Rob: That's a good point and it did occur to me. My request to give an Authentic grade instead of a 10 Poor applied to all the cards I submitted and 7 or 8, primarily beater Zeenuts, came back Auth. Some of the cards are clearly altered (cf. the aerodynamic improvements made by some juvenile in 1921 on the ZN Pick), some more ambiguous (no obvious alterations to 14ZN Arlett). In fact, SGC did not disclose to me specifically whether any of the cards were bona fide Authentics or whether they were 10's that had been labeled according to my request. There is the possibility then that Bonner is, in fact, altered (although my trusty grading eye [<=joke] doesn't see anything suggesting that, nor do I recall Legendary's description, impeccably honest buggahs that they are [<=see above], mentioning such negatives). So if I were to sell Bonner I would be blowing smoke if I guaranteed a wary buyer it would grade numerically and the sensible thing to do would be to re-submit prior to selling. Short question, long answer.
Whilst I own the card, however, its aesthetics as I perceive them are inconsistent with the word "Poor" and I would look at that designation with as much affection if it were an inkspot on his face.
