1952 BOWMAN SUBMISSION - WOW, WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT!!! SGC TO PSA CROSSOVER RESULTS
OcTrAdInG
Posts: 176 ✭✭
...I successfully transformed 5 SGC 96 cards into 1 PSA 5, 1 PSA 7, 1 PSA 7.5, and 2 PSA 8's.
I am new to the board, having joined recently primarily for the purpose of this post, but I was hoping to get some valuable input from you guys on my last submission...No, I am not suggesting a PSA conspiracy theory. Anyway, I welcome your comments and suggestions as to the fairness of the grading. Having been shocked by the final PSA grades for these cards, I requested an immediate review of 2 cards (Jenson & Irvin), only to be told by customer service that the grades, in fact, are ok (per the head grader). I guess at this point another review is pointless (since all reviews go to the same grader)??? Please look @ the scans, and let me know what you think...I guess I could crack and sub again???
Currently, I am about 50% of the way through completing the 1952 Bowman baseball set. My initial purchases were SGC-graded cards, and I'd been working to cross those to PSA for set registry purposes more than anything else. Most common cards crossed without too much stress; high value cards were another story. My average card is about an 8.5, with many 9's, and I'd at least like to think that I can differentiate between grades with so many cards on hand to examine. All 5 cards were, prior to this submission, SGC 96's and not surprisingly had come back Evidence of Trim (in SGC holder) before this crack and submit. I examined the cards very carefully for EOT prior to this crack and submit, concluding personally there was no trim for these cards.
I guess I can assume from the grade on the Hodges card that a surface wrinkle is present. As for the cards reviewed by the head grader, a small dent supposedly exists on the Irvin card (to be determined later, as it is not really visible to the naked eye), and the only knock on the Jenson is the bottom left corner. With that said, I really don't get the 7.5 grade; I have 9's that are not as nice, and I can't see why it is not worthy of at least an 8. The scans will likely not do the cards justice, but in any event, please comment...I'm still in denial.
Thanks.
p.s. Hopefully, my photobucket link works.
1952 BOWMAN SUBMISSION
I am new to the board, having joined recently primarily for the purpose of this post, but I was hoping to get some valuable input from you guys on my last submission...No, I am not suggesting a PSA conspiracy theory. Anyway, I welcome your comments and suggestions as to the fairness of the grading. Having been shocked by the final PSA grades for these cards, I requested an immediate review of 2 cards (Jenson & Irvin), only to be told by customer service that the grades, in fact, are ok (per the head grader). I guess at this point another review is pointless (since all reviews go to the same grader)??? Please look @ the scans, and let me know what you think...I guess I could crack and sub again???
Currently, I am about 50% of the way through completing the 1952 Bowman baseball set. My initial purchases were SGC-graded cards, and I'd been working to cross those to PSA for set registry purposes more than anything else. Most common cards crossed without too much stress; high value cards were another story. My average card is about an 8.5, with many 9's, and I'd at least like to think that I can differentiate between grades with so many cards on hand to examine. All 5 cards were, prior to this submission, SGC 96's and not surprisingly had come back Evidence of Trim (in SGC holder) before this crack and submit. I examined the cards very carefully for EOT prior to this crack and submit, concluding personally there was no trim for these cards.
I guess I can assume from the grade on the Hodges card that a surface wrinkle is present. As for the cards reviewed by the head grader, a small dent supposedly exists on the Irvin card (to be determined later, as it is not really visible to the naked eye), and the only knock on the Jenson is the bottom left corner. With that said, I really don't get the 7.5 grade; I have 9's that are not as nice, and I can't see why it is not worthy of at least an 8. The scans will likely not do the cards justice, but in any event, please comment...I'm still in denial.
Thanks.
p.s. Hopefully, my photobucket link works.
1952 BOWMAN SUBMISSION
0
Comments
Hope your future endeavors turn out better.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Commissions
Check out my Facebook page
Sorry if I sound like a jerk but dont ever crack out again and hope to get the same grades, its a crap shoot 100% so remember to do straight crossover option! ( Or save your money and stick with the holders the cards are in )
Understanding the emphasis PSA places on surface issues, I can understand the grades for the Irvin and Hodges (the worst grades in the lot, if indeed I can find the flaws on examination, which I've yet to do), but the Jenson grade is just mind-boggling to me. They were gracious enough to stick a post-it on the holder to identify the bottom left corner, but that card is just not a 7.5...and 8.5 maybe (due to the corners).
They call me "Pack the Ripper"
As far as damage incurred during crackout, I would have to say no. I've cracked many SGC holders, and with cards of this caliber, I can promise you that I took extra care in their removal.
I've owned the Hodges, Irvin, and Jenson cards for over 2 years in the SGC holders. I suppose it is possible that the surface wrinkle on the Hodges became more noticeable with the passing of time...and of course, it is possible damage happened in-transit to PSA.
I may just have them slabbed as AUTHENTIC, and PSA and I will agree to disagree.
Historically, ALL of my high-dollar crossovers were initially rejected for EOT.
I don't want to jinx myself, but it is interesting to me that so far all SGC cards cracked and submitted have been returned with a grade. Good job SGC.
Initially, especially for an SGC 96, I would elect crossover treatment. SGC 88's I have always cracked and submitted with no problems, other than grading variance which is usually +/- 1 grade.
I called PSA customer service to discuss the grade on the Jenson...After posing a few questions, customer service was just speechless. No advice. No anything. Just an awkward pause. I hung up.
They were nice enough to flag my order prior to shipment (for review). To PSA's credit, they did exactly what was asked of them in providing an explanation for the grades on the Irvin and Jenson. Customer service was even ok with the grade. lol. (Please don't tell me you are ok with grade, because the "head grader" showed you some corner wear. You may be an expert grader in your spare time, but I highly doubt it.)
...but my question was this - What is the best way to get an unbiased review of these results? Evidently, there is only 1 "head grader", and at this point, he must be involved in the process if it is a review. Is it not possible to get a grade from another "head grader" (and hence the name "head grader")? Are we completely and utterly at the behest of this "head grader"? I just want other opinions from PSA, and evidently, it is not possible. Is it ever possible to see the grades from the initial graders?
No conspiracy theories...I just want some answers.
<< <i>Is it possible that the cards were somehow "downgraded" during the crack out process? Cards sometimes get damaged/dinged/creased/dented when people crack them out of thier holders. Just throwing that out there for discussion.... >>
^^My theory^^
Wait it out and have a friend sub them for you, at this point cracking them out is the only chance you have at getting higher grades, now the reason I say this is Im speaking from experience....
When PSA decided to go with the 1/2 point grades I sent a card in on 2 different occasions to get the bump and both times it got shot down, I sold the card and that person I sold it too ofcourse sent it in and got the .5 bump up
At this point, I think about the conversations that I've had with customer service, and I almost get the feeling that they are a little confused by their own procedures or they are purposely confusing so as not to reveal too much. The rep seemed so surprised that I'd be reluctant to send in the same card in the same PSA holder for review...not because it would go to a different grader but rather because the grader would most likely not pay any attention to the existing PSA holder. I find that hard to believe.
Also, one other fact has been revealed in our conversations - that a card up for review must go to the head grader. I guess, in this respect, questionable cards may sneak through the process if submitted raw and a consensus grade has already been reached.
...Still frustrated.
And I apologize if any of this has been discussed before, but I'm still looking for answers.
Again, thanks for all the input.
I may try to get my hands on a better scanner so that people can critically evaluate the condition of the Jenson.
That bottom left corner really isn't that bad; on the back, you may notice the slightest of wax stains on that corner, but as I said before the pix don't do the cards justice.
After spending some time looking at ebay listings for '52 Bowman PSA 7.5's, I found only one card that may be on par with the Jenson...I bought the card and am anxious to see how it compares. With that said, most pictured PSA 7.5's appear to be from another planet. Centering, more often than not, is far from perfect, and corner imperfections are obvious. When putting my collection together, I have been very critical of all my PSA 8 purchases. That said, I have many PSA 8's that do not present as nicely as the Jenson. Minus any surface defects, in my opinion, all cards are surely 9's based on my experience and collection to date.
The grading Gods are upset with me, and there is nothing I can do.
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
By SGC definition of 96 Mint -
60/40 or betting centering, sharp focus and four sharp corners*. A minor flaw may exist upon close examination. A minor flaw may be, but is not limited to: a slight nick to one corner, a small gloss break or surface scratch, a minor print line or minor refractor line, a minor focus or color imperfection, or a small print spot.
I can see at least the Irvin and Hodges cards still within the realm of SGC's grading scale for a 96 (since PSA's main gripe is surface). If indeed a surface wrinkle has appeared on the Hodges, I might be in trouble on that one, but so be it.
Really, when it comes down to it, I think I'm tired of playing the third party grader game, especially when I'm not crossing the cards for value but rather the set registry.
I got back into the hobby about 2 years ago after a long hiatus, and really I'm starting to feel the same frustrations that made me leave the hobby in the first place.
From personal experience, I am keeping my Ruth Master set in all PSA when possible. For the cards that I know won't crossover from SGC to PSA, I keep in SGC until I can get a PSA card to replace it. For a card that I think have a good chance to crossover, I crack and submit. I have lost and gained during this experience. Some of my SGC 3's went to PSA 1's. Then I went back to SGC, and only got a 2. It's a pain, you are paying grading fees out the wazoo. However, there are also times when a SGC 3 goes to a PSA 4. These are Ruth cards, so this bump is a big deal. In addition, frankly, PSA graded cards sell at higher prices for the same grade. So even with all of this hassle, I am sure that am at least net even while doing these crossovers or even ahead a bit. Whatever you decide to do, happy collecting, and don't let these small things bog you down.
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
With respect to the Ruth set, have you ever had success with reviews? Crack and resubs?
I just don't know how far to pursue the issue with PSA. This goes back to the question of "head grader"...Is there 1 "head grader" for certain years/area of expertise? If so, I believe my efforts will be in vain.
I might be missing something here since I didn't actually speak to the "head grader". I suppose it is possible that there is something else wrong with the card (something that wasn't acknowledged when I requested an explanation on the grade).
I haven't tried any reviews yet. Since reviews need to be their own submission, it's seems prohibitively expensive for me to do this. I prefer just to crack out and send it w/ others that I want to sub. Saying that, there are some cards that I am just too afraid to crack out because there is too much money to be lost if the grade goes down. If I get enough of these cards together, I may send a review submission in the future.
I think there is only one head grader, who I think is Reza (who you see on the front of the psacard homepage). If I am incorrect, let me know. If the head grader already reviewed it, I don't think you'll get a better grade.
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
Combining conversations with customer service and a little common sense, I think it is a dead issue with PSA.
If anyone has any crazy stories about grade bumps, I'd love to hear them now.
Also, if anyone has scans of great PSA 7.5's, I'd love to see those, since I wholeheartedly disagree with the grade on the Jenson.