Posted By:
Todd SchultzPower erasing is definitely different than using a simple hand eraser, both as to mechanism and intent. That being said, the questions remain whether "normal" erasures comprise an alteration or simply a downgrade, to what extent the grading companies should stay consistent, and to what extent SGC should have spotted this change in card appearance.
First, it is my understanding that non-power erasures are treated the same as marks, and downgrade the card but still lead to a numeric grade. A mark is technically an alteration, and its erasure would be as well, although the aesthetics could be remarkably different. I believe (but am not sure) that PSA will give a mark qualifier to a card that has been erased. A mark is a mark, whether a faint pencil stray or a barely visible erasure (assuming no paper loss). For purposes of a technical grade, they must be considered, but should not lead to rejection as altered, IMO.
Second, for grading card company consistency, standards must be adopted and followed. For example, as I understand it, a card with any kind of crease cannot grade greater than ex, and that's if it's a wrinkle. So too a a card with a mark should not exceed a lower to mid-level grade, regardless of appearance. Thus, IMO, the card in question should not have received an 80. We all know to buy the card and not the holder, and to that extent, much of this discussion is irrelevant. Still, there is a reason why we expect a more objective set of criteria, and the grading companies profess to follow that criteria, so consistency would require a lesser grade for that Keefe.
Third, as to whether SGC should have spotted this, I think the answer is yes. It certainly would be different, at least realistically, if we were talking about a 1961 Topps Chico Cardenas card, where dozens of examples have been submitted and thousands or more are laying around unslabbed for possible future grading submission. Here,the card is scarce and valuable, and extra attention warranted. I do not believe it unreasonable to expect a scan database of such cards, although it would be an interesting twist were this card to have initially graded low by PSA and then submitted to SGC after erasure--they certainly should not be expected to keep a database of cards they had not graded previously. BTW, I wonder how this thread would read if the SGC 40 card had turned into a PSA 6.