Why BCCG Cannot Be Taken Seriously
Foo3112
Posts: 1,961
This is why I will never buy any card in a BCCG holder.
The card has a nasty crease all across the bottom but miraculously still holds a 7.
To me, PSA and Beckett are the only ones that I would ever trust. Oh, and SGC but for Vintage.
The card has a nasty crease all across the bottom but miraculously still holds a 7.
To me, PSA and Beckett are the only ones that I would ever trust. Oh, and SGC but for Vintage.
0
Comments
They simply use a different grading scale... It's not "overgraded", it's a different number for the same grade... Kinda like SGC but still using the 10 scale.
How can anything with a crease like that get a 7. I personally would never get anything from BCCG because if I were to crack it and resub, no other company would honor that 7.
Thats just my personal take on it.
BTW didn't you see the crease on the card before you bought it?
Who said anything that I bought it? I'm no Blackitalian.
Link
<< <i>I understand. But at least with SGC when they grade something at a 70 - I think to myself ok, a 7.
How can anything with a crease like that get a 7. I personally would never get anything from BCCG because if I were to crack it and resub, no other company would honor that 7.
Thats just my personal take on it. >>
It's a 5-10 scale.
<< <i>I understand. But at least with SGC when they grade something at a 70 - I think to myself ok, a 7.
How can anything with a crease like that get a 7. I personally would never get anything from BCCG because if I were to crack it and resub, no other company would honor that 7.
Thats just my personal take on it.
BTW didn't you see the crease on the card before you bought it?
Who said anything that I bought it? I'm no Blackitalian.
Link >>
SGC 70 = PSA 5.5.
<< <i>
<< <i>I understand. But at least with SGC when they grade something at a 70 - I think to myself ok, a 7.
How can anything with a crease like that get a 7. I personally would never get anything from BCCG because if I were to crack it and resub, no other company would honor that 7.
Thats just my personal take on it.
BTW didn't you see the crease on the card before you bought it?
Who said anything that I bought it? I'm no Blackitalian.
Link >>
SGC 70 = PSA 5.5. >>
Maybe he should rethink his thinking.... LOL
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
<< <i>I understand. But at least with SGC when they grade something at a 70 - I think to myself ok, a 7.
How can anything with a crease like that get a 7. I personally would never get anything from BCCG because if I were to crack it and resub, no other company would honor that 7.
Thats just my personal take on it. >>
SGC 84 = PSA 7
The card is accurately graded per BCCG's grading scale.
I think most here would prefer other graders before this one because of that same reason.
They still use the same terminology... They just make it concise... There is absolutely nothing wrong with BCCG... Your logic means that because SGC isn't the usual scale (An SGC 98= 10, 96= 9)....
They grade just as good as beckett would... Which for vintage... Imo... Isn't very well, however I still believe beckett is stronger on modern (93~ and up) in high grade.
For example... I believe a BGS 10 Jeter SP would bring more than the PSA 10. But a BVG 8 1956 mantle may get 50-60% of the PSA 8 1956 Mantle...
Thats why Beckett Baseball card monthly survived and the rest didn't. The other magazines made things to complicated and hard to read/understand. People like things simple. 1-10 would make the most sense. Not 10-1.
Imagine you would have told your wife or son that you wanted a Roberto Clemente 1970 graded 7 and they came back with this.... Would you still feel the same? Very confusing is the point I'm trying to make. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. If you wanna go back and fourth for the sake of arguing and because there's nothing better to do, that's fine too but I m just not sure what else to add to this except that BCCG sucks.
<< <i>My logic is very simple. A 7 should represent a 7. Not a card that would be a 3 on any other grading scale. Thats all.
Thats why Beckett Baseball card monthly survived and the rest didn't. The other magazines made things to complicated and hard to read/understand. People like things simple. 1-10 would make the most sense. Not 10-1.
Imagine you would have told your wife or son that you wanted a Roberto Clemente 1970 graded 7 and they came back with this.... Would you still feel the same? Very confusing is the point I'm trying to make. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. If you wanna go back and fourth for the sake of arguing and because there's nothing better to do, that's fine too but I m just not sure what else to add to this except that BCCG sucks. >>
Well that's your opinion. Someone who jumps on that card because it has a 7 on it clearly is buying a number. It clearly states very good or better and also has a huge crease. Ignorance is no excuse. People need to do their homework if they don't understand something.
<< <i>I find it to be very backwards. Again, that's why I just don't take them seriously. I don't like the way they grade there cards.
I think most here would prefer other graders before this one because of that same reason. >>
It's been discussed here a bazillion times, but NO ONE takes them seriously. They were designed that way to provide "nicer grades" for some TV shopping show IIRC.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>Well that's your opinion. Someone who jumps on that card because it has a 7 on it clearly is buying a number. It clearly states very good or better and also has a huge crease. Ignorance is no excuse. People need to do their homework if they don't understand something. >>
Well said BrianWintersfan. Btw I've been very successful in the past buying BCCG cards and getting then to cross in high grade.
<< <i>My logic is very simple. A 7 should represent a 7. Not a card that would be a 3 on any other grading scale. Thats all.
Thats why Beckett Baseball card monthly survived and the rest didn't. The other magazines made things to complicated and hard to read/understand. People like things simple. 1-10 would make the most sense. Not 10-1.
Imagine you would have told your wife or son that you wanted a Roberto Clemente 1970 graded 7 and they came back with this.... Would you still feel the same? Very confusing is the point I'm trying to make. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. If you wanna go back and fourth for the sake of arguing and because there's nothing better to do, that's fine too but I m just not sure what else to add to this except that BCCG sucks. >>
By your logic then the worst company out there is SGC, where a 10=a card in FR/PR condition.
then i dropped out and they all DID grade the same way.
Really, show me one... or 2.
<< <i>By your logic then the worst company out there is SGC, where a 10=a card in FR/PR condition
Really, show me one... or 2. >>
As you wish....
Link
EDIT: Opps, you said "or 2"
Link 2
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>Im sorry, what I was thinking was a 10 meaning like a real 10 as in perfect - not a 10 as in poor. SGC is right on the money for vintage. But BCCG would give this a what...a 4? >>
They don't have a 4. As stated before, their scale is 5-10.
Sorry Guys. Like I said, confusing. hehe
they say VG or better, to me, its Good or better...
is there a BCCG 6 ?
Ebay Store:
Probstein123
phone: 973 747 6304
email: rickprobstein1@gmail.com
Probstein123 is actively accepting CONSIGNMENTS !!
People that cannot grasp the concept that the alpha definition is the "true" definition of the grade and would rather believe the numbers is what they should believe are the EXACT people that BCCG was put in place for. The unaware or uneducated that will buy blindly off of Shop at Home, eBay or elsewhere without doing any study on the subject matter.
Sadly, many in the hobby refuse to take the time to learn the differences between the various grading services and assume that a PSA 10 and a BCCG 10 are the same and will argue that an SGC 80 is the same as a PSA 8... By the time that most of these people bother to learn, they're disillusioned because they've wasted money buying inferior product at inflated prices.
Knowledge is king. Cash is king. Therefore, knowledge is cash!
If I ever got a card of value that I intended to keep in a BCCG case it would be getting cracked and subbed to either PSA or SGC depending on the card.
Or at least that is what we were told.
Like I said earlier, I think Beckett is pretty weak on vintage, seeing how they gave a card with a crease the entire card across a grade of "very good" when it probably should have been down another number or 2.
<< <i>Scott said what I have been trying to say but much much better. The "very good" is what is assigned the 4... Not 4 assigned "very good". So VG can be different per company....
Like I said earlier, I think Beckett is pretty weak on vintage, seeing how they gave a card with a crease the entire card across a grade of "very good" when it probably should have been down another number or 2. >>
I don't think that is at all what Scott was saying. It was a more a read the damn label.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>Scott said what I have been trying to say but much much better. The "very good" is what is assigned the 4... Not 4 assigned "very good". So VG can be different per company....
Like I said earlier, I think Beckett is pretty weak on vintage, seeing how they gave a card with a crease the entire card across a grade of "very good" when it probably should have been down another number or 2. >>
I don't think that is at all what Scott was saying. It was a more a read the damn label. >>
That too, but I took his "alpha" definition example as the "worded" grading system (poor fair good vg mint nrmt etc)
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Scott said what I have been trying to say but much much better. The "very good" is what is assigned the 4... Not 4 assigned "very good". So VG can be different per company....
Like I said earlier, I think Beckett is pretty weak on vintage, seeing how they gave a card with a crease the entire card across a grade of "very good" when it probably should have been down another number or 2. >>
I don't think that is at all what Scott was saying. It was a more a read the damn label. >>
That too, but I took his "alpha" definition example as the "worded" grading system (poor fair good vg mint nrmt etc) >>
I don't think you get it. There is no 2 or 4 in BCCG, the lowest they go is 5. A BCCG 7 is very good or better. The fact you seem to want VG to be 4 has nothing to do with anything. Just like your earlier BGS 10 vs PSA 10. They are not the same the grade. Read the labels, this isn't really complicated.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
I don't "want" vg to=4, I said that 4= VG-ex on the PSA scale...
I'm not here to argue sorry done after this post I see where this is going.
Also... From your post... You either don't understand what I'm saying or either haven't read what I've said. And since I know you've read it I know you just aren't understanding the relationship that I'm trying to make between the grades.
I COMPARED things, I never once said anything was equal you are putting words in my mouth.
Edited to add the line you are trying to "quote"
I said:
<< <i>For example... I believe a BGS 10 Jeter SP would bring more than the PSA 10. But a BVG 8 1956 mantle may get 50-60% of the PSA 8 1956 Mantle... >>
I gave a very particular example, I never once said PSA 10 is equivalent to BGS 10.
Mc: Sorry for forgetting to add the "EX" to the end. Too busy trying to avoid arguments. This is still my final post...
<< <i>I'm very aware....
I don't "want" vg to=4, I said that 4= VG on the PSA scale... Which is correct.... >>
That is NOT correct.
PSA 4 = VG-EX
Dave
<< <i>I'm very aware....
I don't "want" vg to=4, I said that 4= VG on the PSA scale... Which is correct...
I'm not here to argue sorry done after this post I see where this is going.
Also... From your post... You either don't understand what I'm saying or either haven't read what I've said. And since I know you've read it I know you just aren't understanding the relationship that I'm trying to make between the grades.
I COMPARED things, I never once said anything was equal you are putting words in my mouth.
Edited to add the line you are trying to "quote"
I said:
<< <i>For example... I believe a BGS 10 Jeter SP would bring more than the PSA 10. But a BVG 8 1956 mantle may get 50-60% of the PSA 8 1956 Mantle... >>
I gave a very particular example, I never once said PSA 10 is equivalent to BGS 10. >>
I didn't try to quote, you are the one that needs quote lessons. Unless you are in an Austin Powers movie, you don't quote the word quote.
Spin things however you want, a BVG 8 is equivalent to a PSA 8, so you are saying a BGS 10 is equivalent in grade to a PSA 10 in your comparison.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Really hate aruging with people over the internet. But I am still having trouble finding where I said BVG 8 = PSA 8, I just said it would sell for less, never said it was equivalent. >>
I guess you just don't understand a BVG 8 is NM-MT and a PSA 8 is NM-MT. They are equivalent.
Now just to really confuse you, a SGC 88 is also NM-MT.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>I believe a PSA 9 would sell for more than a BGS 4. That is just my opinion. >>
Yes, but a PSA 7 might get 50-60% of a BGS 9.5.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Only for post-modern vintage pre-war 3-color patches.
since PSA has its identity tied to Newport Beach, i thought i'd try to introduce a new grading scale using local terminology.
you guys can tell me what you think. or don't. ok, here goes.......
a Gem Mint card shall hereby be referred to as Gem Mint 10 RAD, because it's so Awesome.
a Mint card shall be referred to as Mint 9 AWE, because it's better than Way Cool.
a NM-MT to Mint card shall be referred to as NM-MT 8 WC, because it's better than Gnarly.
a Near Mint card shall be referred to as NM 7 GNAR, because it's better than Shredding.
a shredded card should be placed in a BCCG holder and recycled back up to the Gem Mint 10 status to fool people who don't know anything about surfing.
<< <i>I'm not here to argue sorry done after this post I see where this is going.
Really hate aruging with people over the internet. But I am still having trouble finding where I said BVG 8 = PSA 8, I just said it would sell for less, never said it was equivalent. >>