Options
Thought I would never say this....sending to SGC not PSA
Chargers49ersLakers
Posts: 139 ✭✭✭✭
Sure they are low dollar cards. However, they seem to be previous PSA grading standards PSA 9 or PSA 10 like. Why would I want to send these to PSA just to get all PSA 5's? I'd rather get all SGC 8's.
1
Comments
The Montana and Cross both have edge issues that I'm not sure would get you a 9 even in the old days.
Like I said, rather get sgc 8 than psa 5
or 7 instead of 3 or 4
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
I was in at a card shop yesterday. 5 of the 6 there bullsh........ now send to SGC. Nobody wants psa 5's. Many such as me have 20+ years grading cards.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
I am going to do the same. I am going to send using SGC and curious what the results will be.
I send to SGC and Beckett. I hate Beckett's slow service, but its the only good place to send tickets.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I already started. Even had a pleasant conversation with Mr Turner on the subject and why
Not to sound too harsh, but neither SGC or PSA would give those cards anything better that 6's or 7's. The Cross and Montana are probably 5's...Adams and Buchek may be 6's. I am basing that just on what I can see in the scan.
Oh do tell.
Cross and Montana are better than a 5. People gave me heat for thinking a jordan was over graded as a 8 or 9 with the visible issues I pointed out. I don't see any of these cards deserving a 5 for the corners, centering, edges, or stains.
My worthless opinions on the cards:
The back of the Adam's looks stained/dirty, centering isn't perfect, corners and edges seem good...I think SGC would be 7, possible 8, and highly doubt a 6.
Montana has bottom edge and centering on back is slightly low and to the left. I see this again as a 7 with small chance as a 6 and a smaller chance as 8.
Bucheck edges would appear better if the card had a white border instead of blue. The back appears off centered to the left slightly. Corners appear good. I'm a little over 50% thinking SGC will grade as 8 versus a 7, I do not see this getting a 6.
Cross again with the colored border takes a hit on edges as a 5/6. The front surface has some missing color by the "C" and 2nd "S" which I imagine would be a 6/7. Corners look good. Centering is hard to determine for me, since I don't know this set, but front looks good and back looks slightly low. I would think SGC 7 is in the neighborhood with a better probability as a 6 than 8.
Granted different scans may reveal more issues but these are my thoughts. I bet many of you are glad I'm not a grader, as am I.
It was a very pleasant conversation and he was very understanding and very helpful. I thought he was genuinely interested in my thoughts.
I don’t know this for fact but I would guess as most heads of a company, he relies heavily on his people. He had the right people call me and they reviewed 200 cards plus or minus after the grades were posted and zero grades changed so either they really didn’t check or I’m to believe all 200 cards were 100% accurate.
My opinion is he told them to review and they didn’t do it.
46 of those are at SGC now
The most frustrating thing about SGC is how frequently they mislabel cards.
I bought what turned out to be a mislabeled card, and I sent it to SGC along with my first ever SGC sub of just 10 cards.
The mislabeled card was corrected, but one of the 10 subbed cards is now mislabeled.
I then send that mislabeled card back along with a small 12 card sub.
Now that other card is corrected, and wouldn't you know it, 1 of the 12 subbed cards is mislabeled...AGAIN!
2 small subs, 2 mislabeled cards. They clearly are not confirming the card with what you put on the submission form.
Plus, they change the wording of the card.
I list it as what is the accepted way to describe the card, but they change it to something that nobody calls it.
For example, there are SGC card labels for 1995 Sportsflix UC3 cards with incorrectly spelled Sportsflics.
With my sub I list it as 1995 Sportflix UC3 (where PSA lists it as just 1995 UC3) and SGC decides to change it and call it 1995 Pinnacle Sportsflix, omitting UC3 entirely to really confuse things.
And they also don't distinguish between With Coating vs Removed Coating. I mentioned it in my sub, but it was ignored.
Back in the good old days when Joe Orlando was in charge, I occasionally had him make reviewers take a second look when I knew the Grader Of Death had reviewed my cards. And 100% of the time some of the cards were upgraded. But that was when PSA cared about vintage collectors and didn't care only about profits gleamed from Pokemon and TCG cards.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
Just got back my VG-EX 4 grades on most cards from PSA. It was one of the last shipments I made to them. Sick of there harsh grading priorities.
I like SGC's price and speed. They can be iffy on grades though. But mostly, i agree with them more often than not.
this fall i sent my first sub to SGC. I thought the process went great. very fast, good communication and i felt the grades were fair. it will not be my last sub through them.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Thank you for the subjective grading opinions on my cards! I appreciate it! Overall, I agree that both PSA and SGC have faults. Too bad if SGC has an issue with labels. However, as long as they paying shipping both ways, I would rather send to SGC then PSA. Too many examples have been shown in various threads of cards far superior to the ones I listed have received 5,6, 7's when they are clearly a 9 or 10.
PSA and Beckett and mess up to. I have a mini psa 9 labeled without the mini. Stuff happens.
I just had a 1968 Topps Ed Mathews labeled Milt Pappas
no doubt I could be wrong...I sure hope he sends them all to SGC and we can see what happens
Is Reza still there? He's still profiled on the website. He's been Director of Grading for forever at PSA. It seems he should be the one ensuring consistent application of the grading standards over time. The fact nobody at the company seems to be reacting to all the complaints about the grading standards tells me that the change is a calculated move.
I have said from the start that if PSA's grading got too strict, at some point they would lose the title of best TPG company.
PSA's 8's always sold more than the competitions, so why send your cards elsewhere?
I'm thinking that if PSA is going to start grading cards that used to be 8's as 4-6's, that's going to change.
Factor in the cost, and turn around times and I don't see how I can remain loyal to PSA.
I'll bet there's a LOT of turmoil in management right now at PSA.
I don’t think so, I think they are more focused on the game cards and the new shiny stuff. Vintage just keeps the lights on I think
I saw your post of that card. Unbelievable mistake!
I wonder what happens when the gaming cards go the way of Beanie Babies?
I have posted in the past that they might want to get out of the vintage card grading.
That's always been my hobby focus, so I will probably not be sending anything in unless things change.
I don't understand the strategy behind it. What do they gain by shifting their grading criteria to lower grades? It ticks off their direct customers (submitters) and I don't see where it would stimulate the end market for PSA cards. I'm not going to pay a premium or even pursue PSA 6's or 7's because I think they are actually 8s. I just end up thinking PSA grading standards are inconsistent and unreliable. I also don't see it as an effort to discourage vintage submissions. If they wanted to do that, they wouldn't have run a 70s holiday special and they could just keep jacking up the rates so nobody submits cards from those years.
Population control my friend. The big names (golden auctions, 4sharpcorners and probstein just to name a few) are getting the good grades. They scratch each other's back because PSA is getting major volume from these sellers.
Too many high grades will increase the population which then lowers the value of the card and in turn reduces future submissions of that card. I'll put my entire collection on this being the strategy.
Jolleywrencher may be on to something.
Of course mistakes happen. 3 mislabels out of 23 cards can't be an acceptable rate, not including the somewhat questionable/inaccurate card descriptions on a couple others.
correct 3 out of 23 is unacceptable.
I also think there is a good chance grading TCG cards will be a fad. its big right now, but so were POG's for a hot minute. the games themselves arent going anywhere, but i wonder about grading them...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Are you telling me my POGs are worthless?
I tried SGC pre-2002. They were fair but I didn't care for the slab or small print 84, 88, 92, etc, on the slab. I don't ever recall SGC offering bulk submissions at $4.50-$6.00 a card like PSA did. The "newer" SGC slab is more appealing and bolder.
If all the slabs I own now were converted back to raw I would definitely consider using SGC for the value grading aspect and quicker turnaround times. No upcharges unless over $3500, no qualifiers, check authentic and it gets slabbed and the 9.5 grade designation. Only negatives IMO is somewhat lower resale and no registry. I'd still use PSA for cards valued over $1000.
You and many others.
Good luck, based on other results lately I have a feeling you will do well.
46 of 200 is terrifying! That's almost 25%.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
It would of been more but the others were not worth resubmitting
In an interview a few months back, Nat confirmed that AI was at least being used to grade centering.
In your conversation with him, did he reveal AI being used in other aspects of grading?
No, but then I didn’t ask either
There's only one way to ensure that a 15th-year Lou Brock card in a PSA 10 maintains its 5-figure valuation
Me thinks ya'll are pretty whacked out. and it is glorious.
I cant say its a good thing that a card PSA deemed a 5 is going to consistently get an 8
How about a card that is a 8 getting graded a 5.
Depends on perspective and what you value. It's been trending in social media circles the last few months that if a card grades low at PSA, just send it to SGC for a higher grade.
So are we getting inferior cards from them, or are their cards worthy of the grade, it’s just that our 9’s are purposely getting 8’s ?
Jolleywrencher certainly has some good points to consider. As we see in a lot of facets of life, $$$ usually win. $$$ can make people do things that they normally wouldn't do. I do think the A1 component is something to consider. If in fact computers/machines are assigning some grades, then this could be a gamechanger. Or they are using higher powered equipment to assign grades. Who knows. Bottom line for me, when i am looking at in a holder does it look like a 10, 9, 8 or what.
I've been alluding the the same for years here but was scoffed at over and over.
Folk's important to keep in mind keeping your largest customers happy is called Good make that Great Business.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
Have also been submitting to SGC a lot more lately taking advantage of their $9 specials and for some PC stuff that I am not going to sell. That said anything that I'm looking for ROI it's still PSA hands down even with the longer wait times.
I suppose we could be wrong and it's a massive coincidence that 30+ people on this forum have suddenly lost the eye for grading...to the point where we are submitting cards where we are no longer seeing profit potential and major consignors happen to be selling the same cards, in new labels, which grades better than ours in conditions worse than ours (given the scans we can see).
You would be insane to think this will stop. Makng big money today is more important than the future of the company, the hobby, and the customer's (us) investment of time and money. In my opinion, the best we could hope for is that we get the grades we deserve...but I think big partners will still get grades their cards do not deserve which still impacts us. I won't say there is any formal agreement that Nat agreed to but I'd like to think he is aware by now of the suggested population control theory and the proposed idea of back scratching with major consignors.
2022-2024 graded PSA cards will potentially go down as the time to scrutinize the card because you could get an awesome deal or get screwed.
If you really wanted to get PSA attention with the grading issue then show up to conventions with the graded slabs in hand, which seem obviously wrong, and have printed pictures of the same cards being sold by 4SC, probstein, where you can see a worse card with a better grade. Heck imagine 10 pissed off customers together at the convention camped next to the PSA booth. If it has to come down to something like this then do we even want PSA to be on top anymore?
I don't care what company is on my slab as long as it's accurate. I don't do registries and people who do probably feel more stuck. At this point...I just want Nat to do the due diligence to get to the bottom of it and correct it. I want him to show his customers why having him as the CEO is good for us. I've never said it's an easy job but if he's trying with no resolution then he can solicit us (or anyone) through polls and questionnaires to get a pulse from others.
I will add, on the unopened front, I have about 60 non junk era packs that I want to get authenticated, but at the rate packs are being ruined by being squished into the current shell (which for whatever reason, they don't want to change and/or don't care about), I just can't send those in. I wish I could have Steve Hart wrap and authenticate them, but I know he's contractually unable to.
We had a local show this weekend. I know one of the guys who sells. He sent in seven non sport packs from the 60's and 70's and three of them were manipulated to fit into the shell, which resulted in damage. One of the seals was nearly popped completely and two of them had clear wrinkles that did not exist before. He was irate. Of course, this guy is more interested in turning a profit and had no awareness of the issues with pack grading, so I don't feel sorry for him, but I do feel sorry for the packs that were forever compromised and difficult to replace.
Hard to be we are in 2024 with the problems we are seeing. In 2005 I would have imagined a much better current state. It's not like any of these issues are complicated...they just eat into profits. More customer service agents, fair and consistent grading, better holders for different sized objects.
If PSA would stick to trying to be the best grading company then organically they will remain on top and most consignors will still want to use them but if they continue down this road of questionable practices then eventually the bulk of customers will be these major alliances and a big opportunity will be seized by BGS, SGC, and other contendors. I'd love to see a legitimate council formed which regulates and investigates this industry so there is some actual consequences and penalties for employees and/or businesses who knowingly violate policy.
It's becoming more than just noise. It's becoming a real problem. It's affected me slightly and others pretty significantly. It has caused many of us to change our submission habits when most of us just wanted it to be business as usual. The most disappointing part is that most of the issues could be solved quickly other than the embarrassment of cards already misgraded.
After giving PSA the benefit of the doubt then what?
I didn't know the name Nat Turner until about a year ago. Hopefully he'll go down as one of the best CEOs in my lifetime for grading services...as of right now it's not looking promising.
I offered to give them all kind of advice from a technical aspect and operations. Unfortunately they let go of the moderator who thought some of my ideas had merit and he tried to put me in touch with management but within days he unfortunately lost his job.
How often does PSA survey customers for information and feedback? A wise professor once said something to the effect of "A reputable company (could be a person or company) who doesn't use their ears will eventually lose their voice."