PSA vs SGC-- telling it like it is.
Mickey71
Posts: 4,257 ✭✭✭✭
I just came across 2 auctions that that tell the story- both completed auctions. EBAY auctions 160366093795.. a SGC 92 1971 AARON that sold for $153.50 and 120474082209.. a SGC 88 1958 All Star Mantle that sold for $183.50. They both looked like top notch examples also. While I do have cards graded from both companies in my collection there is no doubt which graded cards sell for more. I don't think a PSA 8 58 All Star has ever sold that low. I know, I know, people will say that SGC is right on par with PSA in pre war--- I believe this is also hog wash. Cards that are pre 1900 are such a small amount that it does not even put a dent in the post war and modern PSA dominance. Plus, I remember seeing the T206 set a few years ago that was sold piece by piece and it was extremely high grade and those cards were in PSA holders. To be the leader in 1800's cabinet cards is not that big a deal in an industry about business and value. Don't get me wrong those cards are extremely valuable and rare. I just don't think it has alot of meaning in the marketplace. JMHO. I hope I didn't offend to many people. 
If someone provides a link to the auctions "Thank you"
If someone provides a link to the auctions "Thank you" 0
Comments
<< <i>I think this is a given!! I dont believe anybody will argue with you on this one >>
Post this on net54 or the SGC forum and the world may stop spinning.
<< <i>SGC has a great holder and does a comparable job with their grading. if you can grab some deals in their holder, seems like a good investment. >>
the deal being that you pay less for a sgc card, crack it, submit to PSA, and maybe get more in the sale?
<< <i>the deal being that you pay less for a sgc card, crack it, submit to PSA, and maybe get more in the sale? >>
Tried that more than once and each time PSA served me a large cup of FAIL.
My small collection
Want List:
'61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7
Cardinal T206 cards
Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
I think it's all personal preference as both companies are reputable. I'm not sure how often SCG sells for less than PSA??? But, it can go the other way around also, of that I'm sure.
I collect Exhibits, M101-4/5, E93's, T210's, Zeenuts and a few other vintage sets and SGC is by far the leader in amount graded as well as price, I also have a large psa graded Clemente collection and PSA is the leader in that area. I am happy collecting both ans I buy and sell both on ebay and they both have advantages and areas they sell for more in.
Buy hey knock SGC all you want if it makes you feel better about your PSA cards and your choice to use them.
<< <i>honestly their customer service is 2nd to none. no offense. >>
I agree. Especially their service where they will meet you at the Pal's Cabin restaurant in West Orange, NJ to discuss how to cross your GAI 10's. Although, apparently you will then have to go pick up the card yourself while bringing a Parsippany patrolman along with you.
This is known as “bad luck.”
<< <i>I once cracked an SGC slab with my mind. >>
LOL
<< <i>I don't like that they don't put qualifiers on their labels. >>
Yes, PSA has some faults as do all large corporations...no "perfect" company exists in this world - but in my opinion PSA is still the top grading company, and SGC is #2.
<< <i>Bottom line - When selling...who would crack PSA slabs to put the cards in SGC slabs...uhh, how about almost nobody.
. >>
Hi,
I am Mr. Almost Nobody,
Please to meet you.
<< <i>Bottom line - When selling...who would crack PSA slabs to put the cards in SGC slabs...uhh, how about almost nobody.
Yes, PSA has some faults as do all large corporations...no "perfect" company exists in this world - but in my opinion PSA is still the top grading company, and SGC is #2. >>
I think a lot of people crack PSA and submit to SGC...all with hopes that their PSA 7, for example, would have a better chance of grading higher on the SGC scale
Here are some examples:
SGC
PSA
----------------------
Working on:
Football
1973 Topps PSA 8+ (99.81%)
1976 Topps PSA 9+ (36.36%)
1977 Topps PSA 9+ (100%)
Baseball
1938 Goudey (56.25%)
1951 Topps Redbacks PSA 8 (100%)
1952 Bowman PSA 7+ (63.10%)
1953 Topps PSA 5+ (91.24%)
1973 Topps PSA 8+ (70.76%)
1985 Fleer PSA 10 (54.85%)
For every example of PSA outselling SGC..you can find a counter example.
Latest Auction Prices for: SGC 84 - Average Price: $56.23
Listing Type: All Auction Buy It Now Best Offer Show: 2550100All Date Auction Link Price Extra
9/26/09 eBay Auction $56.23
Latest Auction Prices for: PSA 7 - Average Price: $52.46
Listing Type: All Auction Buy It Now Best Offer Show: 2550100All Date Auction Link Price Extra
8/2/09 eBay Auction $55.00
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>For every example of PSA outselling SGC..you can find a counter example. >>
It isn't that equal, maybe when you compare a perfectly centered SGC example next to a marginal for the grade centered PSA card the SGC will win but if the two cards were equal in appearance PSA wins more often for key 50s and 60s cards.
<< <i>
<< <i>For every example of PSA outselling SGC..you can find a counter example. >>
It isn't that equal, maybe when you compare a perfectly centered SGC example next to a marginal for the grade centered PSA card the SGC will win but if the two cards were equal in appearance PSA wins more often for key 50s and 60s cards. >>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crap!...I must be doing something wrong then...because I never seem to get the SGC steals that all of you speak of.
I buy the card...no matter if in PSA or SGC. I prefer SGC though. I also think it depends on how you sell.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>but in my opinion PSA is still the top grading company, and SGC is #2. >>
As a side note, the OP is expressing his opinion, just as bigdaddy is as well. A civilized discussion that is seen so rarely nowadays...
I think most people agree to disagree based upon their preferences. However, it's that LOUD few that make it a "rivalry" rather than healthy competition.
these two on my last sub:
SGC 88 1967 Topps Billy Cannon - came back as evid trim
SGC 88 1971 Topps Terry Bradshaw - crossover with a minimum grade came back as miscut
With regard to consistency, I would say they are on par with each other. SGC does have one downfall of assigning what I best describe as a "net" grade rather than assigning qualifiers. Accordingly, it is common to find an SGC 84 (NRMT) card that is off center and would most probably end up in a PSA 9 (OC). While the end result is the basically the same (when assigning registry value rankings), it does make it a little more difficult IF buying a card sight unseen.
To those that have negative experiences with SGC cards crossing over to the same PSA grade, I might suggest cracking and resubbing the card raw. I have had very high success rates with this practice, while experiencing a slightly lower success rate with the straight crossover attempts in holder. I think it is more about PSA being difficult and bemoaning their competition that it is about agreeing on the assigned grade.
but wished they would just redesign the stupid thing.
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
<< <i>With regard to consistency, I would say they are on par with each other. SGC does have one downfall of assigning what I best describe as a "net" grade rather than assigning qualifiers. Accordingly, it is common to find an SGC 84 (NRMT) card that is off center and would most probably end up in a PSA 9 (OC). While the end result is the basically the same (when assigning registry value rankings), it does make it a little more difficult IF buying a card sight unseen. >>
I don't see SGC's lack of qualifiers as a negative. If a card is 9 o/c, then it's not mint - the o/c precludes it. Same thing with 9 PD. If a card has a print defect, it can't be mint. It's like saying a card is mint except for the corner wear. And qualifiers are unevenly applied from grader to grader. Snow is a good example - some graders put PD on the card, other graders just drop the overall grade.
I like what you describe as SGC's "net" grading system.
<< <i>I dislike the labels and the 100 point scale kind of bothers me. I am not losing any sleep over it
but wished they would just redesign the stupid thing. >>
Why do so many insist that SGC has a 100 point scale? The key to understanding grading is to understand the alpha grade description. As long as the alpha grade descriptions are examined and applied equally to the same standards, the use of an 84 or a 7 for a NRMT card is basically moot. They use of SGC's scale ISN'T based on 100 points, but just uses different numbers ranging from 10-100 to arbitrarily use as stopping points for the alpha grade and I'm sure the usage of the 100 scale was to avoid any infringement on Alan Hager's 1-10 grading system that he had with ASA back in the day.
are a refreshing change to all of the "douchebag" comments of a select few (you know who you are) that frequently chime in with their smart
arse comments. All of this SGC vs PSA business is just rhetoric. The disappointing results of crack and sub to the other co. definitely goes both ways
and PSA's cards sell for more because of the registry...blah,blah,freakin' blah. Now, let's have another one of these threads every other month....
cracked and subbed to PSA
"Molon Labe"
<< <i>
<< <i>I dislike the labels and the 100 point scale kind of bothers me. I am not losing any sleep over it
but wished they would just redesign the stupid thing. >>
Why do so many insist that SGC has a 100 point scale? The key to understanding grading is to understand the alpha grade description. As long as the alpha grade descriptions are examined and applied equally to the same standards, the use of an 84 or a 7 for a NRMT card is basically moot. They use of SGC's scale ISN'T based on 100 points, but just uses different numbers ranging from 10-100 to arbitrarily use as stopping points for the alpha grade and I'm sure the usage of the 100 scale was to avoid any infringement on Alan Hager's 1-10 grading system that he had with ASA back in the day. >>
I don't insist, it is right there on their website and on their flips? Yes I understand the alpha grade is the one to go by , I didn't say I didn't.
This 100 not 100 scale was developed to decieve collectors into thinking that a 92 or an 84 86 were better grades then they were.
The 100 scale and the gaskets (SBC)were to avoid any costs associated with Hagar's patents. Joe Merkel was an original SBC guy and when SGC
opened their doors in what 97 they adapted all the old stuff to try and avoid any costs. The SGC brass has changed but their identity hasn't. I will let you
do your research on Merkel and SBC. BTW I really liked the old SBC label , no color just a real nice antique looking flip. I would love for them to go back
to that flip.
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
<< <i>I agree. PSA is the only company I'll buy. I just don't like the SGC slabs (I know I'm in the minority here). I've owned a couple and the black insert that everyone seems to love ended up damaging the card. I also don't like the really slick finish on the slabs. I prefer the matte finish on the PSA slabs. And, as Mickey said, the SGC slabs are WAY to easy to crack. >>
Everyone has their own opinion on slabs. I actually like the way the T206s look in the SGC slab compared to PSA.
so if the card has 3 variations, PSA will separate each one and give you and accurate read, SGC lumps them all together on the POP reports so you dont have any idea how many of each variey exist-----VERY ANNOYING
<< <i>main problem with SGC is they dont recognize variations within a specific card...
so if the card has 3 variations, PSA will separate each one and give you and accurate read, SGC lumps them all together on the POP reports so you dont have any idea how many of each variey exist-----VERY ANNOYING >>
How accurate do you think PSA's pop reports are?
The pricing and selling debate is a non-factor to me.
My first and foremost concern is the CARD, no matter the label.
Majority of my collection will always remain raw.
Ive cracked out 100's of cards for my raw sets. I save the holders to sometimes use to display smaller
sets with my own custom made label. I must say it is harder to not destroy the SGC holder than the PSA holder when cracking them out.
Anyone that would like SGC or PSA slabs to use for a special display using your own custom labels, I have both available
for $1.00 each. +SH
As for the qualifier debate I personally don't like the o/c qualifier. PSA is far to inconsistant with it and OC can plainly be seen and determinded by the collectors. I do prefer a qulaifer for any stains, writing or other defects that can not be so easily seen.
The poor print quality of the SGC label was also mentioned and is one of their main problems. SGC currently has stated that it is in the process of correcting the printing issue.
I shyed away from PSA after they adopted the .05 grade scale that SGC has used for years.
There will always be pros and cons for both in this debate.
Its been said many times before, buy the card, not the label. Ive found that to work best for when I crack them out and return them to their raw status.
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>
<< <i>I agree. PSA is the only company I'll buy. I just don't like the SGC slabs (I know I'm in the minority here). I've owned a couple and the black insert that everyone seems to love ended up damaging the card. I also don't like the really slick finish on the slabs. I prefer the matte finish on the PSA slabs. And, as Mickey said, the SGC slabs are WAY to easy to crack. >>
Everyone has their own opinion on slabs. I actually like the way the T206s look in the SGC slab compared to PSA. >>
The black insert does make the card jump out. But a T206 Zach Wheat is one card that got damaged in the slab when I owned it. The card shifted and slipped out of the insert which gouged the bottom edge. While it didn't technically lower the grade of the card it did piss me off a bit as the eye appeal took a hit.
My small collection
Want List:
'61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7
Cardinal T206 cards
Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I dislike the labels and the 100 point scale kind of bothers me. I am not losing any sleep over it
but wished they would just redesign the stupid thing. >>
Why do so many insist that SGC has a 100 point scale? The key to understanding grading is to understand the alpha grade description. As long as the alpha grade descriptions are examined and applied equally to the same standards, the use of an 84 or a 7 for a NRMT card is basically moot. They use of SGC's scale ISN'T based on 100 points, but just uses different numbers ranging from 10-100 to arbitrarily use as stopping points for the alpha grade and I'm sure the usage of the 100 scale was to avoid any infringement on Alan Hager's 1-10 grading system that he had with ASA back in the day. >>
I don't insist, it is right there on their website and on their flips? Yes I understand the alpha grade is the one to go by , I didn't say I didn't.
This 100 not 100 scale was developed to decieve collectors into thinking that a 92 or an 84 86 were better grades then they were.
The 100 scale and the gaskets (SBC)were to avoid any costs associated with Hagar's patents. Joe Merkel was an original SBC guy and when SGC
opened their doors in what 97 they adapted all the old stuff to try and avoid any costs. The SGC brass has changed but their identity hasn't. I will let you
do your research on Merkel and SBC. BTW I really liked the old SBC label , no color just a real nice antique looking flip. I would love for them to go back
to that flip. >>
I will repeat this again. It is NOT a 100 point scale. Suggesting that it is a 100 point scale would be saying that there are 100 grades AND/OR that the system is based on a 100 point rating. IT IS NOT! The numeric grade equivalents assigned to the alpha grade designations are not congruous to a true 100 point scale when considered against all of the other 1-10 based scales. Too many suggest that an 84 (equal to a PSA 7) is an 8.4 or 84 % of 100. It is not!!!
When Merkle set his standard with SBC (yes, I know the history), it was to avoid litigation from Hagar. I seriously doubt that Joe was wise enough to attempt to set up a scale that was designed to "decieve (sic) collectors into thinking" anything. It was simply the scale he chose to go with.
Additionally, the old SBC labels were almost identical to the original SGC labels before the advent of the new label that was followed shortly by the label that added the 1-10 numeric equivalent.
With regard to the grading standards, I'm pretty confident in stating that they are quite congruous with the balance of the hobby and what is expected and demanded of the grades. My confidence stems from the fact that I authored the SGC Grading Scale criteria among the many other aspects that I performed for SGC while a senior grader with the company at the turn of the Millennium (I also developed and rolled out the Rejection Codes and Rejection Code Zones). Interestingly, Beckett subsequently copied, nearly verbatim, a majority of the half grade and Pristine grade specifics that I developed when they rolled out their program. So if you want to argue semantics, that's fine, but with regard to the facts, there's nothing left to conjecture.
So, you can say that it's a 100 point scale. You can believe it all you want. You can shout it to the rooftops, but it isn't a 100 point scale. It is a 15 point scale embedded within a numerical system ranging from 10-100 with no mathematical correlation or inference between the numerical assignment of one grade in relation to another. In other words, an SGC 86 is not 2% better than an SGC 84 just as an SGC 80 is not 8 times better than an SGC 10.
I am not looking for an argument its sportscards nothing more. I surely don't come here
to argue about grading scales or flips...............
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
<< <i>OK I dislike the 15 grade within various numbers from 10 to 100 grading system.
I am not looking for an argument its sportscards nothing more. I surely don't come here
to argue about grading scales or flips............... >>
I'm not looking to argue. Just pointing out the facts. Just as PSA's current scale is 19 grades within a 1-10 scale.