The BCCG problem

[David W]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Wow, what a nice grandma. OK, how about this one. Using your example above, let's say grandma is surfing eBay for a Derek Jeter card that has been graded a "10" and comes across one from SGC (their lowest grade possible) and doesn't understand the difference in grading scales and plunks down $50 for a birthday present thinking she got a deal.

If grandma doesn't understand the grading scale and thinks a 10 is a 10 is a 10, then what's the difference in my example and yours? There is none!

So by your logic SGC is being deceptive as well by offering a grade of 10, right? So if you're complaining about BCCG's 10, why not complain about SGC's 10? Come on, you can't have it both ways! How can you tell me that BCCG's 10 could be confusing to someone that doesn't know the grading scale, but SGC's 10 isn't? Please answer that!

That question isn't only addressed to DavidW, but also to the others that said BCCGs 10 was deceptive.

I don't know (or really care) if they are being deceptive or not, my point is that uninformed casual buyers don't know BCCG grades on a five point scale from 5 to 10. It's no coincidence they don't go from 1 to 5. As for SGC and their weird grading scale, at least a "10" from them is labeled "Poor", not NM/M. I've got no idea why SGC doesn't go to the 1 to 10 scale like everybody else (except BCCG)..... Maybe stubborness as the counter culture grading company or something??????

BCCG is just a way for everybody to make more money and for granny to get "DEALS" on Jeter and A Rod and Peyton Manning and Jeremy Lin "Super Shiny Jumbo Refracting limited edition # of $20,000" cards.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by David W

As for SGC and their weird grading scale, at least a "10" from them is labeled "Poor"...

David, the premisis for your original argument (which is the same point others have made) is that "granny" (or any uneducated buyer) could be confused by BCCG's grading scale by assuming that one TPG's 10 is the same as another TPG's 10.

My counter argument was that if "granny" (or any uneducated buyer) could be confused by BCCG's 10, then why couldn't they be confused by SGC's 10?

Now you try to prove your argument by stating "at least a "10" from them (SGC) is labeled "Poor..." Sorry, but that's where you lose your argument and here's why. We've already covered this objection. See post #17 where I tried to defend BCCG by saying that they are putting a description of the grade on their flip, and then the following post where the OP said that buyers aren't reading the description, only the number grade. So, the word "Poor" or anything else doesn't matter - only the number (grade) assigned to the flip.

So, I ask my question again. How can you tell me that BCCG's 10 could be confusing to someone that doesn't know the grading scale, but SGC's 10 isn't?

Edited to add 2 things:

1.) At least David came back on here to try to defend his position. Nothing but silence from the others who tried to make the same argument that David did.

2.) I agree with David that it is just a way for BCCG to make more money. But he says that likes it a bad thing. What's wrong with making money? When did companies that make a profit become evil? Didn't PSA exapand their grading scale (the use of half grades) to make more money?

[David W]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

David, the premisis for your original argument (which is the same point others have made) is that "granny" (or any uneducated buyer) could be confused by BCCG's grading scale by assuming that one TPG's 10 is the same as another TPG's 10.

My counter argument was that if "granny" (or any uneducated buyer) could be confused by BCCG's 10, then why couldn't they be confused by SGC's 10?

Now you try to prove your argument by stating "at least a "10" from them (SGC) is labeled "Poor..." Sorry, but that's where you lose your argument and here's why. We've already covered this objection. See post #17 where I tried to defend BCCG by saying that they are putting a description of the grade on their flip, and then the following post where the OP said that buyers aren't reading the description, only the number grade. So, the word "Poor" or anything else doesn't matter - only the number (grade) assigned to the flip.

So, I ask my question again. How can you tell me that BCCG's 10 could be confusing to someone that doesn't know the grading scale, but SGC's 10 isn't?

Edited to add 2 things:

1.) At least David came back on here to try to defend his position. Nothing but silence from the others who tried to make the same argument that David did.

2.) I agree with David that it is just a way for BCCG to make more money. But he says that likes it a bad thing. What's wrong with making money? When did companies that make a profit become evil? Didn't PSA exapand their grading scale (the use of half grades) to make more money?

1 - SGC's grading scale confuses the bejeebers out of me, are you happy>>>>
:-) - I think an 84 should be about the same as an 8.5, but it's not.....so I'll concede you the point.

2 - I own my own business, I have no problem with BCCG making money, or anyone else. :-)

3 - As for TPG companies, I've only got a handful of graded cards, they serve a purpose, and I hope they all succeed but I never renewed my PSA membership a couple years, and they never seemed to miss me, so I never went back. :-)
4 - Never, never argue with anyone named David. You will never win. :-) Unless it's my wife, in which case she wins (but only when I let her)

[alanu]

The one difference I see with Beckett is that they are one company with 2 different grading scales... which can create some confusion.

I'll have to admit that when Beckett first came out with BCCG I was somewhat confused and I consider myself a somewhat avid collector. Now I just ignore all BCCG slabs.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by alanu

The one difference I see with Beckett is that they are one company with 2 different grading scales... which can create some confusion.

I'll have to admit that when Beckett first came out with BCCG I was somewhat confused and I consider myself a somewhat avid collector. Now I just ignore all BCCG slabs.

Becket didn't need 2 scales...BCCG was a cheap alternative to get 10's on cards that wouldn't have normally been submitted. Why couldn't they just lower the prices on the BGS grading if they wanted more business? If everyone was being honest, it would've evened out in the end for them...However, they knew they'd make more money by creating a scale that would put a 10 on cards that would normally grade anywhere from 6-8. I say as low as 6 because I don't think they consider centering all that heavily on their scale. I've seen some fairly off centered cards in BCCG 10 holders..

[alanu]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Becket didn't need 2 scales...BCCG was a cheap alternative to get 10's on cards that wouldn't have normally been submitted. Why couldn't they just lower the prices on the BGS grading if they wanted more business? If everyone was being honest, it would've evened out in the end for them...However, they knew they'd make more money by creating a scale that would put a 10 on cards that would normally grade anywhere from 6-8. I say as low as 6 because I don't think they consider centering all that heavily on their scale. I've seen some fairly off centered cards in BCCG 10 holders..

I would agree that the BCCG grades are enablers to those trying to deceive others, much like someone supplying drugs to a drug addict... not really "much like", but "somewhat like"

[RobertGT]

I also think it's a cop out to say, as some previous posts have, that the "genie is out of the bottle" on this one, or that if the current Beckett execs could change history regarding the initial bogus BCCG numerical grading scale, they would.

The way I see it, it would be very easy for the current Beckett management to change the absurd BCCG scale TOMORROW and call a VG/EX card a 4, rather than a 8, and call a NRMT card a 7 instead of a 10. What are we talking about - maybe printing a different number on a bunch of flips? How is that an irreversible business decision? Would such a change cost them tens of millions of dollars? NO.

The current Beckett people may not have made the horrible decision regarding the scale all those years ago, but THEY DO have the power to make things right today. It's called being responsible to your customers. When you have the knowledge that your product is being used to deceive and swindle ill-informed people out of thousands of dollars on eBay everyday, YOU change.

But we all know that will never happen and the reasons why it never will.

[MikeU]

If I had a brand like Beckett, I would not want BCCG floating around to tarnish it. BCCG must get far more submissions than I realize or BCCG really does nothing to tarnish the brand. Not sure, but has always puzzled me a bit.

[HRBAKER]

David,
Whether you start the thread or post in one started by someone else to me is an irrelevant distinction. The point is that you shared a POV just like the poster that started this thread. NO ONE is forcing their POV down anyone's throat. Just like if you don't like a company's product - don't use it, if you don't like a thread or the direction or the content - don't read it, or comment in it or let it make you irate.

BCCG put themselves out there when they came up with a scale that was radically different from the norm. To think that it wouldn't or shouldn't generate discussion is implausible (to me).

Jeff

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

NO ONE is forcing their POV down anyone's throat.
Jeff

When the OP and others have stated that BCCG should change their grading scale, then YES, that is forcing his / their POV down the throats of others - their customers who like and use their service and have no problem with their grading scale.

If the OP and others were actually a BCCG customer, then I would understand their argument. I might not agree with it, but as a customer he would have the right vocalize his opinion about their service. However, as I said earlier in this thread, I would be willing to bet that he has never even used their service.

Let's use my Olive Garden example again. I had a bad experience there many years ago and made a decision not to go back, but I don’t tell others that they shouldn’t eat there. That’s their choice and if they like the restaurant, it is of no concern of mine. I have never eaten a White Castle hamburger. That fast food chain does not exist in my part of the country. So if I say, “White Castle sucks!” then what is the basis of my argument? How can I intelligently speak about a product that I’ve never tried? In other words, I would be talking out my a$$ - just as the OP is doing here by never having used BCCGs service.

Jeff, all of this is obviously going way over your head, so I'll just concede the argument. I’m done posting here. Have the last word.

[RobertGT]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

When the OP and others have stated that BCCG should change their grading scale, then YES, that is forcing his / their POV down the throats of others - their customers who like and use their service and have no problem with their grading scale.

If the OP and others were actually a BCCG customer, then I would understand their argument. I might not agree with it, but as a customer he would have the right vocalize his opinion about their service. However, as I said earlier in this thread, I would be willing to bet that he has never even used their service.

Let's use my Olive Garden example again. I had a bad experience there many years ago and made a decision not to go back, but I don’t tell others that they shouldn’t eat there. That’s their choice and if they like the restaurant, it is of no concern of mine. I have never eaten a White Castle hamburger. That fast food chain does not exist in my part of the country. So if I say, “White Castle sucks!” then what is the basis of my argument? How can I intelligently speak about a product that I’ve never tried? In other words, I would be talking out my a$$ - just as the OP is doing here by never having used BCCGs service.

Jeff, all of this is obviously going way over your head, so I'll just concede the argument. I’m done posting here. Have the last word.

I have been trying and trying to stay out of a tit-for-tat with vintagetoppsguy because his arguments are so patently absurd and analogies so bereft of logic that it's pointless to even respond. However, since he continues to hurl accusations my way I'll respond to his last post.

I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone. If you disagree with my viewpoint, that's great. It's a free country and debate and discussion about various topics are what make Net54 a great, vibrant place for all collectors. I challenge you to find a single thread in any forum where no opinion has been expressed. That's what this is all about, dude. You have your view and I have mine and we are both entitled to express it here. The problem with so many of these threads is that people cannot agree to disagree. I can agree to disagree with vintagetoppsguy and not resort to accusations, silly analogies and juvenile postings of tampon products to make my point.

For the record, no I have never submitted a card to BCCG or purchased one, but who cares? I have seen plenty of BCCG-graded cards, held them up close to my face and I know their grading scale sucks. I have seen a BCCG 8 with a crease through Sandy Koufax's face. That sucks. I have plenty of education in this hobby and that is enough.

Do I have to smoke a cigarette to know it's bad for me? Do I have to be a victim of scammer Bernie Madoff to advise others not to put their investments with him? Do I have to be a customer of the Yugo automobile to know that the car they made was a piece of crap? Since you love your Olive Garden analogy, if I'm not a paying customer, do I have the right to tell others not to eat there if I hear on the news that they just served a rat with the veal parmigiana? (which to my knowledge has never happened - just an example).

That's it - my last post too.
Best regards,
Rob

[novakjr]

Agree with Rob...Especially about David's analogies being completely bereft of logic. At their core, they may make some sense, but they leave out key factors for comparison...Stating that White Castle suck without ever having it, is completely different from despising BCCG without having ever submitted a card.. Mostly because the effects of White Castle on the fine dining community cannot be seen firsthand without tasting. However, the effects of BCCG on the hobby can be seen without ever submitting a card to them.. Personally, I do have a handful of modern cards in BCCG 10 holders, but only because they were cheaper than similarly conditioned ungraded copies.. YES! Cheaper than ungraded copies. And then you see the occasional card being run up either because some seller lists it as Beckett graded 10 or BGS 10, or simply because the buyer doesn't know any better...Yes, as I've stated before, the fault ultimately lies with the uninformed buyer, BUT Beckett at the same time can put a stop to this crap....We all know that a few instances like this is all it takes for a beginning or unkowledgable collector to lose interest in the hobby after being burned. And that is not good at all.. YES! I said it. BCCG is contributing to people leaving the hobby. Perhaps even more than the SWG's, MINT's, GEM's, PGI's, and PRO's of the world, because they have a name that should be trusted in Beckett attached to it..