These 13 cards (all upgrades to my Registry set) are among my second group of cards acquired at the National. I have a third group that won't be sent to Parsippany. There were 30 cards on this invoice, yielding a 43% upgrade ratio for my set. I routinely hit 65% or more. Quite frankly, this sucks donkey balls. I find it troubling to say the least that SGC is now seemingly in lockstep with the PSA model: tighten up the grading standards to "encourage" more of the crack and resubmit game. Some of the 86's you see below are better than 88's graded less than a year ago. The 88's posted here would be 92's a year ago. Nuxhall & Schmidt are slam-dunk 92s. Sievers is a screaming travesty. I have a #242-Samford in 96 that is not as nice as the Sievers! Banks was a crossover, undergraded PSA 8 that is the poster child for Eye Appeal. The surface, focus, color and clarity alone demands it be in a 92 holder.|
Way to go, SGC. Your still-wet-behind-the-ears graders have succeeded in letting the air out of my hobby balloon. It's not worth the trouble to spend the time and money to attend The National, scouring the floor for commons worth subbing, then to have this bull excrement thrown back in my face. This confirms my decision of six weeks ago to refrain from posting on this board to save from wasting my time. Now, I'll take a sabbatical from sending in cards so you can't waste anymore of my money either.
#1 in 1959 Topps