Joseph M Pankiewicz, you are a disgrace to this hobby!

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by atx840

I am guessing that you are saying the only thing changing are the borders, but the letters also change in size/shape, particularly as you get closer to the bottom of the card. This is the same card, but they are not the same size scan, obviously; not the same scanner.

I'm going to stick with my vote that SGC didn't miss a trim. Again, why is the PSA version loose in the slab, but the SGC version is snug? Did SGC miss a two-border trim so badly that they decided to also manufacture a smaller insert for this 1934 Goudey?

[thehoodedcoder]

i think the text changes you are seeing is an optical illusion where the color changing from lighter to darker actually makes the illusion that the text inside of the color change appear to change in size. you can hover your mouse of the image at singular point and compare whether that point moves from your mouse image or not....it doesn't. the only thing that does is the left edge and bottom edge of the card. they move dispropritiantly to each other.

for instance...choose the words big league and put your mouse right on the bottom of a letter.notice how the letters don't go behind your mouse. then notice how much the edge of the card changes at the bottom of the card....

another example is the circle in the bottom right corner, that doesn't move but the edge moves dramatically. that is not possible when dealing with a scaling issue.


someone should be able to take the scans, use a measuremeant of a letter word or what have you, on the card to do a determination of the exact size of each card in comparison to that in number of pixels.

kevin

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

i think the text changes you are seeing is an optical illusion where the color changing from lighter to darker actually makes the illusion that the text inside of the color change appear to change in size. you can hover your mouse of the image at singular point and compare whether that point moves from your mouse image or not....it doesn't. the only thing that does is the left edge of the card.

kevin

Not so. Put your mouse in the middle of the "I" in "BIG". The "I" grows and shrinks. In my view, the optical illusion is that you don't think the letters are moving.

[CW]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Not so. Put your mouse in the middle of the "I" in "BIG". The "I" grows and shrinks. In my view, the optical illusion is that you don't think the letters are moving.

This is occuring because one "I" is slightly blurrier than the other (or one is sharper than the other, to put it another way). This makes it appear to grow and shrink, yes, but compare that to how much the bottom border grows and shrinks. It is not proportionate.

If you do indeed believe that those cards are one and the same, I do not understand how you cannot see the SGC graded version of this card has a smaller (ie. trimmed) right and bottom border (when viewed from front).

Again, why is the PSA version loose in the slab, but the SGC version is snug?

That card did not look loose in the PSA slab. It looks pretty snug in the PSA holder, which is most likely why it was targeted for the trim job. In the PSA slab, the right and bottom edges are touching the insert. The top and left edges have a very slight gap between them and the insert. I've seen loose cards in PSA holders, but that Gehrig is was not one of them, imo.

The SGC inserts, as you've mentioned, can be custom cut, so I don't think we can draw any conclusions by looking at how it fits in the SGC slab.

Nothing personal, obviously, but this one looks clear cut. (intended )

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

[Peter_Spaeth]

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

Simon & Garfunkel. What did I win?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Simon & Garfunkel. What did I win?

A trimmed, bleached, recolored, pressed card in a TPG slab of your choice.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by CW

Nothing personal, obviously, but this one looks clear cut. (intended )

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

Oh, I don't take it personal. I just happen to see something you don't, like you see something I don't.

I do not believe SGC would miss a double/triple trim on such a high grade and valuable card. Are they human? Yes. But, very very unlikely. It is much more likely that the images of two scans of what is likely the same card graded by two different graders is creating the illusion of funny business. And, frankly, I see enough weirdness in the flashing Gehrigs to suggest as much.

Hopefully what SGC does here going forward will be made public. I think it is possible or even probable they bang the card for being tampered with. But, I still don't think the card has been trimmed, let alone on two or three borders.

I know lots of people distrust the men behind the curtain at the TPG. But, I have a lot of reasons to have confidence in their integrity based on my experiences with them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

This is Greg's side by side scan of the two cards. The right and bottom border on the SGC card are definitely thinner than the PSA card. It's easy to tell that they're the same card and also easy to tell that it was trimmed before it found it's way into the SGC holder.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

This is Greg's side by side scan of the two cards. The right and bottom border on the SGC card are definitely thinner than the PSA card. It's easy to tell that they're the same card and also easy to tell that it was trimmed before it found it's way into the SGC holder.

Disagree. SGC holders are actually taller and wider than PSA holders. In your picture they look the same size.

This is a slightly smaller scan of the same card.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Disagree. SGC holders are actually taller and wider than PSA holders. In your picture they look the same size.

This is a slightly smaller scan of the same card.

If you're right (no trim, only an optical illusion), then how do you explain the grade bump?

[atx840]

"Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. My company purchased this card several months ago, already graded NM/MT+ 92 by SGC, in the holder in which it currently resides. I am sending the card back into SGC for them to review. Pending that review, we are removing the card from our inventory for sale listings.

Thanks again,

Greg"

[t206hound]

This reads better than reality television for sure. Will there be a "Card Detectives" series in our future? It would beat the heck out of the drivel I watch late at night!

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by atx840

"Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. My company purchased this card several months ago, already graded NM/MT+ 92 by SGC, in the holder in which it currently resides. I am sending the card back into SGC for them to review. Pending that review, we are removing the card from our inventory for sale listings.

Thanks again,

Greg"

I'm sure we're all very curious to see what SGC thinks of this one!

[T206Collector]

Based on all of the evidence that has been presented here, I am persuaded that there is somebody cleaning cards with something other than bleach or another substance that would be detectable to SGC. Call it "super water" or what have you. That would certainly cause a bump in grade. A card does not have long to travel from a 6.5 to an 8.5. It's not like turning a 1 to a 3, or even a 3 to a 5. One of the reasons I don't care much for high grade cards is that once you've given me a 7, or even a 6, I'm pretty content that I'm holding a card that is, for me, mint (or at least mint enough).

My problems with the Gehrig trim theory are thus:

1. I do not think SGC would miss a trim that it is suggested here would have affected two or more of the borders, let alone on such a high dollar card. Nor do I believe SGC is involved in a conspiracy to overlook such a trim, particularly on such a high dollar card that is likely to draw some attention. So, I approach the accusation of this trim from a very suspicious perspective to begin with. If it was PSA, I would be more willing to buy into such ignorance or worse.

2. The SGC insert fits more snug than the PSA insert. While I appreciate that SGC has the ability to customize its inserts, my understanding is that they would not purposely make a smaller one here and, at the same time, miss a double-sided+ trim.

3. The side-by-side flashing scans are very persuasive until you realize that distortion is possible with just a slight difference in size. On the two back scans of the same card I posted above, one was 100% and the other was just 102% in my MSPaint Program. Also, it seems like all 4 corners get sharper in the move to the SGC holder - were 3+ borders trimmed? Finally, if a bottom and a side look more trimmed in one image than another, that can be explained by a smaller scan being dropped on top of a larger scan, where both are lined up at the top left corner.


Having said all of this, could I be persuaded that SGC got tricked on this one? Yes, I guess so. But I do not think the side-by-side scans get me there.

[D.P.Johnson]

There's no way Greg is going to take the chance that the buyer of this altered card is going to come here and read this information after they have purchased the card...I mean, whoever buys this card from Greg is going to be notified they've bought an altered card, right???...........right...........

[ullmandds]

I have a feeling that when this is all said and done...if ever...there will be a lot of surprising names implicated...thereby showing that corruption is more the rule...than the exception in the hobby.

[D.P.Johnson]

Oops...spoke too soon...Greg removed the card...Then again, do I win a dollar or a donut???...

[Cardboard Junkie]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I have a feeling that when this is all said and done...if ever...there will be a lot of surprising names implicated...thereby showing that corruption is more the rule...than the exception in the hobby.

+1 I couldn't agree more. Dave.