R

[Solemany2k]

Yep, that spot on the temple isn't on any other white cap I can find. Also like some notice that top left corner of the card has the same little tip out of it. Definitely cleaned but Is that ok ? Does that count as being altered ?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

It could be the scans, but if those are the same setting, the cleaning resulted in a loss of some vibrancy IMO.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Solemany2k

Yep, that spot on the temple isn't on any other white cap I can find. Also like some notice that top left corner of the card has the same little tip out of it. Definitely cleaned but Is that ok ? Does that count as being altered ?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

my problem is it looks like it was cleaned digitally. look at the odd pixel texture where the dot was in the blue field.

[Rhotchkiss]

Great catch Larry! Definitely the same card, but it’s very curious if someone cleaned it- the guy cracks out an SGC 5.5, alters the card, and then resubmits it back to SGC, who then bumps it .5. You know with that corner, the spots on the card and the bad OC back, it wasn’t getting that much of a bump at all (6 at most), with the risk that it gets an A. Seems to me the juice isn’t worth the squeeze on cracking and messing with the card. I like the theory that it’s in the pictures/scans/pixels. But nevertheless, whatever happened, it resides in an SGC 6, so they bumped it, either as a raw submission or on review.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If PWCC's scan is all but hiding that significant mark in the upper right quadrant that's pretty worrisome.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It could be the scans, but if those are the same setting, the cleaning resulted in a loss of some vibrancy IMO.

I agree. It now looks pale/washed out compared to the original. Also, there is an indent/line to the right of his cap that is clearly visible but not so much in the second scan/pic.

Could just be the scanner setting making everything look different but I believe the card has also been cleaned rather than just resubmitted.

[griffon512]

Much of the difference is likely due to different settings in the scan. If you look at some minute details like the small dark spot on matty's left elbow it becomes apparent that the differences in vibrancy/color are not likely the result of a cleaning. If they were, why would a small dark spot on matty's left elbow point (typical for this card) appear after a cleaning? The scans produced a dark rendering in the sgc 6 holder. As for the spot in the upper blue quadrant, it is possible that this was residue on the card that sgc removed before putting it in the new holder if that was requested by the customer.

Upshot is different settings likely caused the majority of differences in the image of the card, and whether or not it has been cleaned is inconclusive. Why this is PWCC High End is the biggest surprise to me? It's a questionable 6 given the top left corner and has some surface and centering issues that impact the eye appeal of the card.

[bigfish]

Why a high end 6? Maybe Brent bought it? Either way it certainly devalues their label of high end. I think this is just another bad mistake by the experts at PWCC.