(04-24-2012 03:52 PM)ricelynnevans75 Wrote: So what you're saying then is that BGS looks great and costs more, but is not as reliable?
Don't forget that guy who crossed a PSA 8 and got a BGS 9.
I don't know of a guy that crossed a PSA 8 & received a PSA 9.
He's the guy who won't even tell me what card he had that was an SGC 100 that barely graded a BGS 9.5. I've asked him quite a few times but he never answers.
No you're referring to 2 separate guys. I'm the one that crossed the SGC 100 & that barely received a BGS 9.5. The other guy was thoroughly explained in my previous post. What is it that you want to know?
Broad general statements are apparently supposed to be taken as fact, especially when the person posting is so obviously biased.
(04-24-2012 05:10 PM)ricelynnevans75 Wrote: Yep, it sure was.
(04-24-2012 05:21 PM)nolan5000 Wrote: They are when they're coming from me.
(04-24-2012 05:21 PM)nolan5000 Wrote: You took my comment completely out of context just to suit you're *point.
(04-24-2012 05:57 PM)nolan5000 Wrote: [quote='ricelynnevans75' pid='1991578' dateline='1335311287']
General, biased, and broad with no specific proof to your "points"? Absolutely.
I asked in my previous post what proof did you want so you'll get off my back?
(04-24-2012 06:13 PM)ricelynnevans75 Wrote: 2) What is the SGC 100 card that you crossed over that "barely" got a BGS 9.5?
(04-24-2012 06:19 PM)nolan5000 Wrote: What does that matter? Said card is proprietary information.
(04-24-2012 06:21 PM)ricelynnevans75 Wrote: When you ignore a question (two in this case) and don't answer it, it's one of the largest signs of deception and someone being untruthful...........just so you know.
(04-24-2012 06:44 PM)nolan5000 Wrote: How am I deceiving you? I'm not untruthful. I just don't want to tell you the specifics. Nor do I have to. If you think I'm deceiving you then, fine.
(04-24-2012 03:43 PM)ricelynnevans75 Wrote: Evidence doesn't matter when you run a BGS group submission on the football boards and make a little money on the side doing it. (Nothing wrong with that IMO for the work involved)
Point 2-I know of at least one person who you submitted a card for that the card was a PSA 10 and it came back a BGS 9.5. Heck, even nolan5000 has stated that he's had decent success in crossing over. To say you've never received the same grade from BGS is just silly, and obviously a lie.
Point 3-Exactly, it's an opinion, just like I have my grading company of choice due to their consistency in grading and the way the cards look in the holder. Each of the big three has their positives and negatives, while each has made and will continue to make errors. It is human beings after all doing the grading.
Nobody has yet to prove that one is better than the others. On this site, your going to have BGS fans say BGS is best. On PSA and SGC boards, your going to have people saying that the respective company is best. Which is better and why? Because someone says so? Sorry, opinions do not equal fact. If they did, my job would be a heck of a lot easier.
(04-24-2012 07:29 PM)giantfan270 Wrote: Well, because of my group submissions I submitted over 600 cards for grading last year and 300 the year before. I think that gives me some experience when it comes to submitting crossovers. And yes, the card that was a PSA 10, came back a BGS 9.5. Like I said, not equal, lower. I don't understand the point your trying to make. I have never submitted a PSA card to be re-graded by BGS, that came back with the same PSA grade or higher. The BGS grade is always lower. Always. You will never be able to prove the contrary. I don't do vintage, but the FACT is; my PSA cards get lower grades at BGS. Which is fine with me. I can't argue with what actually happens. It is, what it is.