SGC Strikes Again!!!!!

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by cammb

You see it as throwing away 30 bucks for a common, I see it as a necessity on completing a graded set .I think it is one particular grader. I have success in recent subs then I get this. Not the first time.

Sorry, didn't mean to insult you for sending the card in to begin with.

I meant that SGC threw away your 30 bucks when they miss-graded your card to begin with (assuming there's nothing hidden I can't see in the scan).

You obviously wouldn't have sent it in if you expected to only get a "3" for your set.

[JollyElm]

When there was that 'walkthrough of SGC' video floating around, the thing that struck me the most was the machine it put each card through (for any 'The Curse of Oak Island' watchers, they have something similar) that was like a cross between a blacklight and an x-ray machine. That sucker instantly showed all sorts of invisible things impossible to see in regular light - wrinkles, bends, etc.

If your card wasn't just a straight f*ck up by SGC, then I would see if any unseen issues become apparent under a blacklight.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

When there was that 'walkthrough of SGC' video floating around, the thing that struck me the most was the machine it put each card through (for any 'The Curse of Oak Island' watchers, they have something similar) that was like a cross between a blacklight and an x-ray machine. That sucker instantly showed all sorts of invisible things impossible to see in regular light - wrinkles, bends, etc.



If your card wasn't just a straight f*ck up by SGC, then I would see if any unseen issues become apparent under a blacklight.

They also used blacklights to discover what was going on in people's bedrooms in early 2000s MTV Room Raiders. Blacklights discover everyone's dirty little secrets.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

When there was that 'walkthrough of SGC' video floating around, the thing that struck me the most was the machine it put each card through (for any 'The Curse of Oak Island' watchers, they have something similar) that was like a cross between a blacklight and an x-ray machine. That sucker instantly showed all sorts of invisible things impossible to see in regular light - wrinkles, bends, etc.

If your card wasn't just a straight f*ck up by SGC, then I would see if any unseen issues become apparent under a blacklight.

I don’t know about you, but “perceptible to the human eye” seems to me like a reasonable requirement for what should be considered in grading. Sheesh.

[Vintagedeputy]

I think the print dots and registration issue is what did the card in.

[Snowman]

It looks like there could be a very small amount of paper loss in the top right corner. I had this exact same thing happen to me before. Try looking at that corner again through a loupe. If that's not it, you're probably missing a minor reverse wrinkle somewhere.

[t206hound]

Can post a link to the seller-ready images from SGC? Those will eliminate the glare and shadows that are on your photos. I agree with others, however, that for that card to be a 3 there must be a wrinkle or paper loss somewhere.

[MarcosCards]

I don’t understand the ‘wrinkle theory’ for the 3 Grade this card received. The grading company’s criteria for a 5 Grade reads:

“80/20 or better centering, minor rounding or fuzzing of corners, roughness or chipping along edge (no layering), one VERY slight surface or "spider" crease may exist on one side of the card, gloss may be lost from surface with some scratching that does not detract from the aesthetics of the card.”

Certainly, a definition of the term “VERY slight surface or “spider” crease” would be helpful - but I’m sure it boils down to subjectivity. Btw, the company put the word ‘very’ in all-caps — not me.

Considering the other visible aspects of the card, it seems that, based on their own criteria, it should grade around a 5. But a 3 is certainly puzzling.

The paper loss theory does make sense though.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Can post a link to the seller-ready images from SGC? Those will eliminate the glare and shadows that are on your photos. I agree with others, however, that for that card to be a 3 there must be a wrinkle or paper loss somewhere.

If you have an SGC account, you can log in and enter the cert number and see the pictures there.