David,
What I believe Daryl is saying is that for the second situation, a card was brought to SGC with a mark on it, cracked open at their site, and then it was re-graded by SGC when they confirmed that the mark was now undetectable. SGC knew that the card once had a pencil mark on it. For PSA's case, you can argue that PSA would've been blind to not have seen that mark, but it is still possible that they could have missed it. However, SGC knew that a mark was once there on a card.
BTW, I'm not trying to fault SGC on this (especially because I currently have a submission with them right now) as I believe there is some debate in the community whether it is okay to erase light pencil marks. Some say it's no big deal to erase them. Others disagree. There are similar disagreements on whether it's okay to soak a card although I believe most people say it's okay.
BTW, for that second card that the OP pointed out, again I'm no expert in rebuilding corners, but is it possible that person simply soaked the card and then pressed it? It may even have just been pressing with a stack of books. However, this situation may be dicier since over time, those creases may slowly come back.
I also just wanted to add that I don't it was the OP's intention to have another SGC vs PSA argument (although it's possible, I guess). It's really great that he pointed out these cards so that in the future, people can watch for them, and make the decision for themselves on whether they would still want them based on their history.
Last edited by glchen; 08-22-2013 at 01:10 PM.
Reason: sp
|
08-22-2013, 12:57 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode