Options
Crackout Results... PSA to SGC
Seaverfan
Posts: 73 ✭✭✭
I was surprised (some might say shocked) this summer with a submission to PSA, so I cracked out half and sent them to SGC. Other half going to SGC later this year/early next. These were the results...
1974 Topps Seaver #80 PSA 5 to SGC 9
1973 Topps Seaver #350 PSA 6 to SGC 8.5
1973 Topps Seaver #350 PSA 8 to SGC 9
1972 Topps Seaver #445 PSA 6 to SGC 7
1972 Topps Seaver #445 PSA 8 to SGC 9
1985 McGwire #401 PSA 6 to PSA 8
1985 McGwire #401 PSA 8 to SGC 8.5
1985 McGwire #401 PSA 7 to SGC 9
1985 Clemens # 181 PSA 8 to SGC 8
1985 Clemens #181 PSA 8 to SGC 8.5
1985 Clemens #181 PSA 8 to SGC 9
1985 Clemens #181 PSA 8 to SGC 9
Wow...
8
Comments
That's pretty telling. And congrats!
What a difference in opinion
(SGC-PSA>1). Congrats!
Is PSA undergrading or is SGC overgrading?
I don't agree with some of those PSA grades, but I don't agree with some of the SGC grades either.
Nothing these companies like hearing more than cards getting cracked out. $$$
Holy cow! That's very telling on the older vintage.
Now you have me even more concerned about the ones i just sent in for the 50s Special.
I'm planning on doing a very similar experiment soon, and started putting together the sub earlier this week. Mine will be a bunch that came back from the recent 80s special.
You just became the lead marketer for SGC. I think everyone wants consistency and what they consider fair grading. When you look at a card and can't see any issues when standing in the sun, then the card should have a high grade. If you need a telescope to find an issue, it's not much of an issue to me. The surface is what is providing the scores. they are using better/stronger magnifying to grade the cards, thus small surface issues within the cardboard are bringing the grades immediately to a 7 or 8.
PSA has gotten so tough on 70s cards it is crazy.
These were higher/high end specimens from my summer submissions which is why I sent these particular PSA crackouts into SGC. The next set of crackouts will be interesting I'm sure. Included will be a PSA Ryan rookie and a rare 1967 Seaver Mets Postcard among others. But I'll leave that for the future.
I agree surface issues have taken on greater impact on grading at PSA. I also think PSA has been using AI which may be problematic for collectors. Perhaps this changes the grading protocol and possibly final grades (when compared to the past grading) .
Are these the highlights or is this all that you sent in on one order?
These are the first set of crackouts from two submissions to PSA over the summer. They were sent into PSA for me through Got Baseball Cards in Atlanta. There are others as I mentioned above.
I'm 100% with you on this. If surface issues like that are docking a card 3 points then how in the world do you justify that? It makes absolutely no sense when you look at some vintage with worn/rounded corners, O/C or other wear? By that kind of scale a card would have to go into negative territory, or a 1 would be a catch-all for thousands of different things.
There's absolutely no way to maintain any consistency being so strict on barely visible surface issues. Lack of consistency will drive away anyone who doesn't grade modern.
Like SGC's slabs, but very much dislike their current flips. Seems as if SGC lacks a directive to maintain census medians.
Since I don't sell cards think I'll submit them my pre 1950 cards. While I do like strict grading, consistency in grading in my mind is paramount.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Like SGC's slabs, but very much dislike their current flips. Seems as if SGC lacks a directive to maintain census medians.
Since I don't sell cards think I'll submit them my pre 1950 cards. While I do like strict grading, consistency in grading in my mind is paramount.> @brad31 said:
Yes.
I wonder who the orig submitter of this one was? Note the left edge.
Assuming no funny business, it sold for $194 on Sept 14
https://www.ebay.com/itm/374921498872
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Looking at the back, it's straight, so I don't think it's a ding.
It could be a print spot not detracting enough to make it a 9.
That's embarrassing. SGC doesn't pull the prices PSA does but if you're going to get 2-3 grade bumps between the two, it more than makes up for the difference.
Cmon, we can all see that the results of PSA vintage is way outta whack
Yikes. Eye opener for those who haven't been paying attention.
Bosox1976
SGC graded according to PSA grading standards where PSA did not seem to follow their standards. Stinks you lost over $100 in the submission to PSA like many of us have. It would be nice to know what the rumble is at PSA regarding our opinions and these facts you posted.
Thanks for sharing.
a centered decent looking 1960 mantle in a psa 5 holder versus a sgc 7, same card, i think sgc would sell for more.probably even beckett would sell for more.
For sure about the SGC.
My cracking game several years ago would be to buy SGC at a discount and regrade with PSA because the grading was so similar. Most came back at least the same and sometimes a grade higher. Then I’d pocket the difference to cover the grading costs.
At this point it probably makes more sense to buy newly graded PSA and go the other way.
The market adjusts and hates a vacuum.
PSA decision makers don't give a flying rip what their members opinions are.
A company that doesn’t listen to the concerns of their customers will soon slide into incompetence, irrelevance and lose their market share. I refuse to believe PSA does that or would ever choose to do that. The only way they can keep their status is to hear their customers.
The PSA grades for these three are nutso. That ‘72 Seaver is one of the nicest I’ve ever seen. The average PSA 8 of that card you see on eBay looks like hot garbage.
The only one I think PSA had right is the other ‘73 Seaver. The upper left corner is too noticeable for a 9 IMO.
BEAUTIFUL Seavers! 👏
The 1973 Seaver that went from PSA 6 to SGC 8.5 has a decent sized stain on the right border across from Seaver's face.
More of a dot than a decent sized stain. Dot or not it didn’t deserve a 6.
What about the others? They look pretty sharp, but no mention of them.
98% would not complain buying any of those for the grade
One thing I learned the hard way....the Customer is always right.
chaz
PSA does pay attention to the forums and there's plenty of proof of it. There isn't a good answer for the low grades but it's possible PSA is looking into this and addressing it internally without hitting a panic button which would go viral instantly. I don't think the company is ran by idiots. The consistency aspect of grading is surely necessary to figure out. Maybe they will get grade reports going sooner than later. 🤔
Here is a scan of the SGC 9 1973 Seaver...
If you have ever had to deal with PSA reps at any level (Customer Service phone, email, or even the Collectors Universe Director of Customer Experience person the last 2 years you would realize that the company has slid into incompetence.
I have only had good experiences w/PSA. When I had a fake mini cello pack PSA-9 w/George Brett RC on top…I was alerted by PSA of that fact and was told to send it back. After a short time later…PSA called to confirm that it was indeed a fake and refunded what I had paid for it.
As far as grading…my grades have been fair and the last review submission included sticky notes as to the point of contention for the assigned grade.
That hasn’t been my experience. When I’ve reached out through the Customer Service link it’s always been handled easily.
Here's a scan of the SGC 8.5...
Wow. Thank you for sharing. The AI definitely needs adjusting on the PSA side.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
Had near 100 1960's-1990's Non-Sport Marvel cards and stickers, from Donruss, Topps, and FTCC in my "to grade" pile since the pandemic hit. Not wanting to have PSA4 or 5's on what should be 9's with a sprinkling of 10's , decided to send them to CGC since Comic Book related.
After calling CGC up with an issue on Comic Submission that required a return, and asking some Card questions got a nice bulk rate 20% lower than normal. I shipped them out yesterday.
Not that PSA cares about my business nor probably anyone else's on this forum, but I no longer will pay them to receive a metaphorical kick in the nards. My subs now are only SGC for Sports and only CGC for Comic Book related cards. This also includes new slab purchases when possible and on Comic Card stuff I may crack out any PSA I have that are not 9 or 10 and submit to CGC. Reason for that is I don't nor will I ever sell cards, and want uniformity of the slabs plus CGC slabs seem nicer made.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
You'll get hammered boy when you go to sell those SGC sportscards (and you will eventually have to sell them) unless they are real stars and HOFers. Who knows with CGC.....
chaz
The jump in grade corresponds to the deterioration of value. The high grade leaning pop reports of SGC might wipe out value altogether.
My collecting blog: http://ctcard.wordpress.com
Her's a scan of the 1974 Seaver #80 SGC 9
Here a crackout scan of another high grade overpopulated SGC 9
Monte,
You get better treatment, better service and better results than just about anyone on these boards. You must be a heckuva customer and a heckuva guy. I’m very happy for you but 99% of us could only wish for that kind of treatment. You get accurate grades, nines bumped into ten holders and get post it notes explaining results to you, the rest of us are getting cards like these back:
I tell you what, I could sure have used some post it notes on this order to explain the grades, you know? Since most people that have seen these cards have asked me if I’m maybe on some type of ‘list’ at PSA to be getting grades like that…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I thought the graders don’t know whose cards they are? How would one get post it notes if the submitter’s identity is not known?
I agree 100 percent about how technical the grading has become to strict. The eye test has been lost.
It's shame because the chances of hitting a PSA 9 or 10 on a big named vintage card seems to have become 10 times harder then it was 5 years ago.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
My guess is with the super high tier submissions you might get a little ‘extra’ - I wouldn’t want it any other way. That doesn’t mean they “know” the person who submitted the card but that when you pay a certain amount that maybe the grader would offer some further information. Based on the values and prices of the upper tier, a person quite frankly deserves more - that is how any business works. And this coming from someone who doesn’t play in that end of the pool but understands that the more you pay the more you get.
And I didn’t mean to imply anything untoward, by the way. If you think I did, that’s just bad writing on my part. Monte, whom I don’t know personally, has a most excellent eye and has dropped some serious coin, taken some serious chances and had some serious wins that I have noticed just by reading his posts and, again, I couldn’t be happier for him.
I have also had mostly great experiences with PSA and I hope they continue.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The other poster said he got post-it notes explaining the grades on cards sent in for grade review, not after a "regular" grading submission.
Maybe if you sent your Mantles in for a grade review, you'll also get post-it notes telling you their reason for bumping or not bumping the grades.
You are 100% correct…
…but I was just doing a little whining.
😁
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I have a pretty decent eye myself and has paid PSA over $47000 in grading fees this year alone and unfortunately have 11 more orders in and I can barely get a call back let alone anyone of any authority to call me. Damn I miss the days I could call Joe direct
For that amount of money you'd think they'd have a dedicated Account Representative assigned to you with a direct number for access. If I was running the place I know I'd have that service for folks spending that much.
I do wonder what the minimum amount PSA's current corporate overloads would start to "care about" enough to have an account rep 20x47k? 40x47k, 50x? Probstein level of business? Heritage Level of business, 4SC level of business?
One of the tenants of Corporate business is to give your largest clients the largest perks and keep them happy whatever that happens to entail. To do otherwise is not good business.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
I know lots had that relationship with Joe, but always thought it was sketchy that some could call Joe and get a correction pre shipping, or some other favourable treatment.
$47k @ $20/card avg is 200 cards a month. Is that a lot to a company grading a million cards a month?
Joe never did anything but see where an order was and maybe help get it completed.
As for 200 a month, it’s more like 500-600 every 3 months. Not all at $19, a lot are at the $40, $75, and $150 levels
I did have an Account Rep for about 6 months before Covid, heard from him twice and never again. His number no longer works
These last 11 orders are for 468 cards, these are all at the $19 level. I’m not sending anymore until grading gets straightened out even though I have about 800 50’s and 60’s ready to go including the best cards from a 64 and 65 Topps sets that haven’t barely seen the light of day since the mid 70’s