Harsh SGC grades

[Shankweather]

I was looking through the PWCC auction that posted last night on eBay, and noticed several of the new SGC labels. Each one seemed to be significantly undergraded. A few posted below. Practically every one was tagged with an HE or PQ, which I used to make fun of, but I can't fault PWCC on these. How can that US Caramel Ruth be a 4.5? I realize you can't tell everything from a picture, but you can tell enough. I was considering sending some 19th century PSA stuff to crossover to SGC, but there's no way now.

[calvindog]

a) there's no back scans; b) you can't see minor wrinkling from a scan.

[TheRocket9]

Must be a surface wrinkle somewhere.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Brent says the upper corners of the Ruth have surface wear. Still, a hell of a card.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by calvindog

a) there's no back scans; b) you can't see minor wrinkling from a scan.

The auctions have back scans and they look fine. PWCC usually discloses hard to see imperfections, particularly on high-end cards like this.

[irv]

I've always said SGC grades cards harshly but they'd be the company I would choose to send my cards to.

[iowadoc77]

The E95 Cobb is really cool. Nice big borders on that one!

[Pat R]

We see cards that look over and under-graded by all the TPG's
but it's funny you started this thread about the harsh grades.
When I saw this Tenney I was thinking how did it get a 7
with those corners especially the top left.
Tenney.jpgTenney Back.jpg

[NotVader]

Wow, what a beautiful card!

US CARAMELS are classic

SGC seems tough to predict while PSA is harder overall from what I've gathered.


Near The Gulf of Mexico,

CV

[Leon]

There are reasons they aren't higher grade than they are. As I think has been said, some spider wrinkling or things that can barely be seen. And there are, many times, things that can be seen in hand but not on a screen which lower a grade. Until I inspect them in hand I would say they aren't that far off. Great looking cards.

Originally Posted by Shankweather

I was looking through the PWCC auction that posted last night on eBay, and noticed several of the new SGC labels. Each one seemed to be significantly undergraded. A few posted below. Practically every one was tagged with an HE or PQ, which I used to make fun of, but I can't fault PWCC on these. How can that US Caramel Ruth be a 4.5? I realize you can't tell everything from a picture, but you can tell enough. I was considering sending some 19th century PSA stuff to crossover to SGC, but there's no way now.

[luciobar1980]

Without seeing the backs of some of these cards, the point is very much lost.

[jchcollins]

The E95 Cobb and the US Carmel Ruth are both...CARAMEL issues. Without seeing the extent of caramel damage on the back, they may be very fairly graded. I have an E95 Chance that looks like a 3 or better all day long on the front, but SGC gave it a 1.5 because of the caramel on the back.

[murphy8276]

These are probably no longer in SGC holders and now preside in some Moser trimmed PSA holder or worse. Look for the 6-9s to find them.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by murphy8276

These are probably no longer in SGC holders and now preside in some Moser trimmed PSA holder or worse. Look for the 6-9s to find them.

Reside, not preside

[oldjudge]

Damn grading companies! They are picking up faults on cards. Could there be spooned out creases or laid down corners?