SGC Grading

[Woodsy074]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

PSA isn't much better these days, but SGC is really going overboard right now. I have sent in identical early 1970's cards to SGC and PSA recently. PSA seems to give out 7's pretty leniently but getting above that is almost impossible from my experience. In the past SGC used to grade more towards eye appeal, but those days are over. They are just as hard on corners now and that is the big change IMO. Last year I got some SGC cards graded with fantastic eye appeal and not perfect corners, they got in the SGC 8 range. Those same cards would be SGC 6's now. Anyone that has graded vintage with SGC knows that things are different now.

I am really at a loss on how to grade right now. I think I am stopping right now. I will buy new SGC slabs, but not grade with them anymore until they get to $15 and it will be more for my PC. Grading with SGC to get a lower grade than PSA and less value for the same grade is insanity.

Do you have he high resolution scan of the Maravich? I agree that 5 seems overly harsh.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by Woodsy074

Do you have he high resolution scan of the Maravich? I agree that 5 seems overly harsh.

I thought this was an easy 7 compared to my recent PSA orders and SGC from last year. There are no surface wrinkles and no surface issues. Very slightly skewed and the back of the card is not bad. I don't have it in hand, so there is a chance I missed something. The corners aren't great, but SGC in the past would be more lenient on this.

[JMTerp]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

I thought this was an easy 7 compared to my recent PSA orders and SGC from last year. There are no surface wrinkles and no surface issues. Very slightly skewed and the back of the card is not bad. I don't have it in hand, so there is a chance I missed something. The corners aren't great, but SGC in the past would be more lenient on this.

That's tough. Without a crease or markings on the back, I would assume a solid 6 still even with those corners, which likely look worse under the high res scan/high light than it does by eye. Either way, this is one that (for example) if someone saw at a card show, I'm sure would be picked up and looked at quickly because it has great eye appeal imo with solid centering and colors. Corners aren't going to be a huge deterrent to collectors on "lower" cost vintage and even these are just less-than-perfect not totally fubar.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by JMTerp

That's tough. Without a crease or markings on the back, I would assume a solid 6 still even with those corners, which likely look worse under the high res scan/high light than it does by eye. Either way, this is one that (for example) if someone saw at a card show, I'm sure would be picked up and looked at quickly because it has great eye appeal imo with solid centering and colors. Corners aren't going to be a huge deterrent to collectors on "lower" cost vintage and even these are just less-than-perfect not totally fubar.

Those 1972 cards under high magnification have not so great corners by the way they are cut. I compared that picture to some of my PSA 7's from that year and there isn't much difference. In the past SGC would take centering and registration more into consideration.

Here is another card I recently had graded and was shocked by the 5. It isn't perfect, but the back was centered, and it had no surface issues. I looked it over for thirty minutes. It looks badly off-centered, but it is still in the 30/70 requirements. I had no trouble selling it for a premium and the buyer got a great card. I had a worse McAdoo RC that had a nasty print defect and got a PSA 7.

[fattymacs]

Those sgc 5's would have been 6's minimum, possibly 6.5-7

[dio]

SGC forgot the difference between vintage and modern , under mag, everything is like 5-6

[Gary]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/37384787078...MAAOSwATxh0Hdu

look at this card,It is very much like yours in edges,corners,surface,yours is better centered,i would question if this was a new grader that banged you heavy for the second E in Pete,not knowing its on all of them.

yours does have a little more than normal color missing on the Hawks lettering,im assuming the 3 horizontal lines going across his left leg are on the slab only.edge chipping from the ruff cut a little worse than normal,both yours and this one have the same slight tilt.this is ALL nit picking tbh,nothing i see in your scan says less than 7 imo.

anyone who's read more than 1 of my posts already know im a vintage SGC guy.So i have hundreds of vintage SGC slabs,and again im going to assume thats the seller ready scan,so were seeing at least as much as the grader would at 10x.

Post up the back,if there is no slight wax stain,(im guessing no based on reading several posts from you)you don't seem the type to miss something like that.all your other est grades were 1/2 grade off to right on.you,i,and everyone else is missing something.or the grader just screwed up.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by Gary

Post up the back,if there is no slight wax stain,(im guessing no based on reading several posts from you)you don't seem the type to miss something like that.all your other est grades were 1/2 grade off to right on.you,i,and everyone else is missing something.or the grader just screwed up.

The back of the card has absolutely no wax stains, just a slight tilt. Clear borders on the back, no miscut as is common on these cards. The grader obviously didn't like something about this card and since grades are subjective, I don't think I will ever know unless I crack it, look at it with a loupe again, and resubmit. They could have not liked the printing on it and I have been dinged on that before. I had a Patrick Ewing SGC 7 that I felt deserved higher, but it had the common print defect that the grader could have not liked. The 1992 Topps Gold Shaquille print defect that looks like a scratch is also something that is not treated equally by graders. I have seen 10's with that card and I got a PSA 8 on one that was perfect. Cracked and resent for a PSA 9.

My last PSA order I guessed a low grade and one higher for a high grade. I was correct on 49/50 cards. Just had one that I messed up on, which was a LeBron that got a PSA 6, which had an ident I didn't see. It was real hard to see though since it was a hologram card. SGC is grading much harder pre 1980 right now, by 1 full grade in most cases. I knew this when I submitted, but they even went 0.5 lower than what I expected.

I just want to let people know that with my experience that SGC is grading vintage more harshly than any grader right now. PSA is second and CSG/BVG are very similar for third. I am not hating on SGC, but anything below 8 and they are extremely lenient with grades. This is also something that started in May from my experience. Prior to May, SGC was easier from my orders. After May is when I noticed a big difference.

I love SGC slabs, but this is my fourth order since May that has been pretty harsh IMO. I have found that PSA has loosened up recently, they were much harder on my cards at the end of last year and in the first quarter of this year. I am not complaining though. I am buying up SGC slabs on eBay and forums whenever I get the chance. Many times, newly SGC slabbed cards go for less than raw right now for the same price in similar conditions.

[Gary]

i have a 61 fleer card in an SGC 5 i can post up for comparison sake,can i link the SGC seller image page?BTW it was graded 2 years ago so might be an old to new for everyone to judge by.

[HKBred]

Just got my submission shipment email.
Delivered 12/6
Shipped 1/6

Exactly 1 month. Pretty darn good. Website easy to navigate. Prolly my best grading submission experience .
The grading seems fair. 5 modern cards..3 got what I expected. 1 got worst and 1 got better than expected.
Since these cards are PC, will definately use them again

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by HKBred

Just got my submission shipment email.
Delivered 12/6
Shipped 1/6

Exactly 1 month. Pretty darn good. Website easy to navigate. Prolly my best grading submission experience .
The grading seems fair. 5 modern cards..3 got what I expected. 1 got worst and 1 got better than expected.
Since these cards are PC, will definately use them again

Did you get the seller ready images? They should be ready for you to view. No company can come close to SGC's grading experience right now. They grade Modern very fairly. Hopefully with PSA opening back up, the demand will fall for SGC and prices will start to drop. I have a ton of cards I would send in at $15, but $30 is just too much for the majority of my PC.

[HKBred]

No seller ready images yet. I see the folder but it's empty.
Hitting refresh every 15 mins..lol. Do they usually upload images same day?

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by HKBred

No seller ready images yet. I see the folder but it's empty.
Hitting refresh every 15 mins..lol. Do they usually upload images same day?

My order that shipped on Monday had the folder empty in the morning, but it was available later in the day. They should be there soon!

[HKBred]

Cool..thx

[Woodsy074]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

The back of the card has absolutely no wax stains, just a slight tilt. Clear borders on the back, no miscut as is common on these cards. The grader obviously didn't like something about this card and since grades are subjective, I don't think I will ever know unless I crack it, look at it with a loupe again, and resubmit. They could have not liked the printing on it and I have been dinged on that before. I had a Patrick Ewing SGC 7 that I felt deserved higher, but it had the common print defect that the grader could have not liked. The 1992 Topps Gold Shaquille print defect that looks like a scratch is also something that is not treated equally by graders. I have seen 10's with that card and I got a PSA 8 on one that was perfect. Cracked and resent for a PSA 9.

My last PSA order I guessed a low grade and one higher for a high grade. I was correct on 49/50 cards. Just had one that I messed up on, which was a LeBron that got a PSA 6, which had an ident I didn't see. It was real hard to see though since it was a hologram card. SGC is grading much harder pre 1980 right now, by 1 full grade in most cases. I knew this when I submitted, but they even went 0.5 lower than what I expected.

I just want to let people know that with my experience that SGC is grading vintage more harshly than any grader right now. PSA is second and CSG/BVG are very similar for third. I am not hating on SGC, but anything below 8 and they are extremely lenient with grades. This is also something that started in May from my experience. Prior to May, SGC was easier from my orders. After May is when I noticed a big difference.

I love SGC slabs, but this is my fourth order since May that has been pretty harsh IMO. I have found that PSA has loosened up recently, they were much harder on my cards at the end of last year and in the first quarter of this year. I am not complaining though. I am buying up SGC slabs on eBay and forums whenever I get the chance. Many times, newly SGC slabbed cards go for less than raw right now for the same price in similar conditions.

I agree. That Maravich looks undergraded for sure. The only thing I can think of is that lower left corner. I wonder if there is something there if you look at it again like a small crease or the picture is actually curling up and separating from the cardboard. Probably hard to tell in the slab though and you would have to examine it by cracking it out. Either way, the eye-appeal on that card is amazing and would be happy to have it in my collection. Nice sub overall!

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by Woodsy074

I agree. That Maravich looks undergraded for sure. The only thing I can think of is that lower left corner. I wonder if there is something there if you look at it again like a small crease or the picture is actually curling up and separating from the cardboard. Probably hard to tell in the slab though and you would have to examine it by cracking it out. Either way, the eye-appeal on that card is amazing and would be happy to have it in my collection. Nice sub overall!

There is also a possibility I damaged the card putting it in a penny sleeve/card saver or someone at SGC damaged it as well taking it out of the penny sleeve/card saver. Things happen... I won't know for sure until I get it back this week. I have a PSA 7 of the same card and might trade the PSA 7 and keep the SGC 5, just need to see which presents better in person. I would rather have more lower graded vintage with better eye appeal instead of one card that was graded higher because of different standards or perfect corners.

Below is the rest of my order. The Mantle has paper loss on the back and also some creasing, but I think the front of the card presents well.

[Kfoj]

My order was received in 1/4/22 when should I expect them to be graded by?

[Jsquared123]

Originally Posted by Kfoj

My order was received in 1/4/22 when should I expect them to be graded by?

Probably the week of 1/31 give or take..

[JMTerp]

My 12/2/21 order came in and managed to stay blind to the grades until delivered. Very happy with the order overall and ended up gem'd on 14/32 cards. Granted, the paper donruss I sent weren't the highest degree of difficulty but those gold premium stock donruss are not going to be the easiest grades given the quality control issues. Just happy my factory sets were in good shape.

There were definitely a couple that came in quite a bit higher than I thought and really only a couple I feel were legit under-graded. Very consistent this order overall and hope that stays the trend for the future!

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by JMTerp

My 12/2/21 order came in and managed to stay blind to the grades until delivered. Very happy with the order overall and ended up gem'd on 14/32 cards. Granted, the paper donruss I sent weren't the highest degree of difficulty but those gold premium stock donruss are not going to be the easiest grades given the quality control issues. Just happy my factory sets were in good shape.

Those Gold Press Proof cards look absolutely gorgeous in the tuxedo.

[JMTerp]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

Those Gold Press Proof cards look absolutely gorgeous in the tuxedo.

Thanks! They are definitely slick looking cards in general even outside the slab. Panini actually did something decent with the concept of those premium factory sets...too bad dozens of people have had huge issues with awful condition/quality issues on those sets .

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

There is also a possibility I damaged the card putting it in a penny sleeve/card saver or someone at SGC damaged it as well taking it out of the penny sleeve/card saver. Things happen... I won't know for sure until I get it back this week. I have a PSA 7 of the same card and might trade the PSA 7 and keep the SGC 5, just need to see which presents better in person. I would rather have more lower graded vintage with better eye appeal instead of one card that was graded higher because of different standards or perfect corners.

I hate putting vintage cards into sleeves. I just use card savers. The edge of the sleeve tends to catch on the edge or corner of the card. If I were sleeving them, I'd use the thick-card sleeves, and pinch the seam of the sleeve to open it up on one side before putting the card in.

Pete looks like a strong 6. Upper left and lower right look like strong NM, but lower left and upper right appear to have a bit of chipping on the surface at the tip. How's the back? Couple tiny chips on the top border, and minor diamond cut. I can't see anything that would drop that to a 5, at least in that huge scan.

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by Jsquared123

Probably the week of 1/31 give or take..

I have one card that was received on 12/9 that still shows just received

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by towerymt

I hate putting vintage cards into sleeves. I just use card savers. The edge of the sleeve tends to catch on the edge or corner of the card. If I were sleeving them, I'd use the thick-card sleeves, and pinch the seam of the sleeve to open it up on one side before putting the card in.

Pete looks like a strong 6. Upper left and lower right look like strong NM, but lower left and upper right appear to have a bit of chipping on the surface at the tip. How's the back? Couple tiny chips on the top border, and minor diamond cut. I can't see anything that would drop that to a 5, at least in that huge scan.

I have the card in hand today and the 5 is just plain ridiculous. This is the new normal for SGC though, they are grading vintage insanely tough. Below is a link from YouTube of a SGC submission from someone who knows grading very well. Some of those grades are just tough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOC_...2LW9WumXRtaZ1W

Collect the card and not the grade! I have another PSA 7 1972 Pistol Pete that I am going to trade and keep the SGC 5. The SGC has much better colors and much whiter borders.

[mintacular]

You seem to be in denial, that Maravich is correctly graded a 5. You can huff and puff all you want but SGC graded this one spot on. This is why professional grading is invaluable, you take the bias/over-grading from the original owner and put it into the hands of someone with expertise and without prejudice.