Crossovers - which companies would you take a chance on?

liffeystynx

Never having actually submitted a card to PSA for a crossover, I was curious about other people's experience with the other grading companies' standards. Specifically, which companies would you feel most confident about submitting to PSA? I don't mean in terms of the grade received - I mean confident that PSA would actually grade the card. That you wouldn't get it back damned as 'miscut' or worse with 'evidence of trimming, restoration, recoloration, cleaning', 'questionable authenticity' or any of the other PSA mortal sins.

From my own limited observations, I would take a chance on SGC or GAI. And would steer clear of PRO as it would seem to be definitive evidence of a dodgy card.

Any more informed opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Jonathan

WinPitcher

none....i would crack whatever card i was considering and re submit it . i would only send to the big 3 too

Tipem

<< <i>none....i would crack whatever card i was considering and re submit it . i would only send to the big 3 too >>





Jonathan,


I agree with WinPitcher.I have found that PSA has a tendency to feel superior in their grading ability to SGC and GAI.I would crack any cards out and resubmit.Also,I would not look for 8's from PSA in anything less than an 86-88 in SGC or 8.5 in GAI.



Vic

SKINSFAN

I find if you crack and send in sgc by far do the best 90% of sgc stay psa 8 10% go down
On sgc 92 i find 75 % stay 8 may 2 % go down and around 23 % go up to nines of course i only buy well centered cards for the grades.
gai have had horrid results with around 15 % getting ng trimmed and over 50% droping a grade

RepublicaninMass

Just had a gai 7.5 become a psa 5 NQ!

sammyslippers

Just sent 5 different cards in graded by GAI. All came back Evidence of trim. Highly upset. Maybe they are just too lazy to crack cards out.

WinPitcher

or....they (whoever they is) wants to make GAI look bad

packCollector

think about it , does PSA want to say that the other companies do a good job? If they cross the cards that is what they are saying and in essence creating more competition for themselves

Galveston

I've had good luck crossing SGC and GAI in their holders. I even crossed a SGC 9.5 to a PSA 10 (1 of 1). I have had minimal success with occasionally popping open a PSA card and resubmitting.
My advice is to keep them in the holders when submitting a crossover.

Griffins

I"ve sent in about 20 in GAI holders that came back evid of trim, then graded when cracked out. Quite obviously they do not like seeing their old colleagues holders. Crack 'em or leave them where they are.

jrdolan

Used to be, PSA thought it was a good thing to move cards out of GAI holders into their own. Now they seem to feel that sending GAI cards back as "evid. trim" or "minimum grade not met" is the smarter business move.

I've heard the argument that it is difficult to accurately grade cards in a holder. If so, they should stop soliciting $10-$12 per card for that very service. And I don't think GAI holders are any more difficult than SGC, which does not seem to generate nearly as many rejections. Sometimes I wonder if cards in GAI holders even get to a grader.

For the best shot at an accurate grade, crack out. You'll understand after you get nice PSA grades on a few former GAI cards that were supposedly "trimmed."

liffeystynx

Thanks for the wisdom.
I have cracked some GAI authenticated autographs (didn't want to give myself headaches with PSA/DNA as well) and had no problems and good grades, so I think I'll stick to this approach in future.
Interesting that nobody mentioned Beckett and its various arms. I bought a BCCG well-centered Mint 9 1969 Lou Brock at a price that was too good to be true. And indeed when I received the card it was ... too good to be true. Let's say that the card had lots of elbow room in the holder. So I auctioned it as it was (mentioning my suspicions in the description) and made a handsome profit. I don't feel bad - the card did look very good, but PSA would have laughed at me if I'd submitted it.

Jonathan

jrdolan

If you look at Beckett's own grading comparison chart, you see that they put BCCG 9 at the equivalent of PSA 7. Now that's pretty bad if even Beckett as good as admits BCCG grades are not credible. It's basically for kids who only have lawn-mowing money to spend on slabbing their cards and just want the cheapest option, and for trimmers who know their surgically improved cards won't get past a reputable grader. I'll grant that it's up the ladder from PRO, because there's at least some small chance that the card is legit and its owner just couldn't afford BGS or PSA.

I'm surprised you made a "handsome profit" on that '69 Brock, because nobody in their right mind would send an untrimmed vintage card to BCCG for grading. Now you're out of the realm of cash-poor 13-year-olds and into the shady world of 40-year-olds with x-acto knives. In other words, most of the collecting world knows it's trimmed just 'cause that grader was chosen. A vintage card in a BCCG holder cries out: "Nobody else would grade me!"

liffeystynx

Ah, but it was the first time I had come across BCCG (August '03) and I guess I was fooled by the Beckett name.
Mind you, now that I look at it again, it wasn't particularyly well-centered. I think I was desperate to own a graded '69 Brock having missed out on so many.

But ...
Bought August '03 - $22.50
Sold September '03 - $187.51

Not bad, huh?

jrdolan

Not bad indeed, considering you say you were honest about your suspicions in the listing. But it's clearly trimmed. I wonder where it is now a year later, how many times it's been sold after each new owner saw the card in person or tried to cross it.
And each new owner slapped his head and said "Oh sh*t!" "Now I have to sell it to somebody else!"