It has been a bad month for Collectors, parent company of both SGC and PSA. Between the SGC slowdown and the not-so-believable explanation of a PSA grading gaffe, recent trends and news are not positive.

SGC Slowdown

Cardhound has written often about the recent decline in grading volume at SGC. It has been clear for months that PSA is effectively in control of SGC. And SGC market share has plummeted from #3 to #5, behind both Beckett and TAG.

This past fall, PSA moved into the same building as SGC HQ in Boca Raton, Florida and started cross-training SGC employees. There have been vague references from PSA’s president about SGC returning to its “boutique grader” roots, whatever that means.

SGC has had minimal footprint at shows, and also discontinued grading specials and its bulk submitter discount program. Unlike in years past, when former SGC prez Peter Steinberg would keep its customers informed, it’s radio silence.

I have wondered whether SGC grading submission volume was way down–or whether SGC simply does not have the resources (graders) to process any significant volume. Per this statement from SGC customer service rep Tyler Eve, it might be a bit of both:

“Thank you for reaching out here. At the moment, we are running a bit farther behind than we would like. SGC is currently navigating a transitional period with a smaller operation, and the increased demand for grading has resulted in some minor delays to our estimated turnaround times.

I want to assure you that our team is doing everything in our power to ensure that we are completing orders as quickly as we can, without sacrificing the quality that is expected of our team. This includes expanded business hours as well as                    bringing on new team members. The training process does take time, and we want to make sure that these new team members are more than properly trained to ensure we are keeping up the SGC standards.”

I do appreciate the timely response.

What’s Next?

My sources say that SGC has been allowed to keep its core grading talent, but has lost almost all of its less experienced grading staff to PSA. Likely, these inexperienced folks are now clocking high quotas on the Pokemon assembly line at PSA.

My current order has been next in line at Boca Card Subs for several days. I’m on business day 28, which isn’t crazy.  But from what I can tell, SGC graded roughly 60 total cards for Boca in the week of Dec.1-5. Of course, a single grader would grade hundreds of cards each day. So this just means that there is almost no staff working these orders.

Whether this is a retooling or an all-out SGC purge remains to be seen. But if the master plan is to sway SGC loyals to PSA, PSA has its own mess brewing.

PSA Offers

Before we get to the controversy, let’s review the PSA Offers program. For the record, I have been suspicious of PSA Offers since its debut. It strikes me as a conflict of interest for the same party that grades you cards to also then have a stake in selling it. But the process, according to PSA, is simple:

PSA Grade Review “Mistake”

That leads us to the big story of the week. This could be nothing but an odd coincidence, or miraculously bad timing. Or it could be the first little waves before the tsunami arrives. But you have likely read or seen by now the posts of a customer who:

1. Had cards graded with PSA–with most grading Mint / 9
2. Accepted PSA’s buyback offers at 9 prices
3. Later noticed that many of these cards had been regraded by PSA as Gem / 10

The story has been tough to follow–but the customer eventually made this post:

“My changing from a PSA 9 to a PSA 10 was a unique situation trigged by someone in PSA who saw my original post displaying all of the 9s. It was obvious that the grades originally given were not fair, and so the entire sub was re-graded. This was done without my knowledge, and PSA did not know I had already accepted buy back offers. I know this raises other concerns but no fraud or malicious activity was taking place here.”

The customer states that this is a “CONFIRMED ONE-OFF SITUATION,” which is impossible to know. But if PSA was doing this intentionally, they would be better off changing the cert numbers.

Believable?

This later statement was made after discussions with PSA. The likelihood of all of the above occurring in this sequence strikes me as very, very low. Has anyone ever heard of PSA initiating its own review of 9’s based on a customer complaining on social media? The 9 vs.10 distinction is nearly impossible to make with the naked eye, so its not like a PSA employee saw those 9’s and was appalled at the grade quality. Why on earth would they review these grades? And what are the odds that these exact cards had already been sold (as 9’s) in the meantime? If the customer has not caught the “upgrades,” would PSA have caught the “error”?

I’m not into conspiracy theories or sensational headlines, but it strikes me as more than a little bit suspicious. And regardless, even if the PSA explanation is true, you can’t glance at a hobby forum at the moment where this story is not dominating the feed,

For the Record

I don’t like to merely speculate about motives, facts, or truth behind important hobby developments like this. For the record, I have reached out to PSA and SGC on several occasions for an interview about the current status and future plans for the SGC brand especially. To date, I have never received any responses to my requests. So without any of the transparency Collectors / PSA / SGC could easily provide via a press release, statement, or a return email, all we can do is state what’s known and wonder about the rest. More updates to follow.