Grade or Not to Grade? Clemente w/Scratches on Back

[JollyElm]

Does anyone have pertinent experience with sending a card with scratches on the back (or anything relatively closely comparable to that type of wear) to SGC?

I have this nicely centered 1969 Topps #50 Roberto Clemente with little corner touches that was going to be a part of my next sub, but if the scratches (claw marks?) in the back corner area (close-up below) automatically drop it way down, it simply won't be worth it. Am I looking at an automatic 3 or lower for something of this nature, before the rest of the card is even assessed?

1969clemente50gradeornot.jpg


(The card is nice and flat, it is only an optical illusion making it appear to be wavy.)

1969clemente50gradeornotSCRATCHBACK.jpg


Thanks!

[JustinD]

I am not a submitter, but I would assume a 3 or 2.5.

That said, there are numerous budget collectors working on cards like this. I would think just as in most cards, the the nice centering and vg front of this card would bring a good premium over beaters in the same grade.

I am a buy the card guy, and I would certainly give it a look if placed in front of me.

[chalupacollects]

I would grade it, couldn't see the scratches until the blow up pic. Presents well!

[raulus]

Jolly - are you a gambling man?

Most of the time, it seems like a gamble when you submit stuff for grading. And this one probably qualifies a bit extra with those flaws. Will the grader go easy on you? Will they freak out and hammer you? Will they even notice in the 15 seconds that they look at this card?

Hard to say, really. So you could be looking at an 8. Or you could be looking at a 2. Or somewhere in-between!! And if you don't like what you get, I guess you can always crack and re-submit. Or just crack and stick with raw.

[Beercan collector]

I wouldn’t grade it - you never know what a grader is going to do with paper loss , no matter how minimal - somebody might give it a one - imagine a 69 set where Every card look like this ( The print and centering is perfect ) would be a pretty enjoyable set

[swarmee]

Yep, don't recommend grading. I would call it paper loss as well.

[jchcollins]

For 15 bucks anymore, it may be worth a shot. The SGC I am familiar with lately has a decent chance of not even noticing that.

[JollyElm]

Thanks, guys!

There are plenty of dark sides to this site, but this thread shows a great aspect of it. Some of the opinions are diametrically opposite of each other, yet each post has been spot on in its own way!!

Here's how I've decided to treat it. I rarely, if ever, sell anything, but always must imagine what would happen if I did:

Graded - Let's assume that nothing is missed at SGC and it (rightfully?) gets only an SGC 2 due to the scratches/paper loss. If I go to sell it, it will only merit the low sales price that a 2 gets, which practically isn't enough to cover the cost of grading. Plus, if I was hoping to get more for it than that, when I explain it's so much better than a 2 - and it only got that number due to the 'unseen' claw marks - a buyer will think, "No way, man, there's gotta be more to it, hidden bends or creases or something."

Ungraded - If someone's interested in buying or trading for it, I simply say it looks really nice over all, but I didn't send it in to be graded because of the minor scratches on the back. The reply? "Cool. Makes sense."

Yes, I like to gamble on cardboard, but since I do have another (unclawed) one in similar shape, I'm going to leave this one in the binder and put all of my (slim) hopes on that one instead.

[Phishphan21]

Just use a box cutter to trim that part of the card off altogether or a pair of safety scissors and call it OPC

[Gorditadogg]

Nice card, Darren. I know those are very hard to find centered like that.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

I've found yet another candidate. This one is sweet as heck,* but waaaaaay O/C top-to-bottom. Think it's worth sending in to SGC??

1969clemente50gradeornotOCsm.jpg



*All the darkish areas (crossing his bat towards his face, the lower left corner, etc.) that appear to be gum/wax stains are not. As bizarre as it seems, those areas are under the gloss and were printed that way. I had a similar card to this awhile back with the same 'non-stains,' and it got a proper 6.5. Strange but true cardboard tales.


Edited to add (I hate acronyming it to "ETA," because that's something else entirely) - Here's the link to the thread about the other one: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=325571

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I've found yet another candidate. This one is sweet as heck,* but waaaaaay O/C top-to-bottom. Think it's worth sending in to SGC??

I would think you are probably starting with an outside chance at a 4 given that centering. The 4 standard is 85/15; 3 is 90/10.

Other issues on the card acceptable for the grade (i.e. a wrinkle...) should not result in a compounded lower grade, although I have seen PSA more or less do that to people before. Depends on the name on the order form, I suppose.

SGC used to be a haven for otherwise nice cards with centering issues to get a fair shake, but that ship more or less sailed around the time of Covid. If they are consistent in any area, it shows in their universal love for centering. I've (recently) had cards come back as much as a full grade higher than I was expecting, and the only thing I can attribute it to is good centering. I don't have to like this, but it is more reflective of market reality. People do love them some centered-up cardboard.

[Beercan collector]

Check the sharpness of Clemente‘s image compared to the first one .. wow

[JollyElm]

Thanks for the input, you two!!

Centering and image focus are definitely the main issues, so I guess it's another Clemente pass for me (I knew there was a reason I never sent this Bob in before ). It's the right move, but what a serious bummer to waste those sharp ass corners!!