Quote:
Originally Posted by teetwoohsix
I'm having a hard time with the logic of not labeling (on the flip) the two different names T206's when there are plenty (although they are scarce) of examples, yet they are labeling this card (blue back) with nothing else to compare it too?
|
+1 on the above. To add to it, another recent post discussed how SGC wouldn't indicate obvious missing colors on the flip for some T206s. It appeared, based on comments in that thread, that the graders were split on that decision.
Why SGC slabbed this Old Mill and gave it the 'blue' designation is beyond me given there are no other non-reprint examples known. Yet, when it came to missing ink variations, of which there are numerous examples, they'd only indicate certain colors but not others. Now they're starting to cherry pick which colors to list on the flip and choosing only known examples over well documented ones. They also fail to recognize other errors such as the Marquard 'comma' on shirt, despite multiple examples, but recognize a one and only blue Old Mill? It seems SGC needs to get everyone on the same page so we don't start seeing the discrepances we see from other TPGers, but it might be too late. I think SGC, given their positive reputation in the TPG world, would've taken their time to really think this one through.
To be clear, I'm a fan of SGC and I prefer them for my pre-1970 slabbed cards over others. I'll continue to use them.
But one has to question, did SGC get caught up in the hype over this card and make a bad decision?