Options
This is why I'm a raw dog ***UPDATE - Crossovers***
BobS
Posts: 1,738 ✭✭
Invoice Tracking
Status Date
Received 01/24/2008
Shipped 01/31/2008
Details
Item # Year Publisher Set Card# Player Name Description Grade
1 1956 Topps 31 HANK AARON 50
2 1956 Topps 33 ROBERTO CLEMENTE 40
3 1956 Topps 125 "MINNIE" MINOSO 80
4 1956 Topps 118 "NELLIE" FOX 50
5 1956 Topps 177 HANK BAUER 70
6 1956 Topps 251 NEW YORK YANKEES 80
So, I'm building a nice EX-NM 56 baseball set. Since my wife bought me the Mantle in SGC 80 for Christmass, I decided to go ahead and try to get all the stars and semi's graded as well, in at least EX grade. I like raw cards so much better, but if I ever had to sell the set, having the keys graded would help out a lot - especially since counterfit 56's are out there.
So, I sent in all my raw stars and semi's (all 6 of them). I am completely puzzled. The worst card in the bunch was the Bauer. All 4 corners touched, one with a small crease and fuzzy. I expected the clemente to grade low - a few hairline creases. The fox was a blazer, I expected at least an 84. The minuso was much worse than the fox. The yankees team was sharp but had two fuzzy corners. And the Aaron. I bought it in person at a show because it is the nicest I have ever seen. It would not look out of place in a 9 holder - seriously. I'm stumped.
BTW - I do use a loop when buying, and have a nice bright halogen and do not miss wrinkles. No way the Aaron is a 4. Well, all in all I guess I'm okay. I'll sell the sub 70 cards and buy replacements, already graded. I'm so glad I'm not doing any graded sets, and so glad this has been my only submission in the past 3 years (I use to send in about 100/month - and was usually within one grade on 50's cards). Now I know why folks get so bummed out sometimes when a sub pops.
Back to raw for me.
Status Date
Received 01/24/2008
Shipped 01/31/2008
Details
Item # Year Publisher Set Card# Player Name Description Grade
1 1956 Topps 31 HANK AARON 50
2 1956 Topps 33 ROBERTO CLEMENTE 40
3 1956 Topps 125 "MINNIE" MINOSO 80
4 1956 Topps 118 "NELLIE" FOX 50
5 1956 Topps 177 HANK BAUER 70
6 1956 Topps 251 NEW YORK YANKEES 80
So, I'm building a nice EX-NM 56 baseball set. Since my wife bought me the Mantle in SGC 80 for Christmass, I decided to go ahead and try to get all the stars and semi's graded as well, in at least EX grade. I like raw cards so much better, but if I ever had to sell the set, having the keys graded would help out a lot - especially since counterfit 56's are out there.
So, I sent in all my raw stars and semi's (all 6 of them). I am completely puzzled. The worst card in the bunch was the Bauer. All 4 corners touched, one with a small crease and fuzzy. I expected the clemente to grade low - a few hairline creases. The fox was a blazer, I expected at least an 84. The minuso was much worse than the fox. The yankees team was sharp but had two fuzzy corners. And the Aaron. I bought it in person at a show because it is the nicest I have ever seen. It would not look out of place in a 9 holder - seriously. I'm stumped.
BTW - I do use a loop when buying, and have a nice bright halogen and do not miss wrinkles. No way the Aaron is a 4. Well, all in all I guess I'm okay. I'll sell the sub 70 cards and buy replacements, already graded. I'm so glad I'm not doing any graded sets, and so glad this has been my only submission in the past 3 years (I use to send in about 100/month - and was usually within one grade on 50's cards). Now I know why folks get so bummed out sometimes when a sub pops.
Back to raw for me.
0
Comments
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
Chris
My small collection
Want List:
'61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7
Cardinal T206 cards
Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
I'm keeping the Aaron. They wiffed on that one. I would not have paid the price I did for a 4. Shelled out between 7 and 8 for it. Only thing I can think of is it was damaged at SGC. I know it's highly unlikely, but it's the only logical answer.
Like I said, I do not miss wrinkles. When I submitted a lot 3-4 years ago, a local dealer here in Ohio would use me to screen his submissions because I could catch all the little things he couldn't. I know I haven't submitted in years, but I have been buying cards using the same screening process I always have.
The funniest thing is I wasn't enen going to submit the Bauer, because I thought it would get a 3.
Mickey71
ebay i.d. clydecoolidge - Lots of vintage stars and HOFers, raw, condition fully disclosed.
<< <i>Like I said, I do not miss wrinkles. >>
Did you really just say that?
Nobody is perfect, graders miss wrinkles sometimes and even the eagle eyes here end up with a 5 in a column of 9s and 10s.
That is like Willie Mays saying he does not drop fly balls, every once in a while one gets lost in the sun.
Then again maybe one of the graders reads these boards and damaged your card on purpose just to knock you down a few pegs.
There is a reason we wait 50 days for subs at PSA. They do tend to punish the submitter on post war issues as Ron said.
The graders at PSA severely punished this Namath
why does he come to these board to complain about other companies cards?
because he can, for the most part.
why are you talking noob?
j
RIP GURU
<< <i>hmmmmm, lemme see.
why does he come to these board to complain about other companies cards?
because he can, for the most part.
why are you talking noob?
j >>
Must be Joe O's alt ID...
<< <i>hmmmmm, lemme see.
why does he come to these board to complain about other companies cards?
because he can, for the most part.
why are you talking noob?
j >>
Whatever... I did ask a few questions. I never said he could not just asked why?
I was thinking the same thing.
I guess he is talking about graded cards in general?
sorry you missed those wrinkles.
Steve
Steve
1) At the time, they were the only ones with the 1/2 grade system.
2) I do not have a PSA membership. I know you get your $$ back with the freebies, but anyway.
3) Cost and waiting time were a big factor. SGC is cheaper when you only have a few cards to submit. Also, from what I have heard, and as my submission speaks, they meet their "estimated" turn-around times.
4) These cards were not submitted for re-sale. They're part of my collection, and anyone that thinks PSA's holders are better looking than SGC are fooling themself.
Steve had it right - I was just complaining about grading in general. Had to vent somewhere. The wife won't listen.
<< <i>I'm keeping the Aaron. They wiffed on that one. I would not have paid the price I did for a 4. Shelled out between 7 and 8 for it. >>
Hundred? That's over double the Beckett high price. Even if it got a 7 you overpaid.
<< <i>I'm just wondering why you are coming onto the PSA boards upset about another companies grades?
I was thinking the same thing.
I guess he is talking about graded cards in general?
sorry you missed those wrinkles.
Steve >>
lets see if julen jumps in and calls you a noob, for stating the samething I said.
Jake
Well, after getting home from the office and thinking about it a bit, I feel a little foolish.
Guess we've all been there. Maybe the reason I'm a raw dog is because every once in a while you get a little kick like this, it pisses ya off. No let down factor if ya don't grade 'em, right?
Nobody's perfect. Not me or SGC.
We'll see if I can post the pics when they come in.
Cheers
Anyone able to help me out? I can send them via e-mail. let me know. Thanks.
rsmith@strategicenvironmental.net
Like I said, I thought the Bauer was a bordeline 5. The only card with surface problems is the Clemente - a few small spider wrinkles.
I sent all in except the Clemente expecting at least 5's.
Edited: Thanks to the macmuseum for the photo help.
Edited Again:
I added my Mantle which was purchased already graded for comparison.
Like I said, The aaron does not have any creases, wrinkles, stains, scratches, papar loss, etc. The back is a little toned, that's all. Does toning bring it down that low?
Yankees team is nice, except for the print smear on the front.
Top edge of the Fox is what I call a rough cut. Do you suppose they called it out as chipping.
Since all of these are for my set, I really needed them all to come back 5. The set is raw but I'm trying to get all the stars and semi's in 5-6. I really have no need for the Aaron, Fox or Clemente now. I'll entertain offers, and would love if someone had an Aaron, Clemente, Mays or Williams in 5 or better and would be willing to do some sort of trade.
I think there is a big dart board in the grading room.
Your grader had poor aim.
Resub...resub...resub until his aim improves.
Loves me some shiny!
I'm confused on the Aaron - that's a really nice card - looks at least 6 or 7?
Unless there's a micro-wrinkle on the back you're missing - I don't understand.
Very nice card.
mike
That's what I'm talking about. I know I overpaid for it a bit but thought I could squeeze at least a 7 out of it, maybe an 8 on a super day.
Even with a micro-wrinkle - A 4????
To me they look pretty well graded other than maybe the Aaron but the two right side corners do look kinda rough and as others have said maybe a spider crease somewhere. Good luck.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
No, not my first submission. In the early 2000's I use to submit about 100 cards/month, all to PSA. I stoped with the graded cards all together after that. The only reason I sent these in was for the added piece of mind if I ever have to sell the raw set. The whole set is EX/NM, and I'm confident these are representative of the commons.
re-submitting is not an option. Don't want to throw more $$ down the drain. I love the aaron and clemente, however I want them in at least 5 for my set. I'd rather sell and just buy replacements already graded. I know, I know - I'm being petty, but if someone wants a EX-NM raw set, they would expect the star cards to be at least EX-NM also. The 3 and 4 kill that.
Matt
If I were you I'd crack everything out and keep it raw. Nothing beats a nice raw set with the stars in 1 1/2 inch brick screwdowns.
I think you're spot on - as usual.
That AAron does look alot nicer then a 4, even with a micro wrinkle. Not sure what that grader was looking at.
Steve
"Molon Labe"
Against the better judgement laid down by Lee, I'm still going to look for all the stars in grade 5 or better for the set. So, I'm offering the Aaron, Clemente and Fox on the B/S/T board.
Linky-do
Actually, this thread brings about an interesting phenomenon that we are almost all guilty of and I think merits mentioning: A few years ago I bought a really sharp 1980-81 Topps Bird/Magic/Erving card that I personally considered to be mint. I kept it for a while, then decided I would sell it only if it would end up in a PSA 9 slab, then use the money to buy one in slightly lesser condition and keep the profit. So I send it in thinking it has a shot at a 9, and it comes back a 7. Dammit. "Oh, well" I think to myself, then crack it and back into the personal collection in goes.
However, from this point forward, I will always have a lesser opinion of the card because it came back a 7 in one PSA submission, and its microscopic flaws now jump out at me. Does this make sense? If I thought the card was mint before, shouldn't I think it's mint now? Afterall, I've been collecting for over 20 years, so I'm pretty good at grading cards according to my own standards. Why should I let what a third party grader thinks influence my opinion of a card, especially one with a track record of inconsistent grading standards. But I do, and it sucks. I think we all fall into this trap to a certain degree, but it simply doesn't make sense.
I completely agree.
Like I have said, I'm only trying to get the star cards in the set graded for potential re-sale. I was perfectly happy with my raw set, until the last Columbus show. I was hanging out with another dealer talking 56's and he said go over to that guy, he has a nice set in a binder. So, I do just that. The other guy had a nice set, and also had a bunch of 56' reprints (Mantle, Aaron, and Williams). We put them side by side and the reprints were darn good looking. It was at that time I decided that any potential buyer down the line would feel more confidenet (see "pay more money") with the stars slabbed.
My life insuarance policy sucks, and the brazen lifestyle I live (see "too many vices to list") may just catch up with me before it does my wife. Since no kids, she has already said she'll invite Mr. Mint to the Funeral and be on a plane to Mexico that afternoon.
I did end up selling the Aaron and Clemente to a board member. They decided to send to PSA. PSA agreed with almost everyone here and the Aaron is now in a PSA 7 slab. The Clemente went down .5. Crads with multiple hairline wrinkles are always a crapshoot.
So, I took a beating on the whole thing but is has been interesting. I'm now more than happy as ever to buy already graded SGC HOF'ers for this set. I think the mid grade cards (5-6) are graded way more harsh at SGC than PSA. I think you get a nicer example for the same $$ when buying SGC compared to PSA. Just my opinion.
Cheers.
Ignore PM, I didn't check the original dates on the thread. I'm a fool, I know
That's correct. I did not crack and send, but that is what happened.
maybe an email to SGC telling them that the card they graded a 4 is now in a 7 slab elsewhere
graded properly now and that they should change there pop report to reflect it.
Maybe make the email to :
gparson@sgccard.com
Ask if the guarantee has been corrected on the website, and, if they will pay you the difference
in value seeing you sold it as a SGC 4 and now the buyer has it in a properly graded PSA 7 slab.
Also tell him to add this sale to his sales chart that he uses over at the SGC message board.
The one where he has it skewed to show only when an SGC card out sells a PSA one.
Steve