BGS / BVG Launches A Set Registry

pjray55

I haven't had the chance to mess look through it all that much but I was wondering when they would launch something like this.

What does everyone think?


Beckett Set Registry


Patrick

Dallas88

My first thought would be that it could do all right for modern collections, but I don't see it doing well for vintage - as I think that market is already saturated.

Maybe it would be popular for those OPC hockey cards too (if you know what I mean)

charliehustle14

Do they have a special section for trimmed cards?

MRyanF

I wondered for a while if this would happen a couple of years ago, but then considered the likelihood of suits from PSA, etc. Basically they are taking PSA's idea and copying it exactly, down to the other sets registered links, etc. That just rubs me the wrong way. Cant they be a bit creative.


But realistically, the registry is a good idea for them, the PSA registry helped make my decision of what to collect in newer cards--well, maybe I am just a bit biased in that direction.

calleocho

so far it only goes back to 1970

Vincecarder

It's funny how everyone takes offence when something comes out that is different than PSA. Feel happy that PSA was the first and original creator of the registry. How can BGS/BVG hurt PSA or the card industry by coming out with a registry? I for one think it will help get more collectors in the game (a lot of people still read Beckett) and will help with set collectors. Now there will be something to compare against the PSA registry. You can see what a BGS/BVG set sells for before selling your PSA set.

I like it...looks organized and hey more free stuff doesn't hurt anyone.

estang

I collect BVG/BGS cards (not exclusively) and I like 'em. I like the holder, the label and their grading standards.

I'd like someone to prove that they grade trimmed cards or cards cut from a sheet. I'm not saying that they do or don't, I'd just like to see some factual examples or confessions by submitters. I'd imagine that PSA, GAI, or SGC has graded altered, trimmed, sheet cut or restored cards before. I'm sure they don't do this on purpose.

I am awaiting a response from BVG on whether they knowingly grade cards cut from sheets. Not sure how else to explain a phantom/lower surface grade on examples that have edges/corners that appear to sharp.

I added most of my cards to the registry and I was very impressed with its easy of use. I think it's good for the hobby, and I believe it will make more more inclined to chase BVG/BGS cards.

mikeschmidt

Erik:

What will satisfy you as "proof"? I have a few BVG-graded cards that would not cross-over to PSA or SGC because of "Evid of Trim". They are, in fact, sheet cut.

A very good friend of mine had a 1952 Topps Mantle three or four years ago. PSA rejected it as trimmed. SGC rejected it as trimmed. Heck - even CSA rejected it as trimmed (the market feels much differently about CSA these days...). However, the card was encapsulated as a BVG 4.0 and was subsequently sold.

Proof will never be definitive unless you watch the card being trimmed. However - in cases whereby other grading companies consistently reject another companies' cards as trimmed and/or sheet-cut, at some point each collector needs to make their own decisions about what constitutes a preponderance of the evidence.

Finally - there seems to be a lot of evidence out there on this and other boards about modern cards with certain serial numbers getting graded higher with corner wear having disappeared. If you do searches on these boards - you may (or may not) be further compelled by the evidence put forth by such interested individuals.

estang

That's some good evidence Mike. Anyone know why they let this occur? Is it inexperience, ethics....

mikeschmidt

Erik:

It's tough, in some regards. You really need experience in this hobby to know the nuances of each issue, how they were cut, etc. I think in the case of the Mantle - it measured "correctly" - but what does that mean? Frankly, sizing variations were historically all over the place, with some issues more than others. If the card is overall clean, it has not been altered in other ways, and it measures at "standard" size - does that mean it can't be trimmed? Not at all.

Beckett does absolutely refuse a lot of cards because of trimming. But look at the types of cards graded by SGC, PSA and BGS. Which company grades the most modern cards? BGS does - it is their specality/niche. Beckett graders don't have the experience, expertise or ability to grade vintage cards as well as other graders.

BGS has graded 1,800 1952 Topps cards.
PSA has graded 69,000+

I'm not saying PSA is always the best. Clearly, SGC has a pre-war niche that works well for them. But Beckett's niche is modern - and that is defined post-1980, and, in many cases, 1998-current. They do a lot of things well - but I don't think Beckett ever had or is developing sufficient expertise in the vintage market to properly evaluate the characteristics of vintage baseball cards that point to alterations.

pjray55

I do believe BGS allows for a +/- 1/32 difference in standard card size for it's submissions. This is why trimmers seem to flock to BGS for their cards and why there is some strong evidence of their having graded trimmed cards.

Patrick

helionaut

I've got a bunch of 1955 Bowmans and they vary 3/16" from the longest to the shortest, and I'm sure the short ones aren't trimmed. I've got about 600 PSA 8 1975 Topps cards and some are very tight against the edges while others rattle around inside the well. All graders have some allowances, and if they were all as rigid as 1/32" there would be a lot more cards rejected as trimmed, miscut, or not meeting minimums (or exceeding maximums).

Anyway, I'm amazed it took Beckett this long to get a registry going. I've been thinking of building a set like 2002 Bowman Chrome DP in BGS 9.5, and this would certainly help. I've got to agree that the vintage registry will probably be a lonely place.

EagleEyeKid

I do believe BGS allows for a +/- 1/32 difference in standard card size for it's submissions.

I thought the 1/32 allowable variance was acceptable by PSA as well, for sure GAI (they told me so). Don't know about SGC. To me 1/32 is way too much. Gives the butcher way too much to work with.
Maybe 1/64 would be better. What I want to know is.....is the 1/32 per edge or the total of all 4 edges?

mikeschmidt

<< <i>I've got a bunch of 1955 Bowmans and they vary 3/16" from the longest to the shortest, and I'm sure the short ones aren't trimmed. I've got about 600 PSA 8 1975 Topps cards and some are very tight against the edges while others rattle around inside the well. All graders have some allowances, and if they were all as rigid as 1/32" there would be a lot more cards rejected as trimmed, miscut, or not meeting minimums (or exceeding maximums).

Anyway, I'm amazed it took Beckett this long to get a registry going. I've been thinking of building a set like 2002 Bowman Chrome DP in BGS 9.5, and this would certainly help. I've got to agree that the vintage registry will probably be a lonely place. >>



Helionaut - I'm not aware of grading companies, generally, not grading cards that are factory oversized. I just thought that they generally got put into larger holders - sometimes complete with an ugly mylar sleeve.

There are a number of factory short cards out there - and the "Min. Size Requirements" doesn't really help anyone. A card like that is worthless - even if the grading companies agree that it is not trimmed. I don't know what the proper allowance should be - clearly there are some sets that have much more variation than others. 1955 Bowman is definitely a good example.

That being said - the overall picture is quite sad. Factory oversized cards anymore are a rare commodity - many and trimmed down to "proper" size and subsequently encapsulated with nice new sharp corners and better centering. I don't know if there is any solution here - but the problem with allowing too wide a sizing variation is that your average size will continue to decrease and decrease. For example - T-206s have quite a bit of variance between them. But if you took a lot of 100 T-206 cards, whether raw or slabbed, it seems like every few years the "average" size of a card in that lot because a little bit shorter and a little bit shorter...

~ms