Which grader to use in this case?

[wlvrn]

For submitting vintage (1960's) for grading, which would be the better route to go for resale, if the cards in question would almost certainly receive a NM-MT 8 (OC) from PSA, vs. a NM 7 from SGC? I feel confident guessing what grades they'd get based on others sent in from the same set to each grader. BGS/BVG just doesn't seem to return as high sales on vintage for me. More potential buyers search 'PSA' rather than 'SGC', and the PSA set registry is always helpful in a higher net gain, but does the certain expectation of either an off-center or miscut qualifier from PSA mean that an SGC 7 with no qualifier would necessarily do better? SGC seems to always be a bit more lax when judging centering, and these are definitely for resale rather than keeping in a personal collection. I'd probably rather go with a PSA 8(OC) over an SGC 6 or SGC 6.5, but after that I'm not sure. Thanks for your $0.02.

[wlvrn]

By the way, the cards to be submitted are OPC in case that matters in the feedback on this.

[30ranfordfan]

I would suggest PSA. I'm not big into graded cards - but the consensus out there seems to be that BGS is the best when dealing with stuff from 1990 and newer, and PSA is the best when dealing with anything from 1989 or older.

[Fred Bear]

PSA.

If it were pre-war, you could make an argument for SGC, but PSA is where you will get the best return for 90% of vintage. I would also recommend that you request 'no qualifiers'. It, of course, depends on the player, set, et. al. but if your target audience is PSA registry nuts, the qualifier won't do you any favors on pricing.

Good Luck with the grades!

[howethegreat]

toss up between psa/sgc if you think it will receive an oc from psa go with the lower grade with sgc, looks better

[wlvrn]

Thanks. That is the way I've been going in the past (SGC rather than lower PSA with no Q or higher PSA with qualifier), but I'm still interested to hear consensus on that instead of just going with my personal opinion alone.

[dornhoffer]

PSA if it were me

[wlvrn]

To clarify, not looking for which you'd rather personally own, but instead which one would hopefully sell higher, PSA 8 (OC) vs SGC 7 for 1960's OPC, expecting that qualifiers are a minus-2 in grade equivalency. On this question, I would also add, would your answer be the same if the cards in question were stars vs. commons? And, I suppose quantity on the PSA population report relative to the quantity of registered sets would play into it highly as well.

With that out-loud thought, I guess I'll go for a follow-up as well: what is the graded population quantity for a common that would be the over/under decision point for going with a PSA qualifier vs. SGC with no qualifier?

[Fred Bear]

I don't have the most experience on this, but I think you're still going to find PSA to be the best value for your money (still depends on a couple of things).

If you have a common card of Player A, 1960s OPC, and it would be graded either PSA 8 (OC), SGC 84, or PSA 6 (as you suggest). For a common card, in general, an SGC 84 is going to cost less than or the same as the PSA 6 for that time period. Again, in general, the PSA 8 (OC) is also going to sell less than or equal to the PSA 6. The number of collectors who 'want' an SGC graded card or a qualified PSA card for their registry set is lower than the number looking for unqualified PSA cards. [There will of course be exceptions - there always are] Unless it's a heavily traded set or a 'rare' common, a PSA 6 might not even be worth grading to you [I've gotten quite a few PSA 7s from the '54 Topps set which is heavily collected for under $75 and a couple very close to $50].

On the other hand, if you have Player B, who is a semi-star or star or rookie and the same grading scenario, the prices can rise rapidly because of the added volume of team and player collectors who are looking for a copy of that card in particular. While these collectors may not care about qualified grades or SGC vs PSA, getting the PSA 6 will land you the most potential buyers (higher demand).

That's my line of thinking anyways...

[wlvrn]

Thanks a lot, I appreciate the detail.

I found with an earlier batch sent in for grading that was of a large number of 1964 Topps tallboys, the PSA ones with qualifiers did not sell as high as a similar one graded by SGC with one grade lower but no qual. However, that also being a relatively highly collected set, I did find that the realized sale price was still high enough to more than cover the cost of grading even when only getting a low grade of 4, as compared to ungraded in the same condition. I am pretty sure that graded, low-grade (4) examples covering the grading fees cost would not happen with all sets, just some of the more popular ones such as that one.

So, sounds like the advice is:

For commons that are OC/MC/ST/PD, submit to PSA if potential for a 9 w/ qualifier;

For commons that are OC/MC/ST/PD, that might only get an 8 plus qual, submit to PSA if there happens to be a relatively low population of the specific card compared to other commons from the same set;

Don't waste $ submitting commons that would get 8+qualifier from PSA or lower if population doesn't show relative shorter pop compared to others in same set;

Only use PSA for commons, not SGC;

For stars/rc's that are OC/MC/ST/PD, with probably a range of 7+qual to 9+qual, send to SGC if popularity of single outweighs set building interest, otherwise send to PSA w/ qual.

Sound about right? Any corrections to the above?