[ricelynnevans75]

Well, first off, I never implied that they were less of a collector. I said most people that grade cards with PSA are in it for the money because they grade softer and they also are cheaper. Those are just plain hard facts.

Well, since these are "plain hard facts", I'm assuming you've asked "most" of the people that grade cards with PSA why they do so? Because, you know, facts require things like actual evidence and stuff. Secondly, read what you typed. If a grading company has a history of grading softer and they are cheaper, why would someone submit to them knowing they are receiving inferior quality and, in turn, why would people pay the prices they do for such inferior quality?

I never said ALL PSA graders fit that description, I said most do.

I'm pretty sure I didn't state that you said "ALL" PSA graders fit the description. And again, "most". You'd have to get a pretty good sample size of PSA graders to ask in order to make that assertion valid.

Ill bet you cant find me a single BGS grader that sent into Beckett looking for a better grade on a card than what PSA already gave it.

I'm pretty sure I could. Loads of people do this between the various grading companies. Secondly, if BGS IS stricter/tougher/whatever, why would someone purchase a PSA graded card in the first place only to submit to BGS if it's "supposedly" going to come back at a lesser grade anyway or, at most, equal to the PSA grade? Doesn't sound like a very economic shopper to me.

Secondly, if you say people are comparing not the number, but the words that say "gem mint" why is it that BGS's definition of Gem Mint is very different than PSA's more lenient grading specifics?

You should re-read what I said. I said, and I quote, "The numbers given by any grading company are meaningless without a definition". This was in response to why people compare a PSA 10 and a BGS 9.5, which are assigned a grade based on the definitions applied to the grade which in this case is Gem Mint. However, now that you've acknowledged the definitions, I'm curious why you would then turn around and compare a PSA 10 to a BGS 10 since the definitions are vastly different, much more so than comparing a PSA 10 and BGS 9.5. To go further, even the definitions are meaningless unless they are accurately applied to the card based on the definitions/standards.

The card does not have to be as well centered, matter of fact, the back of the cards centering can be as bad as 75/25!!

Again, application of the standards. And yes, I realize all grading companies make errors.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2005-Topps-Chrom...SS:US:1123

So, in fact, people are grading BGS for cards in hopes of getting a better grade than BGS and then trying to sell them for the same or more than a BGS equivalent.

You know this for a fact how exactly? Oh, this must be all those people you asked. Here's a hint, just because that's what you believe does not make it fact.

So, in summary, its not about the numbers or even the words, its all about the grading stipulations which are very clearly stating that a PSA 10 is allowed to be an inferior card compared to a BGS 9.5. Gem mint means a bit more when BGS says it.

Again, application of the stipulations. It means more? Based on what the definition? Uh huh......... Granted, this is one example, but you should go do a search of completed listings for BGS and PSA 9 Derek Jeter 1993 SP. Larger sample size in that grade for the card. On a side note, I also only looked at completed auctions and not BIN.

Does anyone know if SGC even grades the back side of the card? It doesnt say that they do on their grading scale page.

Yes they do.