This is one reason why I'll choose PSA everytime when selling my cards
nam812
Posts: 10,601 ✭✭✭✭✭
I know some guys like to have cards from their own collection in SGC holders for one reason or another, but if/when the time comes to liquidate that collection, if they are wise, they will cross them into PSA holders. Here is one really good example why.
1971 Topps #26 Bert Blyleven SGC 98 Gem Mint - $2,356.00
1971 Topps #26 Bert Blyleven PSA 9 Mint - $3,346.00
Almost $1,000 more for a full grade lower in the PSA slab.
Also, I know that these cards were most likely purchased for their numerical grade and not their visual appeal, but I still think it was a poor choice to scan the slabs with a black background.
1971 Topps #26 Bert Blyleven SGC 98 Gem Mint - $2,356.00
1971 Topps #26 Bert Blyleven PSA 9 Mint - $3,346.00
Almost $1,000 more for a full grade lower in the PSA slab.
Also, I know that these cards were most likely purchased for their numerical grade and not their visual appeal, but I still think it was a poor choice to scan the slabs with a black background.
0
Comments
<< <i>I know some guys like to have cards from their own collection in SGC holders for one reason or another, but if/when the time comes to liquidate that collection, if they are wise, they will cross them into PSA holders. Here is one really good example why.
1971 Topps #26 Bert Blyleven SGC 98 Gem Mint - $2,356.00
1971 Topps #26 Bert Blyleven PSA 9 Mint - $3,346.00
Almost $1,000 more for a full grade lower in the PSA slab.
Also, I know that these cards were most likely purchased for their numerical grade and not their visual appeal, but I still think it was a poor choice to scan the slabs with a black background. >>
I see your point Nam but I think over time PSA will have an edge but that's about it as the other big 3 gain in market share. No question SGC has gained in market share because they have excellent personalized customer service, better pricing and greater sensitivity to customer concerns in the marketplace. chaz
When my sons and I decided to start having our raw Mantles professionally graded, we did a little research first, similar to your example.
Though not 100% of the time, but pretty close, we found that the PSA Sold Price was always considerably higher than their competition.
Like many others, we wanted to have them all graded by the same company; so we went with PSA.
It seems logical that if most collectors prefer PSA that PSA graded cards would receive the most bidders, thus driving the price higher, but that could probably be debated heavily amongst biased collectors.
Along those same lines, we have had an enormous amount of luck, if you will, sending in cracked-out SGC graded Mantles to PSA, and receiving either higher or the same grades. Many have been higher!
Getting back to your example, I must agree that the black border/black holder combo had to be a strong deterrent for some bidders.
Bottom line ... seeing your example makes me a little more confident that we chose the right company to grade our collection.
Thanks for sharing,
PoppaJ
<< <i>The registry is a powerful drug! >>
It is indeed, but SGC has a registry too. I guess their's is more like an aspirin.
<< <i>The registry is a powerful drug! >>
I totally agree. As everyone knows, I am a supporter of SGC....but I am an equal opportunity collector. My collection is about 50/50 PSA/SGC. I like both companies service, but prefer SGC for many reasons. The PSA registry causes people to lose their minds. Due to registry competition, for commons and minor stars, PSA will usually outsell SGC. In vintage football stars, I don't see the same disparity. Here is an example I just lived first hand. I bought a PSA 7 1950 Bowman Baugh for $240. I then sold a 1950 Sammy Baugh SGC 7 for $210. A week later, Mint State sold a PSA 7 50 Baugh on ebay for $168. For every example of PSA outselling SGC, an example can be shown to show the opposite...and vice versa. The PSA average in the two sales is about $206, the SGC sold for $210...comparable prices using these 3 recent sales that I tracked.
I am still trying to figure out why anyone would dump over 3 grand on a 1971 Blyleven anways???? Seems ridiculous to me.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>I have seen this happen the other way around as well......... >>
Here and there, but not nearly as often.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have seen this happen the other way around as well......... >>
Here and there, but not nearly as often. >>
How do you figure? I have seen it just as frequent both ways. I like both companies, so I am not bias either way.
<< <i>........How do you figure? I have seen it just as frequent both ways. I like both companies, so I am not bias either way. >>
OK, you're right.
<< <i> I have seen it just as frequent both ways >>
I am not going into the usual argument with you but it rarely happens on anything post-war. Pre-war, SGC often sells at higher price than PSA simply because that is perceived as SGC's niche. For more modern cards (1975-present) PSA and even BGS always have higher realized prices than SGC.
<< <i>
<< <i>........How do you figure? I have seen it just as frequent both ways. I like both companies, so I am not bias either way. >>
OK, you're right. >>
It's not about me being right, I am just not bias to one company or the other, unlike some. I know when I was looking for a 48' Bowman Musial in a mint 9, the one I wanted sold for thousands more in an SGC 96 holder(I liked the eye appeal a bit better), versus the PSA 9 holder. It happens both ways, and it's not all that rare for it to flip flop all the time.
I just get sick of the bias garbage on Net54 for SGC, and then on here it's the other way around for PSA. Let's be honest, not bias.
<< <i>I just checked out user RStuckemeyers' registry sets over at SGC, good lord. >>
There isn't much action on the SGC registry, but his and clamendo's football sets are simply amazing. Jaw dropping.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
John
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
<< <i>OK, you're right. >>
Nam you are a funny son of a gun ! LOL chaz
From the Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
<< <i>If anyone believes that a "mania" for something such as the set registry is like something new - well it isn't new. The "Tulip Mania" which occurred in Holland back in the 1600's, is a classic example of this mania, and the below link may be interesting reading to some who want to understand seemingly irrational prices on things.
>>
Times change. People don't.
<< <i>
<< <i>If anyone believes that a "mania" for something such as the set registry is like something new - well it isn't new. The "Tulip Mania" which occurred in Holland back in the 1600's, is a classic example of this mania, and the below link may be interesting reading to some who want to understand seemingly irrational prices on things.
>>
Times change. People don't. >>
That Blyleven card at $3,300+.....If that's not a 17th century tulip, then I'm not sure what is? LOL
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If anyone believes that a "mania" for something such as the set registry is like something new - well it isn't new. The "Tulip Mania" which occurred in Holland back in the 1600's, is a classic example of this mania, and the below link may be interesting reading to some who want to understand seemingly irrational prices on things.
>>
Times change. People don't. >>
That Blyleven card at $3,300+.....If that's not a 17th century tulip, then I'm not sure what is? LOL >>
I was agreeing with you in the first post.
On some issues, SGC consistently outsells PSA. On most issues, especially post-War, PSA outsells SGC. It isn't rocket science, but it is fact. Anyone can pull up something to dispute it, but if you look at the total volume of sales and the realized prices, PSA outshines SGC. Personally, I lean towards PSA products because of the registry and the liquidation potential, but I think SGC offers an equal product. I would ONLY consider those two companies, especially with regard to anything "vintage."
With regard to RStuckmeyer on the SGC Registry, Randy has one helluva collection and a sizeable portion USED to reside in PSA holders. As a collector, he has obviously made a choice as have many that are stunch SGC collectors. Their numbers may be small, but they are beyond loyal!
That being said, shouldn't it be simple to have a discussion on these boards about PSA and SGC, regardless of whether these boards are owned by PSA (CU) without having the jealousy and bitterness infiltrate the normal manner of civil discourse? Perhaps the discussions are obscured by a diminished level of intellect as it seems much easier for some to criticize and belittle rather than accept and discuss a contrasting or contradictory thought.
<< <i>Here's an idea: Why not set up a new board called CU54. This way, maybe we could have a discussion without all of the bias and posturing.
On some issues, SGC consistently outsells PSA. On most issues, especially post-War, PSA outsells SGC. It isn't rocket science, but it is fact. Anyone can pull up something to dispute it, but if you look at the total volume of sales and the realized prices, PSA outshines SGC. Personally, I lean towards PSA products because of the registry and the liquidation potential, but I think SGC offers an equal product. I would ONLY consider those two companies, especially with regard to anything "vintage."
With regard to RStuckmeyer on the SGC Registry, Randy has one helluva collection and a sizeable portion USED to reside in PSA holders. As a collector, he has obviously made a choice as have many that are stunch SGC collectors. Their numbers may be small, but they are beyond loyal!
That being said, shouldn't it be simple to have a discussion on these boards about PSA and SGC, regardless of whether these boards are owned by PSA (CU) without having the jealousy and bitterness infiltrate the normal manner of civil discourse? Perhaps the discussions are obscured by a diminished level of intellect as it seems much easier for some to criticize and belittle rather than accept and discuss a contrasting or contradictory thought. >>
You have some valid points, but on here it's impossible for some to just put away old vendettas, so we can have a debate/discussion about cards. That's unfortunate.
<< <i>You have some valid points, but on here it's impossible for some to just put away old vendettas, so we can have a debate/discussion about cards. That's unfortunate. >>
OK, you're right.
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...