1952 BOWMAN SUBMISSION - WOW, WHAT A PLEASANT SURPRISE!!! SGC to PSA CROSSOVER RESULTS

OcTrAdInG

The results are in from my last 1952 Bowman submission, and being that I have some free time right now, I thought I'd share the results to assist folks (hopefully) in their own crossover endeavors. While I was pleasantly surprised this time around, the final grades in comparison to my own evaluations have me scratching my head more than ever. That said, I am personally comfortable making the following conclusions, whether you agree with them or not, from my recent submission experience, particularly as it relates to crossovers from SGC to PSA.

1. PSA puts a great(er) emphasis on surface flaws (dents, wrinkles, etc.) when rendering an opinion.
2. Receiving an Evidence of Trim designation is more likely when an SGC card is submitted in the holder because PSA is very conservative when evaluating cards inside the holder. There is nothing wrong with this, but in my opinion and experience, a proper evaluation really requires that you submit the card raw.

I don't think I'm saying anything that hasn't been said before, but that is my experience. Take it for what it's worth, but I think it confirms what has been posted previously.

The PSA grades and related SGC grades/comments for this raw (cracked and submitted) submission follow:

NEAR MINT+ 7.5 1952 BOWMAN 30 RED SCHOENDIENST (SGC 92) - 1st submission
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1952 BOWMAN 90 LARRY JANSEN (SGC 96) - 1st submission
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1952 BOWMAN 93 PAUL RICHARDS (SGC 88) - 1st submission
MINT 9 1952 BOWMAN 105 BOBBY BROWN (SGC 88) - 1st submission
NEAR MINT-MINT+ 8.5 1952 BOWMAN 121 AL CORWIN (SGC 88) - 1st submission
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1952 BOWMAN 134 AL BRAZLE (SGC 88) - 1st submission
MINT 9 1952 BOWMAN 159 DUTCH LEONARD (SGC 96) - 2nd submission; previously did not meet minimum grade required of 8.5, when still in SGC holder
N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1952 BOWMAN 173 GENE BEARDEN (SGC 96) - 2nd submission; previously EOT, when still in SGC holder
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1952 BOWMAN 185 EDDIE STEWART (SGC 92) - 1st submission
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1952 BOWMAN 192 JOHN CUSICK (SGC 88) - 1st submission
N6: MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT 1952 BOWMAN 207 GEORGE STRICKLAND (SGC 96) - 2nd submission; previously EOT, when still in SGC holder
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1952 BOWMAN 211 PAUL MINNER (SGC 96) - 2nd submission; previously did not meet minimum grade required of 8.5, when still in SGC holder
NEAR MINT-MINT+ 8.5 1952 BOWMAN 222 DIXIE HOWELL (SGC 96) - 2nd submission; previously EOT, when still in SGC holder
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1952 BOWMAN 223 HARRY SIMPSON (SGC 96) - 1st submission
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1952 BOWMAN 237 SHERMAN LOLLAR (SGC 92) - 2nd submission; previously did not meet minimum size requirement, when still in SGC holder

I am most pleased by the lack of EOT's on this submission. Having submitted enough SGC cards to PSA inside and outside of holders, I am quite confident in SGC's ability to recognize trim. To me, this submission is proof of that.

Mapleleaf

Isn't min size pretty much the same as EOT?
Seems like there is generally a 1 grade difference between PSA and SGC. Lots of the SGC 96 became PSA 8's.
Were you expecting a bigger drop?

I'm just asking because I have some SGC cards I was going to crack and submit but with that much of a drop, it won't be worth it.

OcTrAdInG

I personally feel better about the minimum size requirement (not just because of the vouchers). Apparently, PSA didn't find EOT once the cards were presented to them outside the holder. Upon return from PSA, I will measure those cards once again to determine if they should be re-submitted another time (but only the second time submitted raw). From reading posts on this board, I am under the impression that SGC tolerates a little more size variance. As such, the designation does not surprise me for those cards in particular, if my memory is correct.

I am happy with the 8's. Although I paid 9 money for some, I am confident that I have very strong 8's. For me, it means something to have opinions from two TPG's. I use the PSA card for registry purposes, and I retain the SGC holder descriptions for all my crossover submissions (outside of the SGC holders). I would say that 1 grade is a pretty good tolerable variance between SGC and PSA grading. Sometimes you benefit, and sometimes you have to ante up.

If you are considering crossover submissions for high-value cards, I'd be very, very hesitant. I've had basically NO success in crossing those cards, inside and outside the SGC holders. One can debate the legitimacy of the grades, but suffice it to say, PSA has not been too easy on surface flaws for the more valuable cards. If you are concerned about retaining value for your cards, I'd certainly inspect the surfaces and sizes of the cards very carefully (as best as you can) prior to cracking/submitting, before it becomes a losing proposition.

Mapleleaf

Thanks for the info.
Mine are low value cards so I will give it a try. I submitted about 10 SGC cards to PSA with min grade requirements equivalent to the SGC grade. 3 out of 10 came back graded, the rest didn't meet min grade.
They were low value 70/80's OPC Hockey. I'll check for surface issues before cracking them out.

OcTrAdInG

For SGC 96's, I normally submit initially with a minimum grade request of PSA 8.5. If the cards come back as not having met the minimum grade, I crack and re-submit so long as I am comfortable there are no surface issues. I have found surface issues after the fact, due in part, to SGC's different grade definitions. Proceed with caution is the best advice I can give. I've wasted a good deal of money shipping cards back and forth, and that was really my reason for the post in the first place. It's just not too realistic to assume that cards will cross from SGC to PSA without issue.

I wish you the best on your submissions.