VERY VERY disgusted with PSA--you won't believe it!!

[barrysloate]

Joann- do you think a grading system that used descriptive grades would be any less accurate than one that used numerical ones?

[Al C.risafulli]

Barry, I understand your point about the number system and the competition for higher grade point averages and such. But I'm not about to criticize those who choose to collect that way - everyone approaches the hobby in a different way, and for some, that's the way they like to collect. To me, it's no different than those who are willing to buy a tough card at a low price because it's been hacked in half and written on, just to fill a hole in their collection. Not the way I choose to collect, but no better or worse, either.

I do collect one graded set where condition is important to me - 1938 Goudey. I'm very particular about the cards, and I only look at certain grades. I'm really not interested in competing with anyone for the highest GPA, but that's just not my nature - I compete all day long in business, I compete for fun in sports, but not in collecting. It's just not enjoyable for me to collect that way. But in that set, I am very picky, which is why I've been working on it for 5 years and still need 6 easy cards for completion. I've bought cards I needed and re-sold them because I didn't like them - leaving a hole in my set.

But to me, trying to get an entire set complete in 8 is no different than trying to get a complete run of a certain player, or to complete a difficult type set. It's just one more way to collect in a hobby that has plenty of room for everyone. I don't consider it bad or good - it just is.

-Al

[Peter_Spaeth]

"One guy has a set that averages 6.52, and the other guy has a 6.48. Can you tell me who has the better set? I wouldn't have a clue. Maybe the guy with the 6.48 really has the better set, and the other guy's is overgraded. Nobody knows for sure, as the numbers are meaningless."

Actually you are right as a matter of statistics -- an average cannot have any more significant figures than the underlying data. An 8 really just means somewhere between 8.0 and 8.5; and 8.5 just means somewhere between 8.5 and 9.0. So strictly speaking an average out to the hundredths place is a false precision.

[hunterdutchess]

Is SCG paying people for these post? The "I am disgusted with SCG" post pretty much talks them up saying that there cards are graded better than PSA. Now there is this dogging PSA that they grade trimmed cards and other problems they have with there cards. Seems fishy to me when there is a advertisment for SCG right over the top of this thread.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by hunterdutchess

Is SCG paying people for these post? The "I am disgusted with SCG" post pretty much talks them up saying that there cards are graded better than PSA. Now there is this dogging PSA that they grade trimmed cards and other problems they have with there cards. Seems fishy to me when there is a advertisment for SCG right over the top of this thread.

Chris,

The love that many board members have for SGC runs deep and true, so don't be surprised. I often wonder whether SGC employees harbor fears of being stalked by over-the-top fans.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Chris,

The love that many board members have for SGC runs deep and true, so don't be surprised. I often wonder whether SGC employees harbor fears of being stalked by over-the-top fans.

Not me! I effin' hate SGC. (I mean publicly. Via private emails I effin' love them. Or vice versa)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Not me! I effin' hate SGC. (I mean publicly. Via private emails I effin' love them. Or vice versa)

Both and neither, sometimes maybe yes and no.

[theuclakid]

I like the idea very much of an encapsulated card saying ex or vg or whatever and a very short description summarizing the reason for the grade....such as creasing, moderate corner wear, bad o/c problem, staining....etc....it makes sense and take out some of the guesswork of the reason for the grade...a lot of the these flaws cannot be seen in a scan....as I said before, authentication is paramount for our protection but the numerical value is much less needed because it so subjective a lot of the time...as Barry said, a short description stating the reason for the grade would be more helpful......too many people just buy the number....thanks...Bruce Perry

[Leon]

Originally Posted by hunterdutchess

Is SCG paying people for these post? The "I am disgusted with SCG" post pretty much talks them up saying that there cards are graded better than PSA. Now there is this dogging PSA that they grade trimmed cards and other problems they have with there cards. Seems fishy to me when there is a advertisment for SCG right over the top of this thread.

Don't you think that if there were any protection on this board, for it's advertisers, that the thread wouldn't still be there? Try putting this on the CU boards- "My disgust with PSA grading" and see how long it lasts. As a matter of fact I had an hour long conversation about that very thread and subject TODAY. As of this moment the title of that thread has been changed as the original poster felt it was fine to amend it and he was just really upset when he posted. Had he wanted to leave the title the way it was I was backing him up on it and it would have stayed the way it was. I told him so too. You can say what you want to on this board but you are legally liable for what you say, just remember that. And there was no threat whatsoever (that I am aware of) of any legalities with that thread or the posts in it. There are a ton of new folks on this board and I want everyone to understand you can say anything you want to, including anything about an advertiser, per the forum rules, which are quite open. regards

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by hunterdutchess

Is SCG paying people for these post? The "I am disgusted with SCG" post pretty much talks them up saying that there cards are graded better than PSA. Now there is this dogging PSA that they grade trimmed cards and other problems they have with there cards. Seems fishy to me when there is a advertisment for SCG right over the top of this thread.

First of all, it's SGC (but I agree that has always confused me, too, i.e., isn't it Sports Card Guarantee afterall?)

Second of all, yes SGC is paying me for my posts. They pay me in consistent grading, excellent customer service and pretty black plastic inserts that make my cards really "pop" in scans.

If PSA "paid me" in the same currency, they would also get my support.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

First of all, it's SGC (but I agree that has always confused me, too, i.e., isn't it Sports Card Guarantee afterall?)

Sportscard is one word (at least in their world.) SGC = Sportscard Guarantee Corporation.

[hunterdutchess]

Sorry (I ment SGC, eventhough it says Sports Card Guaranty on the back), I like SGC and was not trying to step on anyone's toes. The only problem I have ever had with them is that they chargerd me full grading price for a trimmed 34 Gehrig and a trimmed 48 Leaf Williams. I wrote the trimmed value in the form and they called me and said that they had to charege me a higher price due to there markwt value for the grading (they both looked mint to the naked eye). I think it was a extra $40 bucks.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by hunterdutchess

I ment SGC, eventhough it says Sports Card Guaranty on the back.

I agree it is totally confusing.

Originally Posted by hunterdutchess

Sorry (I ment SGC, eventhough it says Sports Card Guaranty on the back), I like SGC and was not trying to step on anyone's toes. The only problem I have ever had with them is that they chargerd me full grading price for a trimmed 34 Gehrig and a trimmed 48 Leaf Williams. I wrote the trimmed value in the form and they called me and said that they had to charege me a higher price due to there markwt value for the grading (they both looked mint to the naked eye). I think it was a extra $40 bucks.

Chris when did this happen. I have sent in cards from $1- $12000 to SGC and even though they are worth that I only insure for what I paid for them. $400 paid - $1200 sellable value. I take that risk on myself but SGC has never forced me to pay more ever, nor have they asked.

Has this happened to anyone else

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Joann- do you think a grading system that used descriptive grades would be any less accurate than one that used numerical ones?

I think the problem with the current system is the implied precision that comes from having 10 standard grades and now half grades, along with the fact that computerization and the hobby have attached financial values to each level.

Think about the old price guides. They usually only reported value for maybe three grades - a low, medium and high. Everything else in between was allowed to slide along a scale in between the values and conditions given. The points on the scale would be determined by buyer/seller negotiation. I doubt that the exact positions of condition and value along those continuums (between reported points) would exactly line up with each other every time.

Before 3PG, you would negotiate a price for a VG card based on what the buyer was willing to pay for a VG card and the seller willing to sell it for. The card may not have been exactly VG and the price may not have been exactly going rate for a VG card. The buyer and seller hit something reasonable to both.

The problem with internet and increased remote (not in person) sales was when the card was not close to VG. Example, take the buyer position. He might say "I am willing to pay $X for a VG T206 Mathewson". He negotiates to pay $X for a VG, gets the card and believes it to be a P/F at best (assume for this argument that he is correct). His position would then be "If I had known it was P/F, I would only have been willing to pay $Y, not $X."

Note that there isn't anything in that scenario that says there was some arbitrary independent number that got at exact value. That's probably why it worked fairly well - no one was trying to defend tiny little slivers of financial position based on fractional numeric grades. The whole concept of negotiation and mutual agreement worked fine as long as both parties were in the same ballpark on condition. They didn't have to be exact - just close enough. That's where the 3PG system was and could be very helpful - by making sure there was some reasonable basis for both parties to be "close enough".

Now instead of maybe 6 categories there are 10, and even 20 if you count the half-grades. And they have all been assigned specific values. That's just flat out crazy.

Even reading the grading definitions doesn't help. Cards almost always have some characteristics of two different grades and sometimes more. How can any grading company purport to be able to thread the needle and fit a card neatly into one of 20 available slots? Attaching money - sometimes significant money - on the 1/20 pick being exactly right is asking for trouble.

So to get back to Barry's question, I think that the descriptions could be better if it went back to being fewer of them because they would not have the implied precision. There would be more room for negotiated gray areas between grades. If there were 20 verbal descriptions or even 10, I don't think it would be any better - card grading is simply not that precise.

Finally, scanner technology has gone to the moon and back since 3PG was started. It's too bad that this doesn't help bridge the gap a little bit in terms of not being able to see the card in person. I understand that you might not want to buy a 5-digit card on a scan no matter how good the scanner. But with modern scanners, is there really any reason to be grading $35 commons?

Joann

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by jmk59

I think the problem with the current system is the implied precision that comes from having 10 standard grades and now half grades, along with the fact that computerization and the hobby have attached financial values to each level.

Think about the old price guides. They usually only reported value for maybe three grades - a low, medium and high. Everything else in between was allowed to slide along a scale in between the values and conditions given. The points on the scale would be determined by buyer/seller negotiation. I doubt that the exact positions of condition and value along those continuums (between reported points) would exactly line up with each other every time.

Before 3PG, you would negotiate a price for a VG card based on what the buyer was willing to pay for a VG card and the seller willing to sell it for. The card may not have been exactly VG and the price may not have been exactly going rate for a VG card. The buyer and seller hit something reasonable to both.

The problem with internet and increased remote (not in person) sales was when the card was not close to VG. Example, take the buyer position. He might say "I am willing to pay $X for a VG T206 Mathewson". He negotiates to pay $X for a VG, gets the card and believes it to be a P/F at best (assume for this argument that he is correct). His position would then be "If I had known it was P/F, I would only have been willing to pay $Y, not $X."

Note that there isn't anything in that scenario that says there was some arbitrary independent number that got at exact value. That's probably why it worked fairly well - no one was trying to defend tiny little slivers of financial position based on fractional numeric grades. The whole concept of negotiation and mutual agreement worked fine as long as both parties were in the same ballpark on condition. They didn't have to be exact - just close enough. That's where the 3PG system was and could be very helpful - by making sure there was some reasonable basis for both parties to be "close enough".

Now instead of maybe 6 categories there are 10, and even 20 if you count the half-grades. And they have all been assigned specific values. That's just flat out crazy.

Even reading the grading definitions doesn't help. Cards almost always have some characteristics of two different grades and sometimes more. How can any grading company purport to be able to thread the needle and fit a card neatly into one of 20 available slots? Attaching money - sometimes significant money - on the 1/20 pick being exactly right is asking for trouble.

So to get back to Barry's question, I think that the descriptions could be better if it went back to being fewer of them because they would not have the implied precision. There would be more room for negotiated gray areas between grades. If there were 20 verbal descriptions or even 10, I don't think it would be any better - card grading is simply not that precise.

Finally, scanner technology has gone to the moon and back since 3PG was started. It's too bad that this doesn't help bridge the gap a little bit in terms of not being able to see the card in person. I understand that you might not want to buy a 5-digit card on a scan no matter how good the scanner. But with modern scanners, is there really any reason to be grading $35 commons?

Joann

Best post in this thread.

Regarding scanners however, I still have yet to find a scanner that picks up those tiny little surface wrinkles that annoy most people, especially when they expect an EX or better condition card.

I applaud sellers that add to the description, something like "light crease or wrinkle visible in raked light not seen on scan", rather then just give a number on a slab.