1988 Donruss experts needed....seriously

MrVintage · August 4, 2009 2:16AM

Before I get started on this I don't want this to become one of those BGS bashing threads. I have a serious question about grading 1988 donruss baseball hear and I would like to hear some serious thoughts on this. I was curious why BGS grades this cards so much tougher than PSA? Here are some population report examples of what I mean. I will show the psa #s on left side and BGS on the right side.
Roberto Alomar 77 of 576 graded are PSA 10's (13.3%) compared to 3 of 1926 graded BGS 9.5s (.001%)
Mark Grace 36 of 222 graded are PSA 10's (16.2%) compared to 2 of 1713 graded BGS 9.5s (.001%)
Nolan Ryan 54 of 212 graded are PSA 10's (25.4%) compared to 6 of 819 graded BGS 9.5s (.007%)
Ellis Burks 1 of 3 graded are PSA 10's (33.3%) compared to 0 of 896 graded BGS 9.5s (0.00%)

Does anyone here have any experience in grading these cards and would know what the deal is here? Thanks

billwaltonsbeard · August 4, 2009 2:18AM

Can you provide the figures on Mackey Sasser please?

MrVintage · August 4, 2009 2:23AM

Mackey Sassar is 2 for 2 on PSA 10's and 0 for 0 on BGS

digicat · August 4, 2009 2:29AM

Hmm. Good question.

How does BGS treat the "factory round corners" for cards taken out of factory set cello bricks? PSA doesn't downgrade for those, or at least, not in my experience.

CrimsonTider · August 4, 2009 2:33AM

I cannot attest to the reason that there is such a large difference in the grades, but I must say that I am amazed a the sheer volume of 88 Donruss sent to Beckett.

Some one is sitting on a mountain of mid-grade 88 Donruss BCG's

One possibly scenerio is that one person may have sent in a massive submission in an attempt to turn it over for profit and in doing so, did not do a good job of pre-grading.

BunchOBull · August 4, 2009 2:34AM

BGS doesn't down grade for factory corners either.

example:

jacksoncoupage · August 4, 2009 2:45AM

<< I cannot attest to the reason that there is such a large difference in the grades, but I must say that I am amazed a the sheer volume of 88 Donruss sent to Beckett.

Some one is sitting on a mountain of mid-grade 88 Donruss BCG's

One possibly scenerio is that one person may have sent in a massive submission in an attempt to turn it over for profit and in doing so, did not do a good job of pre-grading. >>

The enormous volume of lower grade, BGS 1988 Donruss is due to the 20th Anniversary promotion they had in 2001.

Because of a promotional deal with Beckett, 2001 Donruss Hobby boxes had several BGS graded Donruss cards (usually 1988) of mainly minor/semi stars with the occasional Griffey or Maddux RC.

I worked in a store back then and it always seemed to be 1988, 1987, 1990 cards in 8 or 8.5 coming out the boxes, especially 1988 cards of David Cone, Gant, Burks, etc.

I can't attest to why they were graded so hard back then, but as someone mentioned previously, I don't think it's fair to not-register the difference between the factory issued cards and the wax ones-they are generally in much better shape out of the factory box and almost every card has a border variation or change in the text on back.

Same thing for 1990 and 1991 Topps traded gray and white backs, PSA especially, should be labeling these accordingly since they are on different stock, produced in a different facility and released to the public in separate ways.

1989FleerBillRipkencollector · August 4, 2009 2:52AM

Jacksoncoupage, thanks for sharing. Didn't know that. Quit the hobby around 1990/91. Hmm. Kinda want to buy a 2001 Donruss box now.

digicat · August 4, 2009 2:53AM

Ohh, I forgot about the buybacks.

It's probably the case that Donruss didn't care about the condition of the cards they submitted. I had a 1987 Donruss Will Clark BGS 7.5 in a buy-back holder, and it was pretty gnarly looking.

lawnmowerman · August 4, 2009 3:03AM

That Sosa is lacking big-time in the eye appeal catagory. The centering is pretty bad.

digicat · August 4, 2009 3:05AM

<< That Sosa is lacking big-time in the eye appeal catagory. The centering is pretty bad. >>

I think the glare on the holder is making the card look worse. The centering is around 53/47.

hammered · August 4, 2009 3:06AM

Well it did only get a 9.5 for centering.

BunchOBull · August 4, 2009 3:07AM

<< That Sosa is lacking big-time in the eye appeal catagory. The centering is pretty bad. >>

I think it's ugly too, but the pixel count is 21:20, left to right. It just has terrible eye appeal.

BunchOBull · August 4, 2009 3:08AM

<< 

<< That Sosa is lacking big-time in the eye appeal catagory. The centering is pretty bad. >>

I think the glare on the holder is making the card look worse. The centering is around 53/47. >>

Yes, that sounds right...I need to list it on eBay.

lawnmowerman · August 4, 2009 3:12AM

<< 

<< 

<< That Sosa is lacking big-time in the eye appeal catagory. The centering is pretty bad. >>

I think the glare on the holder is making the card look worse. The centering is around 53/47. >>

Yes, that sounds right...I need to list it on eBay. >>

I'm in the same boat. I have a ton of his RC's in BGS and PSA slabs.

Man, I wasted some serious coin on them

hammered · August 4, 2009 3:14AM

Please tell me you did not buy that card in 1998

lsutigers1973 · August 4, 2009 3:17AM

<< Ellis Burks 1 of 3 graded are PSA 10's (33.3%) compared to 0 of 896 graded BGS 9.5s (0.00%) >>

Who the hell sent in 896 Ellis Burks rookies?

BunchOBull · August 4, 2009 3:20AM

digicat · August 4, 2009 3:32AM

<< Who the hell sent in 896 Ellis Burks rookies? >>

If these were sent in for the 2001 Donruss buy-back promo, then that's when he was doing pretty good with the Giants.

Here's a fun fact about Ellis Burks.

His final career numbers were 352 hrs, 2107 hits, 1206 rbi, .291 avg, .510 slg.

He finished in the top 100 of all time in career slugging % (76th), Home Runs (77th), and extra base hits (87th).

jswieton · August 4, 2009 3:49AM

How the heck did that Sosa get a BGS 10?

rexvos · August 4, 2009 4:52AM

I would think the more experienced grader is sending cards into PSA. Mainly because any kid or hobby novice can send a card into Beckett. The process is a lot more complex with PSA, and typically only people who are a little more seriouse with slab collecting are sending cards into them. Not bashing at all here, just an honest opinion.

BunchOBull · August 4, 2009 4:56AM

My general opinion is that anything on plain cardstock should go to PSA...anything on glossy or plastic stock should go to BGS...other than the sets that are registry fed, like '93 Finest Refractors.

I don't like the way PSA grades chrome-style cards. I don't like the way BGS grades traditional cardstock. Not to say, great examples of each don't exist in either slab, but in general, I'm disappointed in the cards I own that don't fall into these parameters.

olb31 · August 4, 2009 5:59AM

BGS puts more weight on back centering of the cards. It must be at least 60/40 and the front nearly 50/50. This alone eliminates many cards from 10 centering. For some reason the surface comes back 9.5 or 9, I guess it has to do with print marks and such. I own many PSA 10's and a few BGS 10's. The BGS 10's do tend to look nicer and more centered. Some of my PSA 10's have poor back centering and sometimes 60/40 or slightly worse front centering. PSA puts much more emphasis on corners. BGS on centering, IMO.