How would you react to a personal attack (by SGC)?

[danmckee]

I agree Peter, he wouldn't be looking at the color. But I would examine the card first and my 9 would have the exact same distinctive marks before we did this.

[Leon]

me....[/php]

[Abravefan11]

The outcome of of the bet would be entertaining but in my opinion wouldn't change anything regarding the card. Based on what we know about Brown Old Mills this card is not one so the flip is wrong and stating it's a Brown Old Mill is misleading.

If you feel it's a color variation of a black Old Mill that is fine but it should be presented as just that and not Brown.

[wonkaticket]

Scott, I hope that’s not a guilty conscience popping up here?

I never compared you to Chan in any way sorry if you think I have you should have no reason to feel like that dirt bag.



I only said I think you guys should know better on this one. Think about it for a second…

REA says no way
Collectors say no way
SGC says no way, our bad
Yet you still proceed with auction why?

Easy the same reason a lot of folks do they can hide behind third party mistakes. Which has become the norm and it’s a very sad thing.

If you’re dad is wrong which is likely the case no skin of your back or the auction houses back ughh. The third party grading company gets the bill, and the poor winning bidder gets a bad taste in his or her mouth with a large purchase.

In the end I have little sympathy for the TPG as it’s their business and they know the risk of returns. They also should make the effort to gain the knowledge to avoid these situations from the start.




However that doesn’t mean we should abuse their overall lack of knowledge on a particular issue when we can which is often done. The real sympathy goes out to the collectors who get bummed by missing a needed c ard or having a troubling buying experience within our hobby.

I think collectors the caliber of your dad and yourself and others here. Owe the hobby a little more than hiding behind slabs.

We knew cards before these folks came along we should be big enough and honest enough when cards like this come up to really set the pace for others. By doing real due diligence work and making 100% sure not only our opinions on a card are satisfied but the collecting community stands behind it as well…it’s just better that way for everyone that way IMO.

Added if this card was Brown SGC wouldn’t be changing their minds and if you really had big coin in this card I would think you and your dad would remember the details of such a unique card presented in an SGC holder? (dont be mad at my joke image, really wanted to use this )



I can't help but think you would remember when it was bought, for how much and who it came from, the details behind the card and the story. I would think you would have this prior to requesting money from SGC.

You certainly wouldn’t be so easy to say “hey if SGC thinks it’s not brown it’s all good will take a bath, we just don’t like the snide comments” that just doesn’t add up to me Scott.

Not mad or anything just confused and a little disapointed. You guys know cards way to well for this story to click and make any sense to me. Perhaps I'm putting you guys on a higher pedstal than I should and that's where the disapointment is coming from on my end.

Cheers,

John

[wonkaticket]

Leon I fancy myself on obscure internet crap, but a video of a guy eating popcorn LOL. Do I even ask where you found that or how...

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Making an assumption here?

The assumption that Scott has sold a card in his life for more or less than what he paid for it? Yes.

[scottglevy]

Jeff,

You are absolutely right that I should be keeping detailed records of each transaction. In reality, almost all of my own card purchases are either directly for my rather meager collection (which rarely get sold) or as a gift (usually to dad).

But I guess laziness is damn poor legal excuse and if I'm gonna be dumb enough to admit this to the world .... I ought to be smart enough to change my ways.

[Thrill-of-the-Hunt]

leon, wonka, to frickin' funny. popcorn guy. man, what makes me laugh sometimes.

SARCASM! That's The Ticket. SARCASM makes the world go 'round

[ullmandds]

As much as I love sarcasm...good old ass kissing seems to be what makes the world go round!

[cfc1909]

Scott-you consider Wonka a personal and hobby friend-is that right? but you used the money we got you back from Chan to outbid him on a Plank that you know he was bidding on and needed for his collection. Also I believe you own a PSA 4 Plank.

I held on to the information because I wanted to give you two the benefit of the doubt but you brought this to the board.

The personal attack seems to be on SGC-looks like you wanted SGC to pay out brown Old Mill money to cover a auction debt.

I think your ego and the mighty dollar has put a major dent in your integrity.

I think you should have taken what SGC was offering and let this one go.

There is still some other facts left out but not needed as the damage is done.

note to self-keep Wonka on you side, you will be very unhappy if he is not.

[botn]

Originally Posted by calvindog

The assumption that Scott has sold a card in his life for more or less than what he paid for it? Yes.

Jeff,

Cards are always sold for a loss.

Boy, the IRS could have some fun with some who post here.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by calvindog

The assumption that Scott has sold a card in his life for more or less than what he paid for it? Yes.

Wait, wait, wait!!! We are allowed to SELL cards that we have purchased?


Damn. Please, no one tell my wife.

[scottglevy]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

Scott-you consider Wonka a personal and hobby friend-is that right? but you used the money we got you back from Chan to outbid him on a Plank that you know he was bidding on and needed for his collection. Also I believe you own a PSA 4 Plank.

I held on to the information because I wanted to give you two the benefit of the doubt but you brought this to the board.

The personal attack seems to be on SGC-looks like you wanted SGC to pay out brown Old Mill money to cover a auction debt.

I think your ego and the mighty dollar has but a major dent in your integrity.

I think you should have taken what SGC was offering and let this one go.

There is still some other facts left out but not needed as the damage is done.

note to self-keep Wonka on you side, you will be very unhappy if he is not.

Jim,

First, I do consider Wonka to be a friend. And if my dad outbid him on a Plank it was almost certainly because I didn't know he was bidding on that same card. And my sincere apologies if I heard that information and somehow forgot.

If I had a "do-over", I'd ask for a few others opinions to see if they thought what my dad I and saw was worthy of some sort of variation and would probably have submitted the card to SGC for their opinion pre-auction. To be perfectly fair, the whole situation could have been handled in a more pristine fashion on our end.

I am just really upset with how SGC handled the whole incident. To some they have a "sterling reputation". But I thought that the combination of how SGC forces a resolution that they deem acceptable on the timeframe that they deem acceptable and then insults those that won't comply with their demands was very poorly handled.

I'm willing to acknowledge that my dad (with my advice) could have handled the situation with greater care. As for SGC their response to this whole thread ......

....... insert sounds of crickets ..........

[HRBAKER]

Scott-you consider Wonka a personal and hobby friend-is that right? but you used the money we got you back from Chan to outbid him on a Plank that you know he was bidding on and needed for his collection. Also I believe you own a PSA 4 Plank.


Is this what they mean by No Good Deed Goes Unpunished?

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Matt

If your Dad still believes the card is Brown, why not just get the raw card back from SGC and a refund of the grading fees?

Matt has twice posed a valid question: If the owner believes the card is brown, then what's it matter what a third-party grading service says? The mantra of many experienced collectors on this board -- many T206 collectors, to be accurate -- is they don't need a third-party service to tell them what they have and what condition it's in. So if it's a brown back, it's a brown back, right? All that would be owed is the grading fees, correct?

[botn]

Originally Posted by scottglevy

I'm willing to acknowledge that my dad (with my advice) could have handled the situation with greater care. As for SGC their response to this whole thread ......

....... insert sounds of crickets ..........

I thought the point of the thread was to see what we thought, so was it really to try to get a different reaction from SGC? Seems that SGC has spoken, maybe not perfectly, but nothing else presented seems to require any further reply from them.

[danmckee]

"I think your ego and the mighty dollar has but (put) a major dent in your integrity."

The nail has been struck firmly on the head!!!

Nice Jim, and Greg S., u will always have a friendly spot on my table at any National!!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

How much did SGC offer you and what were you demanding?

[cfc1909]

as you can tell my wife is the English major-not me.

I really hate these kind of threads and usually stay far away from them but sometimes you just need to post...

[chaddurbin]

with how this thread is going...sgc should lower their offer, whatever it was.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by botn

Jeff,

Cards are always sold for a loss.

Boy, the IRS could have some fun with some who post here.

I'm consistently amazed at how open people are out here -- a public chat board -- about flouting the tax laws. Spend a year with the IRS doing a full audit and I'm guessing the behavior will change.

[danmckee]

Jeff, you are so right! As a federal employee, I know some would be scrambling if Uncle called them out!!

[danmckee]

Can we please see exactly what SGC wrote to be so insulting? I am not a huge fan of grading but SGC is by far the best and I personally know most of those guys and I would be very shocked if they were unproffessional.


At this point in this incident, I am standing behind SGC. They are good guys who will listen to reason and will listen to information from people.

[tedzan]

The back of this T206 has been noted and has been debated here considerably. However, I don't think the front of
this card has been noted. It's my understanding that pictured on the front of this card is Dolly Stark. Please correct
me if I am wrong ?

Assuming it is Dolly Stark (San Antonio), then this card could NEVER be a Brown OLD MILL. As, none of the 6 Texas
Leaguers exist with the Brown OLD MILL backs. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, there has never been a factory-cut
Brown OLD MILL.

What I don't understand regarding this situation is......with all the T206 expertise on this forum, why didn't you or
your Dad get a 2nd opinion from one of us ?
Most of us are very willing to offer our opinions on these cards.

Regards to you and your Dad.


TED Z

[danmckee]

Thanks Ted, we are way passed that point.
But I do appreciate your support as always!!

[Kenny Cole]

I sure wish that we'd get back to threads about breaking out cards that have received decent 3pg grades and bitching about the new grade received and/or complaining about how big a screwing people took when an auction house made a mistake and fixed it by 100% meeting the unreasonable demands of the purchaser. The current thread doesn't meet either of the above criteria and I'm concerned that the board may be diverted into spending too much time looking at silly issues such as this should this thread continue. Sincerely,

Kenny Cole

[danmckee]

How's the weather?

[JP]

If it was purchased slabbed, shouldn't Hank and Scott be reimbursed the approximate difference between a brown and black old mill (thousands of dollars) as well as grading fees? This isn't a Heinie/Honus Wagner error, this is a distinct back type error made by SGC that has to impact someone. I'm sure Hank paid well more than black old mill prices if it was slabbed....

[Bridwell]

I'd like to see a lineup of at least 5 of Scott's Old Mill black backs, and the Stark card back for comparison.

It can't be a Brown Back as we are defining the hand-cut ones. However, I've seen some faded black backs that look like a dark brown on Old Mills. Let's give Scott a chance to show the 'lineup'. No bets - just some good scans all done with the same scanner. I believe Scott & his Dad when they say the card looks 'browner' than the usual Old Mills. And we know SGC and Goodwin are not dummies when it comes to T206.

Ron

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Bridwell

It can't be a Brown Back as we are defining the hand-cut ones.

Ron - There in lies the big problem I have with this whole situation. Given what we know about Brown Old Mills this card can't be one. It may be a different shade of black that looks more brown than other black examples but to call it a Brown Back is extremely misleading. You can line up all the black Old Mills you would like but even if there is a variance and this one looks like it may be a shade closer to brown than black this card is not a Brown Old Mill.

[Bridwell]

I agree with you, Tim. But I still want to see the line-up.

What if we are all missing a Brown-Black variation that is similar to the Brown Lenox coloring? The card is certainly not a Brown Old Mill, but it's very interesting to me, and maybe to other collectors.

Ron

[Abravefan11]

I'm certainly not trying to stifle anyone from looking at this card more closely and seeing if in fact it is a new color variation, after all the "Apple Green" Sovereigns are a relatively new classification. With that said this card is not what we call a Brown Old Mill so calling it that because it is close to a shade of brown is misleading. If it's thought to be a new variation present it to the numerous experts on this board and see what the consensus is. If the consensus is that it's a new color variation call it something but don't call it a Brown Old Mill.

[wonkaticket]

Clearly covered in the prior thread not a darker brown such as Lenox....

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...hlight=goodwin



Scans of the exact card in question next to real brown Lenox an Brown Old Mill.

Non-cropped auction scans...



Levy's Stark and Brown Old Mill from prior Goodwin auction using Goodwins scanner..

This is a bit deeper than SGC making good on a card somebody bought.
Scott came on here and called SGC out for bad dealings…and laid out his facts. He left out some pretty big details of which are disappointing to say the least for many reasons.
Given the circumstances I really think the last thing that Scott should be doing is calling into question SGC's integrity and take a good long look at their role in this card to market.

Cheers,

John

[wonkaticket]

Also we have been asking Scott for a scan of this card for some time I know Jim R has.

The Levy's are good pals or communicate with some of the top T206 collectors in the hobby Dan McKee, Jim R, Brian W, Art M, Scott M, Mike Sarno, Ted Z heck for purely self promoting reasons I'll even say I know a bit about T206's.

They often travel to trade shows with stacks of cards for show & tell. Yet in the years of hearing about a factory cut brown Old Mill and asking to see it has never been presented. That seems very odd to me, heck we have even had lunch at the Levy's where we all have brought our collections for show & tell. What better time to have round table discussion on this new discovery and get behind it. We as collectors debunked the over prints to SGC & PSA we could easily get them to add this real new color OM card to the list. They even sent me the Hart card to review and inspect during the FBI investigation, why not this?

In fact such an important card I would be hard pressed to imagine anyone let alone the Levy's sell such a rare item as a factory cut new color brown Old Mill.

They also deal with some of the largest auction houses in the biz. In fact REA wouldn't even place the card in the auction. That seems very short sided of Rob if in fact it is a new type of T206 again makes no sense.
Also the story on the acquisition of the card has changed a bit, again odd.

I'm not saying the Levy's are nefarious folks who were out to screw anyone on purpose. But I think while they may have thought this card to be a bit different in color. They didn't have the confidence to put it to the folks who could help, as those would be the same folks who would most likely not agree and devalue a labeled card and the return on that said card.

Of all the folks with the ability to really have a card checked well beyond a TPG opinion the Levy’s have those assets at their disposal. Between the other collector friends, auction houses and their own vast library of a collection, if this was a real new card they could have presented SGC or PSA with a stack of details from multiple sources and pioneered a new hobby discovery even.

Yet they made no attempt? Even from a pure point of cash return doing the above would certainly even perhaps raise the cards value prior to sale!
However they quietly list the card with Goodwin to mark down a balance owed and appear to have hid behind the label and let SGC and the auction house answer the question as to if it is in fact a new color variation of Brown Old Mill.

That just seems so very odd coming from such advanced collectors with vast resources at their fingertips.

This is the last I will chime in on this, but this is what many of us are wrestling with on this card.

Cheers,

John

[nolemmings]

This is the last I will chime in on this

Good. Enough has been said, IMO.

[wonkaticket]

Todd, thanks for your support on my decision above it means a lot to me...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Perhaps enough has been said, but i would still like to know the nature of the negotiations with SGC, in order to assess the claim that started this thread that SGC acted inappropriately. And I would still like to know why the owners were comfortable representing this card as BROWN, even if it was perhaps slightly different in appearance than the typical black back.

[Abravefan11]

I have had very good dealings with the Levy's but everything John just posted is what troubles me.

With so many experts at their disposal why were they so reluctant to send Jim R a scan?

Why submit the card to a second auction house after being rejected by REA?

Even if one can't remember the exact details of the purchase you would think they would vaguely remember some details concerning such a high profile card, about what it cost, was it graded, etc.

They know the Brown Old Mill parameters and had to know that his card did not fit that criteria and this should have either given them pause at the time of purchase or at least when REA rejected it prior to submission to Goodwin.

SGC simply agreed in their email statement that from their research that they knew this situation was calling the Levy's integrity into question.

I believe if a less well know collector had taken the same steps Net54 would have been much harsher in their response and have given less of a benefit of the doubt.

[FUBAR]

Leon, I appreciate the humor in that video, i wouldn't have thought to ever look for that video... T.O. said it best, "get your popcorn ready!"

[nolemmings]

Todd, thanks for your support on my decision above it means a lot to me...

Don't mention it. And thanks for chiming in again.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Don't mention it. And thanks for chiming in again.

Hey you too Todd.

I'm just glad our discussion of this topic didn't get in the way of you first post (#85) and your two cents/opinion of enough being said on the subject, way to add to the thread very solid.

[nolemmings]

Again no problem. While I believe that I have heard enough on the subject, I'm even more certain I have heard enough from you. Most of all though, I'm glad to see you're chiming in again.

[wonkaticket]

Yawn, the thread is about the discussion of the Levy's Brown Old Mill and why they felt SGC was doing them wrong. If you have heard enough pick another thread..just a thought. Or perhaps we should drop it when you decide it’s enough?

As for chiming in I’m done chiming in on the Levy’s and the card that I stand by. However my chiming in applied to the topic at hand not your dinky input, that I can chime in on.

Once again thanks for adding to the discussion Todd and sharing with us all that you’ve heard enough from me.

[nolemmings]

Jeez, John always glad to hear from you. Particularly warming when you give the prefatory two or three lines about how you like and respect the poster and go way back and yaddy yaddy and then follow that with four or five excoriating shots at him anyway. All for the good of the hobby right? Just gettin' to the facts Anderson Cooper Wonka. Certainly not the kind of thing you could handle off line, right? Glad you're here for us. God bless America. Where would we be without you?

[wonkaticket]

Todd, at least now you actually post something relative to the thread.

If it was your disgust with my method of bringing this up perhaps you could have posted your thoughts the first time (or offline me LOL) vs. #85 posts in you deciding to act like the boards floor manager regurgitating my own post stating I shouldn’t post on any more on this and making your snide comment.

Speaking of snide comments I think that is what this whole thread started about SGC making snide comments to Hank and Scott calling them out. Scott then proceeded to state some facts of which he conveniently left out some major details. Did I bring them up sure did could I have brought them up offline yes, just as Scott could have handled this offline with SGC.

Sorry I stand by my confusion on this whole thing and am very disappointed in what appears to be simply the Levy’s passing off a questionable card behind a slip. Especially when these guys of all folks should know the sting of a bogus card in a holder, and have all the knowledge to avoid any doubt on a card such as this.

If my outline of events and details is wrong I welcome the correction and will admit and apologize if I’m wrong.

Also if I’m the only person on here who is confused by the whole list of details provided, and I’m the only one left scratching their head over why collectors as advanced as the Levy’s would represent this card as they did. Then I stand alone and I’m ok with that.

It’s board where we can post on topics and post opinions, Scott had no problem brining up the subject on a public forum and listing his side hoping for support or a rally against SGC. Why should I not list my thoughts or details in the same public manner? If you think I’m doing Scott & Hank dirty that’s cool I respect your views. However I'm on topic, I welcome discussion, I presented details and welcomed correction from Scott and I’ve not been vulgar or disruptive in any way nor am I anonymous.

I will add for the record I’ve also done right by Hank & Scott too for the record so I think this is bit deeper than me taking cheap shots at them for kicks.

Cheers,

John

[danmckee]

Todd what gives? I must have missed your post in the T206 museum Chan thread that you heard enough about that thread.

If you think the facts are off base here then that is ok as you have a solid right to your opinion.

But facts shouldn't be hidden because of who the parties involved are.

You are a good guy Todd, I have always had great dealings with you but I do not understand why you would take this stance in this thread.

Dan

[hank_jp]

WOW!

When someone once said a little information could be a dangerous thing he was on to something. I usually do not prefer to comment on matters I'm invovled with until they are either resolved or unresolvable. Clearly I feel there is a need for some factual commentary here.

When I first purchased this card I did so only because it was certified by SGC as a 1909-11 Old Mill Cigarettes T206 Dolly Stark Brown Back SGC 30. I would not have been interested based on the scan, since it clearly looked to me to be black. I wanted to know why the label guaranteed it was brown. After I received it, again, to the naked eye, it was a faded black. Then I looked at it under magnification and I saw that the ink was brown. That was enough for me to understand how it got labeled. It wasn't enough for me to be thrilled at having this as the one example for my back set because the hand cut, easily visible light brown examples appealed to me more. But this was still one to keep in my opinion.

I looked at all my other OM Southern League cards under a loupe and they were all clearly black to me, only this one appeared brown - much darker than the hand cut ones [obviously] but still brown. I always assumed there may be others like this out there, so eventhough this was the only labeled an Old Mill brown back with a number grade I still did not consider it unique or spectacular. It might be both, but because the brown color was not visible to the naked eye it had less appeal to me than many of my other cards.

Over the years I have sold cards that in retrospect I would like to have back - I imagine we all have. With the money raised I pursued other items I wanted. When I decided to see what this card would bring at auction I sent it to REA along with other cards. I told Rob that he should review this card carefully since it looked faded black and only under a loupe could I detect the brown back, and if for any reason he felt uncomfortable listing it to send it back to me. He did send it back. I mentioned this card to Bill Goodwin and sent it to him along with other cards with the same explicit information. He reviewed it himself under magnification and was satisfied that it was brown. I insisted that in any description of the item that potential bidders understand that it looked faded black but appeared brown under a loupe and also that SGC said it was brown.

I would never have kept the card initially if I did not feel it was brown [under magnification] nor would I have sent it in as an auction item if for any reason I was convinced that it was black.

For those who questioned if I told Goodwin that REA passed on the item I have this to say. How many of you had a T206 card for many years and finally sent it in for grading only to be told that a card looking perfectly fine to you was trimmed? Then, when you either resubmitted it to the same or different grading company because you disagreed with the assesment, I'm sure that you included a note saying, "By the way XYZ Grading Company said this was trimmed. I just wanted you to know that." That is the way it works, right?

When Bill told me a number of collectors questioned the card, we both agreed to pull it and send it back to SGC for a thorough review. There was no hesitation to do this.

I was expecting SGC to contact me fairly quickly. When about a month had passed I decided to call them for an update. I was expecting a detailed explanation of what they did and what they decided. What I got was a grilling about what I paid, when I bought the card, from whom and where. Not a single word about their findings. I had to call them back the next day to actually hear them say that their graders decided it was black. When I asked if it was looked at under magnification I receved no answer ... and I still have no answer to this day. When I asked for a written evaluation I was told they would not provide that and I still have not received one. When I asked why it was originally labeled as a brown back among the answers I received were:
A. The head grader in 2005 believed it was a brown back
B. It was submitted for grading as a brown back on the form and their data entry entry person at the time may have kept that brown back designation on the final label.

I then asked if the fact that all other Old Mill brown back cards known to exist were hand cut with a light brown ink back while this one was factory cut with the brown only visible under magnification was the reason it was deemed not to be a brown back this time. I never received an answer to this question and it still has not been answered.

Eventhough one of SGC's employees told me "when I look at the card, it looks to be faded ink that appears slightly brown", he added that he was not a grader and not an expert but the current chief grader "immediately recognized the card was a mistake." However, that still did not address the issue if the card at that time, was viewed under magnification, because I also immediately thought it was black until I saw it wasn't. [OMG I'm having flashes of John Kerry - OY!]

Many of you have thoughts about what compensation I should receive for this once SGC verified card IF IT IS NOT BROWN. But what should be done, if under magnification it clearly is brown? SGC broke it out of the holder and refuses to return it as they received it. We have a difference of opinion about this card and what once, based on their say so was a truly remarkable and rare card is now apparantly just another common.

My feeling at this time is that I want this card brought to the National Show in Baltimore. I want a group of knowledgeable T 206 collectors [you guys from this board are fine with me] to look at it ... under magnification. If you say it is black I'll take the raw card and put it in my raw T206 set. BUT, if when viewed under a loupe you say it is brown, SGC should agree to do one of three things:

1. Put it back in their holder with the prior description on the label including the fact that it is a brown back with a number grade. Also include certification as to how this latest review was arrived at.

2. Keep it out of their holder but replace it with an Old Mill brown back that they have no problem labeling as such.

3. Keep it out of their holder and compensate me somewhere between a commom price and a brown back price and return the raw card to me.

Of course another solution is possible, which is the one have been anxiously trying to facilitate. Namely, in order for SGC to keep this out of their holder, labeled as it was, we should reach a satisfactory solution that we both can live with and return the raw card to me [because I still want to show it at the National]. That is the solution I was pursuing and I hope SGC's tone will now change and that they will not insist on waiting until they are good and ready to make a decision, but instead act in a more timely manner.

I apologize for the very long post but I felt the questions raised deserved a serious response. I also hope you will excuse me from further posts on this topic at this time. Those of you who know my son or me are always welcome to call us at any time, especially on issues as significant as this.

Regards,

Hank

[D. Bergin]

I am still a bit stumped as to how SGC should be financially responsible for paying the market value of a card based on a labeling error.

When PSA mis-labeled a T206 Heinie Wagner card as a Honus Wagner card.....did they have to pay the lucky owner of the Heinie card the difference between a Heinie card and a Honus card?

[ullmandds]

I think the mislabeled heinie card was kept by a collector...and obviously no one would pay honus $$$ for it...while...if sgc mislabeled the levy card as brown...then it was purchased based on the assumption that it is/was brown...I could see SGC having some liability.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by hank_jp

For those who questioned if I told Goodwin that REA passed on the item I have this to say. How many of you had a T206 card for many years and finally sent it in for grading only to be told that a card looking perfectly fine to you was trimmed? Then, when you either resubmitted it to the same or different grading company because you disagreed with the assesment, I'm sure that you included a note saying, "By the way XYZ Grading Company said this was trimmed. I just wanted you to know that." That is the way it works, right?

On May 9 I posted on the B/S/T a group of Butter Cream cards for sale. Here's an excerpt from the description:

Finally, PSA's grade of a 6 for Glen Wright should be considered fairly high grade for this issue. Full disclosure: When submitted for a crossover, SGC said the card is trimmed. Again, I don't see it, because the size is correct, and when I examine it with a loupe, I see no evidence of trimming. Welcome to the world of professional grading.

So, no, it's not unheard of for people to be forthcoming with what some might consider key details regarding a card they're trying to sell.