Has anyone had a successful crossover sending a card to PSA in a BVG holder?

rbdjr1

I was wondering if anyone has had good results doing a crossover and not "cracking-out" the card out of a BVG holder?

I was considering sending in a very rare vintage football rookie card that is in a BVG 9.5 slab. If PSA didn't give this card a 10, as it looks like a "10 ringer" to me! I though I would like PSA to return it to me in the BVG slab.

I was one of a 1/2 dozen bidders, "ripping each others' throats out", bidding on this card, even though it was in a BVG holder! LOL!

So, my question is, will PSA take the time to crack my BVG slabbed item, grade it a ten, if it so deserves a ten?


Anyone had any positive "crossover slab experiences"???


rbd

mikeschmidt

RBD:

I've had limited successful experience with BGS 9.5s in the modern realm, with some Schmidt cards that looked very high-grade to me.

With BVGs, I've never had success - but you and I run in different circles. Most every BVG 9.5 Schmidt OPC card I ever bought [before it was known what exactly was going on], came back as Evid of Trim for being sheet cut.

~ms

jackstraw

It will cost you 20 bucks for the effort?

baseballfanatic

The card IS a BGS 9.5, not BVG

baseballfanatic

I believe the best PSA can give the card is a 9 since PSA will not raise any card a 1/2 grade while in a holder (I believe for the crossover it states they will not designate a higher grade), so the best a 9.5 can do is a 9

Brian48

No, that's untrue. PSA, by it's own policy, is suppose to ignore the grade placed on the card by any competitor and grade the card itself on it's own merits. Sometimes this means a bump down, other times a bump up. Most of the time, they'll lean on the side of safety and either not grade the card (usually "evid. of trim" or "does not meet minimum") or assign it a lower grade since it's extremely difficult to grade through the holder. Once they crack it though, they're obligated to assign the grade they THOUGHT the card was prior to breaking the seal if you've selected the option "minimum grade of", which is probably why so many cards are rejected unless you crack and resubmit raw or allow them to assign anything they see fit. I don't blame them at all given the liability issues.

baseballfanatic

I stand corrected. I thought my older submission forms stated they wouldnt give a higher grade than the one on the original holder

Brian48

Yeah, they may have change the legal verbiage from what it used to say. Now they say they're just not obligate to honor any grade assigned by anyone else. What they say on paper is one thing, actual practice is another. I simply can't see factoring out the human aspect of the grading process. I can't believe there isn't some sort of in grain bias when grading a card in a competitor's holder.

bsfastball

I've had plenty of success crossing over BGS to higher PSA grades while in the holder (8.5's to 9's, and one 9.5 to a 10), so unless its a sheet cut and/or a dirty slab, you'll probably get a fair shake

pandrews

<< <i>The card IS a BGS 9.5, not BVG >>



no, i believe the card he's talking about is BVG..

baseballfanatic

I thought it was the OPC Theismann rookie. Nice card, but kinda steep for me.........

rbdjr1

<< <i>

<< <i>The card IS a BGS 9.5, not BVG >>



no, i believe the card he's talking about is BVG.. >>





p_A, is correct my card is a BVG (Beckett's "Vintage Grading Service")

...cards from 1980 and earlier, it is my understanding that Beckett uses Their BVG grading (vintage) services.

...cards 1981 and newer, Beckett uses BGS grading (modern) services.

If I'm wrong with the exact dates, I stand corrected!

rbd

rbdjr1

<< <i>I thought it was the OPC Theismann rookie. Nice card, but kinda steep for me......... >>




The Theismann rookie OPC CFL card is from 1971, thus Beckett would use BVG (their "vintage" grading service) when grading a 1971 issue, and not BGS (...i.e., BGS is for modern issues, 1981 and newer!).


rbd

rbdjr1

<< <i>I've had plenty of success crossing over BGS to higher PSA grades while in the holder (8.5's to 9's, and one 9.5 to a 10), so unless its a sheet cut and/or a dirty slab, you'll probably get a fair shake >>




Glad to hear that! I'm sending my item (still "BVG slabbed"!) to PSA for crossover! I'll post my results here!

THANX! bsfastball


rbd

zef204

<< <i>

<< <i>I thought it was the OPC Theismann rookie. Nice card, but kinda steep for me......... >>




The Theismann rookie OPC CFL card is from 1971, thus Beckett would use BVG (their "vintage" grading service) when grading a 1971 issue, and not BGS (...i.e., BGS is for modern issues, 1981 and newer!).


rbd >>



Actually Bob, Becket started BVG long after they started grading cards. Many cards were in BGS holders because they were grade before Beckett created BVG. Just an FYI.

carew4me

What if the moon was made of spare ribs?

rbdjr1

Thanks zef, for the heads-up!

I did a search on ebay, and found no BGS cards earlier than 1981 (other than BGGS!)...


rbd

zef204

Here's one.

coachh

BGS graded all cards for a while but there was an uproar about low grades so they started BVG to give cards a bump up in grade.

lawnmowerman

<< <i>

<< <i>The card IS a BGS 9.5, not BVG >>



no, i believe the card he's talking about is BVG.. >>



Are you sure its not BVD?


Matt

Kurtman9

<< <i>I've had plenty of success crossing over BGS to higher PSA grades while in the holder (8.5's to 9's, and one 9.5 to a 10), so unless its a sheet cut and/or a dirty slab, you'll probably get a fair shake >>



I cracked this 66 Mantle vs. sending it in as a crossover because it measured oversize. I just got it back and was shocked when it came back trimmed. All the edges look the same under magnification. I also do not see any wavy cuts when tilting the card in my hand and viewing the edge lines. Is it possible that PSA said trimmed because it was a sheet cut card? If so, how can you tell if a card has been sheet cut?