Is this the same card?

[nolemmings]

[T205 GB]

It sure looks like it to me

[nolemmings]

I meant to post this in the main forum, where it presumably would get more response. Oh well.

The more puzzling question for me is the motivation behind resubmitting the card. It was an SGC 60 until it sold on ebay just last month--July 5th to be exact. Now it's in Goodwin's auction as an SGC 20.

I'm not implying anything sinister by anyone--just observing what seems very odd. After winning the card on ebay July 5, someone likely waited 3-5 days for it to arrive. He then cracked it out or sent it in on what would likely be an accelerated basis for a new grade, had it graded and returned, was apparently unhappy and then consigned to Goodwin, all in the space of little more than a month.

It's weird to even resubmit the card. Cards with any kind of stamping stand a good chance of being downgraded severely (even if unfairly). Hoping for a bump in grade seems farfetched. Moreover, if there are any set collectors at all for this issue, they are not going to be so picky about condition so as to pass on an SGC 60 or pay exceptionally more for a card one grade higher. There simply is no active competition that would make it worth the risk of resubmission. Strange, IMO.

[bnorth]

Looks to be the same card to me. It is weird why someone would crack and resubmit that card with a stamp on it.

I did get a Joe DiMaggio cheap one time because of the same thing. Guy paid top $ for a SGC card and cracked to get that magic PSA cash. PSA gave it a MC qualifier and I got it for about half of what they paid.

[oldjudge]

Yes

[Sean]

It is the same card, and I'm amazed that someone resubmitted it.

[ullmandds]

same

[vintagetoppsguy]

Maybe someone sent it in for a re-holder and SGC decided to give it a more deserving grade?

[iwantitiwinit]

Given the positioning of the cancelled stamp and the amount of ink transferred from the rubber stamp to the card those are 100% the same card in my opinion.

[botn]

I am not an expert on the issue but possibly the "cancelled" designation in the original grade was in error and the card was sent back in to reflect the accurate grade based on the back stamp? The new holder does not show the "cancelled" designation.

[nolemmings]

Greg, I don't disagree with you that yours is a possible explanation. What makes it strange, though, is why someone who bought the card just a month ago would want to take it upon himself to seek a lower grade, and then on an expedited turnaround time no less, when he was thinking of consigning it and likely assuring himself of a lower sales price. The stamping is obvious, and would not deceive any buyer who was thinking of buying it, so I can't see him feeling there was some moral high road in having it downgraded. If anything, IMO someone unfamiliar with the card's history would wonder if there is slight paper loss, erasure or unseen creasing that led to the card's grade of fair.

Just all in all bizarre to me.

[botn]

Hi Todd,

Maybe SGC bought back the card or compensated the buyer and downgraded it? I think SGC might provide you with some basic info if you were to write or call them. But I agree that it does seem odd based on the timeline you have suggested.

Greg