Can't slab--only one known?

[jim]

Have you tried to get PSA to slab it?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by jim

Have you tried to get PSA to slab it?

PSA would not slab it. They are even more stringent than SGC and will only slab cards that are in the Standard Catalog or something equivalent.

[jim]

if neither of the top two will slab it, that says that they do not know it's authenticity. a future potential buyer will then have to rely, on what, for the piece to be real?

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by jim

if neither of the top two will slab it, that says that they do not know it's authenticity. a future potential buyer will then have to rely, on what, for the piece to be real?

Their eyes and their brains, along with those of the auction house experts. What a concept!

[tbob]

I have a card of Frank Chance which is identical to an E95 Chance except that the caption lists him as playing/coaching with the Yankees rather than the Cubs and the card has a blank back. I aslo have a card of Johnny Kling with is identical to an E96 Kling except the caption lists him as playing with the Braves instead of the Cubs and the card has a blank back. There is one more card in this group (can't remember the name but it was identical to an E96) which was purchased by Keith Olberman and had the same different team name and a blank back. SGC said the cards couldn't be slabbed when I asked about 7-8 years ago because these cards had never seen before. E95 are from 1909, E96s are from 1910. Chance coached the Yankees in 1913 and 1914. These are one of a kind cards, possibly color proofs of a planned set which never materialized.
The card weight and texture is very similar to the E97 black and white card set.
I know a few posters on this board thought that they must be from those notebook covers, rather than proofs, but Kling was never included among the cards pictured. Chance was included on the notebook cover but is listed as Chance Chi. Natl. not New York AL.
The cards still remain one of a kind whose origin is unknown. I haven't checked with SGC lately to see if they might slab them as E unknown series cards. Now that they have begun slabbing E93 and E97 blank backs in the past few years, I might try.
P.S. Here is a picture of the Notebook Cover published in 1913 and you will note that the Chance "card" is captioned as his being with the Cubs.

[travrosty]

why does every card need to be in a holder? i am on sgc side.

its not their job to research and catalogue cards, they slab them as authentic.

why should they go out and spend countless hours researching and testing paper, etc.? that's not their job. if its a known issue, they should slab it, but if its not, its up to the collector to prove it, then they can slab it, another reason why cards dont need to be slabbed in the first place. because slabbing doesnt make it real, and not slabbing it doesnt make it fake. it's either real or not irregardless.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by travrosty

why does every card need to be in a holder? i am on sgc side.

its not their job to research and catalogue cards, they slab them as authentic.

why should they go out and spend countless hours researching and testing paper, etc.? that's not their job. if its a known issue, they should slab it, but if its not, its up to the collector to prove it, then they can slab it, another reason why cards dont need to be slabbed in the first place. because slabbing doesnt make it real, and not slabbing it doesnt make it fake. it's either real or not irregardless.

I'm with you 100% on slabbing, I could do without it altogether. Authentication (exposing trimming, etc), on the other hand, is useful for exposing fraud. But the market has spoken--slabbed gets better prices than unslabbed--so from that standpoint I would like to get my card slabbed. It's your second point that doesn't make sense to me. Let's see, when a TPA is presented with a nice-looking T206 Wagner, they don't have to "spend countless hours researching and testing paper, etc. If it's a known issue, they should slab it." Really? All they need is the fact that that this is a known issue? Of course not. In fact, that's the least of their considerations. They will look at everything else about this card--the paper, the ink, the edges, the age, everything that forensically confirms that this card was actually made in 1910 or thereabouts. So why can't they just do the same with my card, and verify that it is indeed from that period, which it so clearly is? Why do they need another example, which might not exist, to compare it to? A forger with any brains isn't going to go to the trouble to create a new design that nobody's ever seen before, he's going to use the template of a known and desirable issue and try to create a passable forgery with all the aging and other techniques at his disposal. I'm not getting the logic here.

[Exhibitman]

Well, Travis, I think a TPG has a duty to stay abreast of the latest discoveries and developments in their field, just as any professional [I know...] has to do the same. Part of what ticks off the OP and others about a TPG not knowing how to handle obscure issues is that it appears unprofessional and lazy. If multiple people here and auctioneers know the score, I'd expect a TPG to be similarly aware of what is out there.

[kmac32]

Same issue with some hand cut Koester bread cards I own. I was wanting only an authentic grade and it was more for display but SGC wouldn't do it. In fact even if you have a proven Koester card, they will call it a W575-1.