of graders for a very long time -- there are no "inexperienced graders" at SGC.

I once made the same complaint to them at a show and was told that there are no new graders and they've had no turnover in the grader department.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Dan,

You give an example of a Chase in an 80 that is now in an PSA 6.5 after originally not meeting the minimum grade.

Did you by chance call out PSA and tell them the story behind the card and demand it go into a 6 holder?

Lee

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

No benefit that I can think of. On my submission and the OP submission I am sure it was an inexperienced grader....I had 64 cards, and the OP had quite a bit as well. Maybe they are giving their big subs to their graders with the least experience?

I could be very wrong, but doesn't more than one grader factor into the final grade? I thought at the very least a second grader looks over the original grader's decision. Obviously that is not the issue here anyway, but that was my understanding.

[T206Collector]

"Usually PSA is much more strict on its grades than SGC especially with T206."

This is just completely wrong. I once attempted a 40 T206 PSA cross over of PSA 4, 5 and 6 graded T206 cards and only 30 came back graded by SGC. (Of course, I put a minimum grade -- PSA is notorious for overgrading pre-war cards.) I could also give you countless examples/stories of PSA 5 graded T206 cards with wrinkles that SGC would never cross over. SGC is somewhat more lenient when it comes to moderate corner rounding and centering, but otherwise is the stricter company with respect to creasing, wrinkles, paper loss, glue residue, etc.

Your failure to put a minimum grade was a catastrophic mistake and the blame here should not be shifted to SGC. The fact that they have signaled a willingness to work with you on a group of them only confirms that their customer service is second to none.

Finally, the below T206 Cobb was submitted to SGC by me for a crossover. I submitted it in its PSA 4 case, with a "Min. 50" notation. SGC gave it a 60, which I always felt was the right grade. By doing so, they have affirmed for me that I need not crack my PSA cards out before submitted for crossovers.

From SGC Graded Cards

[Neal]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

"Usually PSA is much more strict on its grades than SGC especially with T206."

This is just completely wrong. I once attempted a 40 T206 PSA cross over of PSA 4, 5 and 6 graded T206 cards and only 30 came back graded by SGC. (Of course, I put a minimum grade -- PSA is notorious for overgrading pre-war cards.) I could also give you countless examples/stories of PSA 5 graded T206 cards with wrinkles that SGC would never cross over. SGC is somewhat more lenient when it comes to moderate corner rounding and centering, but otherwise is the stricter company with respect to creasing, wrinkles, paper loss, glue residue, etc.

Your failure to put a minimum grade was a catastrophic mistake and the blame here should not be shifted to SGC. The fact that they have signaled a willingness to work with you on a group of them only confirms that their customer service is second to none.

Finally, the below T206 Cobb was submitted to SGC by me for a crossover. I submitted it in its PSA 4 case, with a "Min. 50" notation. SGC gave it a 60, which I always felt was the right grade. By doing so, they have affirmed for me that I need not crack my PSA cards out before submitted for crossovers.

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Neal

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!

That will be a PSA 4 every day of the week because of the corner rounding, but I have always felt (i.e., pre-PSA/SGC world) that a card like my Cobb is an EX, even with the slightly rounded corners, because it is otherwise clean, has no wrinkles, etc. But I know a lot of folks who collect 33 Goudeys in EX 5 condition do not chase the SGC 60s because they find the corners are often too soft from SGC.

But the point is, know your grader's standards before you dump a few hundred/thousand dollars to have your collection graded by them. Then you won't be surprised by the grades.

I've had SGC grade over 500 of my raw T206 cards over the past decade. Maybe once did I have to go back to them and suggest they under-graded a card. They get it right, folks, with a strong degree of consistency. But the only way you would know that is if you spent the time sending cards in, analyzing the grades, talking to the SGC folk, etc.

[tinkereversandme]

I would like to see those same cards submitted to PSA, ungraded to see what grades would return. I wonder what level of consistency there is a second time around.

As a gambler, I recognize one in the poster (who didn't get a minimum, and dared to crossover), I'm sorry (even though I am a pro-SGC guy) this happened but I never understood the purpose of crossing over.

Also, as one poster mentioned. What would the point of sending them back in to SGC if they can't get it right the first time? Cards sent in the same condition don't get better by flight.

Larry

[steve B]

No, the cards wouldn't get any better, but as long as it's people doing the grading the grading will be inconsistent.

Maybe the grader didn't sleep well or argued with his wife,(Or she argued with her husband) and wasn't in a good mood.

Or maybe there was a special card going through that day and he didn't get the assignment.....

Borderline cases will seem better or worse depending on someones mood, or merely on different perceptions different days. Try taking a stack of maybe 150 cheap cards like late 70's in less than near mint. Now go through them and pick out the nicer ones. make two piles, the vg-ex and the ex. Leave them somewhere for a couple days, and sort them again. I'll bet you end up with a few that move from one stack to the other. For more fun try it at different times of the day. Say maybe right after a nice lunch and at 4:30.

Getting it 100% consistent is pretty hard And the workload can't make it any easier. I tried going through some fairly modern cards looking for the absolute best ones. 81 topps, looking at centering and corners mostly. I found I got sloppy after 3-400 cards and pretty hopeless after only 600.

And all that is why they're willing to do reviews

Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Neal

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!

I personally would grade it VG EX+ but it does not offend me to call it EX. SGC will grade T206s with even more corner wear EX though, and that bothers me.

[dancollins]

Originally Posted by Neal

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!

I agree PSA had it right, maybe a 4.5 at best but nice Cobb

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by Neal

PSA had the correct grade on that .... should be a 4

Great looking Cobb!

I agree. I didn't think either PSA or SGC awarded EX grades for corners rounded to that extent.

[ethicsprof]

sorry to hear about the troubles, Dan.

i must say that every time i've spoken with SGC's customer service, things have worked out well.

best,

barry

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Wesley

I agree. I didn't think either PSA or SGC awarded EX grades for corners rounded to that extent.

SGC will. My past set had a number of examples of this. The corners have to get worn to my Bender to merit an SGC 50:

From SGC Graded Cards

[dancollins]

T206 Collector you should go work for SGC or buy stock in their company you defend them like someone would their Mother or Girlfriend

[tbob]

I've seen cards from both companies with corner problems but otherwise nice getting PSA 5 or SGC 60 grades. I just hate that SGC is death on any kind of backwriting no matter how small (even on blank backs). Maybe PSA has the right idea when they grade PSA 6 MK instead of the grade tumbling to an SGC 10 or 20. Just venting...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Similar to Bender?

[smtjoy]

I can not help but think I am happy I choose SGC for my grading. I do feel they are tougher than PSA as well as more consistent and threads like this only confirm it.

I feel sorry for what happened to you Dan but it really sounds like you played the reslab game and lost. If you liked the cards in the first place and you were crossing as you said because you liked the SGC slabs better then the grades should not have mattered, at the end of the day you had the same great cards in the slabs you prefered. But because of your comments I can not help but think you were crossing because you felt many/most of them would get bumped and were doing it for your own gain and when that failed you decide to take it out on SGC.

Good luck on your resubbing at PSA and for your sake I hope you get the easy grader over there so all your grades come out higher and you can come on here and praise PSA's great work lol.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by smtjoy

sounds like you played the reslab game and lost...

the end.

[botn]

I understand Dan is upset as any of us would be if we lost money or value in our cards however that is why it is imperative if using the cross over to employ minimum grades. You lose nothing other than the grading fee by doing this. Under these circumstances there is no reason or incentive for SGC to have misgraded the cards. What do they gain in do so? I do not use SGC but who says the cards that downgraded were graded right by PSA in the first place? Which is why on the second post on this thread I suggested Dan provide some scans so we know if SGC messed up. Think it is only fair if you are going to trash someone or you want meaningful responses to a problem you have to be willing to provide sufficient information.

[quinnsryche]

The original poster is wrong in this case. If he didn't want them qualified with a minimum, it's his fault. SGC doesn't owe him a phone call, he chose to let the chips fall on the grading. They graded them at their standards, not PSA's. If he loves PSA so much, why did he want to cross them over? Anyone with any knowledge of grading in this hobby KNOWS PSA overgrades and SGC is tougher. Sending that many cards as a crap shoot with fingers crossed makes no sense whatsoever. Also, why would anyone think a card should automatically crossover equal from one to another? Kinda defeats the purpose of 2 completely different grading companies, doesn't it?

[danc]

As a person who prefers and respects SGC over PSA, would this thread have been started if there was a tremendous amount of upgrades, over downgrades? I hope this poster sends 106 raw cards to PSA and I want to see what kind of grade they get a second time with them. A kind of a test. If an original PSA 5, got a SGC 50 and now a PSA 4 (or funnier yet, 3 1/2), it would could further frustrate the poster and bemuse the board.

DanC

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From my observation SGC is less strict about corner wear but more strict about surface wrinkles, paper loss, marks, etc. I don't think you can fairly complain given that each company has its own criteria and you did not specify minimum grade. It is my opinion that recognizing you have significant cards, SGC would want your business and would not deliberately screw you on your submission. That said, all grading is a crapshoot.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Originally Posted by dancollins

Tony I submitted them in person at a show to Brian and he reassured me they would do a great job grading but you have a point that I should have took some other steps. None the less I am not happy and I am relaying my story to people so something doesn't happen to them like this and many members with previous posts have nothing better to do but find a reason to argue.

No one is looking to argue, but I think many would do things a lot different and that is the message being conveyed. There are plenty of good reasons to bash any grading company, but this might not be one of them.

[slidekellyslide]

Did you take scans of any of these before cracking them out? It would be helpful to see examples of the downgrades.

[nolemmings]

*