#53035 - 01/23/03 10:10 AM
MW-Is this really an 84(7)?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I have absolutley no problem with SGC, I hate PSA. But how can this honestly be an 84? Even if the cornes are 96 sharp, that centering is atrocious. Is this typical with SGC. ebay link
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53036 - 01/23/03 12:47 PM
Re: MW-Is this really an 84(7)?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
No comment from the peanut gallery. I guess you'll only get a response if you're slamming PSA.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53037 - 01/23/03 12:58 PM
Re: MW-Is this really an 84(7)?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
If the corners are NM-MT or better the card is deserving of an 84/7 grade. SGC is not the only grading company that would give the card a 7, SCD, PSA and Beckett (based on cards I have seen in their holders) would also give it a 7 or possibly even higher if the corners are truly mint.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53038 - 01/23/03 03:07 PM
Re: MW-Is this really an 84(7)?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
If PSA gives that card a 7, it's a mistake grade. The card is clearly outside the centering guidelines. I've rarely gotten the "benefit of the doubt" from PSA when it comes to centering. If a card meets all the other criteria for the higher grade but is not within the tighter centering tolerence specification, it usually gets the lower grade. For example, a NM/MT card with 68-32 centering will usually not get a PSA 8 unless it has tremendous eye appeal.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53039 - 01/23/03 04:26 PM
Re: MW-Is this really an 84(7)?
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
In reply to:
I've rarely gotten the "benefit of the doubt" from PSA when it comes to centering.
That's because the name of your company isn't Sportscards Plus, Superior, Quality Cards or Mastro..
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53040 - 01/23/03 05:07 PM
Reply to first post only
|
MW1
veteran
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1358
|
Offline
|
|
samsammy23,
While the 1975 O-Pee-Chee George Brett in the auction link is not well-centered, the size of the image can be somewhat misleading when measuring the left-to-right dimensions of the card. For instance, an image in .jpg or .gif mode (both compressed file types) at 72 dpi (screen resolution) can appear to shrink unevenly with respect to border width when it is reduced in size. Also, consider that this particular card is over-sized. Whereas some cards may be 30/70, this example is more on the order of 30/80 (I have not measured the card -- these are arbitrary figures only). Both of these factors can effectively contribute to an optical illusion on eBay.
Also, please keep in mind that this is only one card. Certainly, if I were to post a few PSA counterexamples, they would prove nothing except that occasionally a grading company might encapsulate something that raises a few eyebrows among some collectors.
Link -- PSA examples
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53041 - 01/24/03 04:46 AM
Centering Questions
[Re: MW1]
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I think the SGC 84 (7) Yount is centered well enough for a 7. However, I question the grades given on some sets with notoriously poor centering. I do not save scans like MW so I cannot post more scans but my question is does SGC grade more lenient in regard to centering on tough issues? The 57-58 Topps Basketball set and 61-62 Fleer are two sets that come to mind immediately.
Maybe this scan has been doctored by the seller but this example is real bad:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2703065792&category=16283
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53042 - 01/24/03 07:22 AM
Re: Centering Questions
|
srs1a
Old, dense-headed hammers are cool. Best nail pounders.
Registered: 08/15/02
Posts: 987
Loc: NY
|
|
Offline
|
|
My experience is that SGC is not tremendously lenient on centering -- and if you look at their descriptions of the various grades, you will see that they are identical to PSA's (at least on the full grades).
I just went through an extensive x-over experiment -- and 2 of my PSA-8's (NQ's) would not cross over to SGC-88's because of centering. I was not real happy, but upon review, they made the right call. According to PSA standards, they should not have been straight 8's, either.
I think that it would help if they could more clearly articulate what they do about centering when it doesn't "cut the mustard". For instance, I crossed over a PSA-9OC and it became an SGC-86....it was not as badly centered as the one that started this thread, though.
Scott
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53043 - 01/24/03 12:31 PM
Re: Centering Questions
[Re: srs1a]
|
MW1
veteran
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1358
|
|
Offline
|
|
Scott is quite correct. Anyone who has submitted to both PSA and SGC knows that their standards for centering are quite similar. Anomalies may surface from time to time, but they are certainly not exclusive to one grading company.
The only thing I find confusing about centering is PSA's inconsistent application of the "OC" qualifier. Some cards have it, some cards don't. The "OC" doesn't ever begin to quantify the type of defect is qualifies and to purchase PSA graded cards based on inventory lists or another seller's oral or written description is difficult given this glaring inconsistency on PSA's part. Either they should qualify a card or they should assign an all-inclusive grade, not both and not in the inconsistent manner in which this standard is applied. Just my opinion...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53044 - 01/24/03 01:14 PM
Re: Centering Questions
[Re: MW1]
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Thanks for the replys. I was just curious if this was typical for SGC. Now I know.
Thanks.
Chad.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53045 - 01/24/03 03:17 PM
Re: Centering Questions
[Re: MW1]
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The reason you see an inconsistant application of the "OC" qualifier from PSA is the submitter has the choice to specify "no qualifiers" when submitting. If a card is MINT but centered 70-30, it could get a 9OC or, at best, a straight 8 with no qualifiers depending on how the order is specified. In that case, a vending card centered 90-10 could still get a grade that represents the overall condition of the card. Without the qualifier, it would be difficult to distinguish a card that has rounded corners and creases from a vending crisp card that suffers from poor centering. I always submit requesting "no qualifiers" and would have no problem eliminating them but it doesn't affect me one way or the other because I don't purchase qualified cards. I don't really see how this inconsistant application of applying the standard affects the purchase of cards. Both PSA and SGC have published standards for centering and, without a scan of the card, you have to assume there is a potential the card is centered at the limit for a given grade. If the seller omits the "OC" qualifier in the description, then they are misrepresenting the item.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53046 - 01/24/03 05:16 PM
Re: Centering Questions
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
In reply to:
Without the qualifier, it would be difficult to distinguish a card that has rounded corners and creases from a vending crisp card that suffers from poor centering.
Are you assuming no image is available? Why couldn't you just ask?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53047 - 01/24/03 11:28 PM
Re: Centering Questions
|
vayank
The Amazing Card-Man
Registered: 04/13/02
Posts: 948
Loc: Alexandria, Va
|
|
Offline
|
|
Anonymous, why not register?
_________________________
----
Matthew T. Natale
Alexandria, Virginia
Completed 1977 Topps Baseball SGC Graded Set, Average Grade 92.89
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53048 - 01/25/03 04:43 AM
Re: Centering Questions
[Re: vayank]
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Because if I do, a certain person will immediately go on the attack.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53049 - 01/25/03 07:18 AM
Explanation
[Re: vayank]
|
MW1
veteran
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1358
|
|
Offline
|
|
Matthew,
"Attack" is the operative word used when someone who is anonymous is afraid to debate an issue "straight up" or with his/her identity known. There's a word for this type of response, but I think you already know it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53050 - 01/25/03 07:51 AM
Re: Explanation
[Re: MW1]
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Thanks, you just proved my point.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53051 - 01/25/03 09:19 AM
Famous quotes
|
MW1
veteran
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1358
|
|
Offline
|
|
"I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks, I do, I do, I do."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53052 - 01/26/03 03:30 PM
Re: Explanation
[Re: MW1]
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
My problem with SGC is simple. Lack of a market. I had 3 1976 Baseball commons end tonite with an opening bid of 99 cents. Anyone care to guess how many got a bid????????????? ZERO!!!!!!!!!! When I spend 5 bucks on grading fees and don't get a bid for a buck I AM FINISHED.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53053 - 01/26/03 04:54 PM
Reply
|
MW1
veteran
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1358
|
|
Offline
|
|
Anonymous,
Not to doubt your story, but I see no ended auctions that fit the description of what you have written. Perhaps eBay is experiencing delays and has not listed them yet. Did you list them on Yahoo or somewhere else?
Could you perhaps list the specific auctions you are referring to? Perhaps there is someone here who would be interested in purchasing the three cards.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53055 - 01/26/03 11:48 PM
I'm not following you
|
MW1
veteran
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1358
|
|
Offline
|
|
Anonymous,
Here is a link for the search of ALL completed auctions (both graded and non-graded categories) for SGC graded 1976 Topps cards on January 26, 2003:
Link -- 1976 Topps cards on eBay
I'm stumped. First you indicated that there were three cards. Now, there is only one SGC 92 with a fuzzy image and you are "guessing" that this is one of them? I'm sure it's something really obvious and I'm just being stupid and missing it. Can you explain what happened to the other cards?
Taking a look at the seller list for "vintagegraded" -- the eBay user you claim to be -- I come up with the following:
Seller List
The only other material I see is some SGC graded Heritage Chrome and some raw 1976 group lots.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53056 - 01/27/03 12:13 AM
Re: I'm not following you
[Re: MW1]
|
vayank
The Amazing Card-Man
Registered: 04/13/02
Posts: 948
Loc: Alexandria, Va
|
|
Offline
|
|
Here is some help for login problems:
Login help one
Login help two
i hope this helps.
_________________________
----
Matthew T. Natale
Alexandria, Virginia
Completed 1977 Topps Baseball SGC Graded Set, Average Grade 92.89
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53059 - 01/28/03 11:22 AM
Updated score *DELETED*
[Re: downgoesfrazier]
|
MW1
veteran
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1358
|
|
Offline
|
|
Post deleted by dena
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53060 - 01/28/03 01:40 PM
Re: Updated score
[Re: MW1]
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The second anonymous post was not from vintagegraded that is why they were "guessing" that was one of the cards. Who knows the other two he was talking about. But why would you give vintagegraded a problem. He is selling SGC cards. Perhaps the only complaint could be that he spams PSA in the title.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#53062 - 01/28/03 02:02 PM
Clarification
|
MW1
veteran
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1358
|
|
Offline
|
|
In reply to:
The second anonymous post was not from vintagegraded that is why they were "guessing" that was one of the cards.
Nor was the first. I am not giving "vintagegraded" a problem. I am simply pointing out that the person selling these phantom SGC cards could not have been the eBay seller "vintagegraded."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: EARLSWORLD
|
0 registered
and 5 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
