Any interest in an SGC piggyback submission? CLOSED!! Grades popped!!

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by swarmee

If their guarantee is worthless/deleted, not sure why they wouldn't grade bad cards. They have no liability anymore except bad press, which seems to fall under "all news is good news."

I'm pretty sure they don't want to grade bad cards. That would make them no different than PRO, or latter day GAI.

[bobbyw8469]

Are upcharges a blessing or a curse?? Look, I get it. Everyone would rather pay $18 to grade a card instead of $85. But look at the bright side. If you are hit with an upcharge, that means that your card was deemed worth more than $1,500 in the eyes of SGC. For some, maybe they got the card for less than $1,500? That would be like winning a nice scratch off ticket.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Are upcharges a blessing or a curse?? Look, I get it. Everyone would rather pay $18 to grade a card instead of $85. But look at the bright side. If you are hit with an upcharge, that means that your card was deemed worth more than $1,500 in the eyes of SGC. For some, maybe they got the card for less than $1,500? That would be like winning a nice scratch off ticket.

It's okay. I don't follow Gehrig card values, so I'm a little shocked.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by todeen

I sent it in the cardsaver with their sticker attached to it. I just wanted the card slabbed and protected. If they changed their opinion after seeing their previous opinion I would be surprised.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

I remember this card. The seller guaranteed a numerical grade, and it came back authentic. The seller then refused any refund (partial or full) and Leon banned him. Funny how things come back around.

I'm confused why you wouldn't put it in a different card saver - you had nothing to lose and everything to gain. There is no way SGC would give it a numerical grade after seeing that it previously gave it an A.

However, if you had removed the prior label, there is a chance SGC would grade it a 1. What was your logic in simply resubmitting it with the SGC A label still attached?

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

I remember this card. The seller guaranteed a numerical grade, and it came back authentic. The seller then refused any refund (partial or full) and Leon banned him. Funny how things come back around.

I'm confused why you wouldn't put it in a different card saver - you had nothing to lose and everything to gain. There is no way SGC would give it a numerical grade after seeing that it previously gave it an A.

However, if you had removed the prior label, there is a chance SGC would grade it a 1. What was your logic in simply resubmitting it with the SGC A label still attached?

I took it out of that card saver. I put it in a fresh blank one. I wanted him to have a fresh chance at a number grade. I may slip up from time to time, but for the most part, I know what I am doing.

[Jay Wolt]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

One is mine and one is Teza11. They both have skinned backs. They told me they don't grade blank back cards. I was like, these aren't blank backs....they are SKINNED backs.....and I pointed out that they graded those in the past. So we will see.

Why would they change to Not grading skinned backs?
Here's one they slabbed for me a few years ago

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

I took it out of that card saver. I put it in a fresh blank one. I wanted him to have a fresh chance at a number grade. I may slip up from time to time, but for the most part, I know what I am doing.

Bobby to the rescue!

If it comes back a numerical grade, and not just Authentic, the submitter owes you a nice Christmas gift as you will have significantly increased his card's value.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Bobby to the rescue!

If it comes back a numerical grade, and not just Authentic, the submitter owes you a nice Christmas gift as you will have significantly increased his card's value.

It didn't. It came back AUHENTIC only. At least they are consistent.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

It didn't. It came back AUHENTIC only. At least they are consistent.

Are the cards current in transit back to you?

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Are the cards current in transit back to you?

No.

[bobbyw8469]

Who is here has Spreadsheet experience and can help post grades in the group????

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Who is here has Spreadsheet experience and can help post grades in the group????

I'm happy to help, just let me know.

[bobbyw8469]

Also guys, whoever subbed the 1968 Nolan Ryan Milton Bradley variation. I called it as such on the form. SGC changed it back to the normal version, even though it is obviously not. Please don't blame that on me. I called it the correct thing.

[bobbyw8469]

This is obviously the Milton Bradley variation. The submitter has noted it as such, and I wholeheartedly agree. I have looked at a ton of this version. Someone at SGC removed the Milton Bradley tag and called it the regular version. The white line is super hard to miss......

[todeen]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

I took it out of that card saver. I put it in a fresh blank one. I wanted him to have a fresh chance at a number grade. I may slip up from time to time, but for the most part, I know what I am doing.

I appreciate that. I really have no experience submitting, but I had a bunch of cards I wanted slabbed for protection if nothing else. Thanks for all you do!

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

This is obviously the Milton Bradley variation. The submitter has noted it as such, and I wholeheartedly agree. I have looked at a ton of this version. Someone at SGC removed the Milton Bradley tag and called it the regular version. The white line is super hard to miss......

Wow. Although the card's back is not posted, I'm confident that is a MB. The white line is impossible to miss.

I believe the MB's have a different tone of yellow, too.

Oh, well. Great look card still.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Wow. Although the card's back is not posted, I'm confident that is a MB. The white line is impossible to miss.

I believe the MB's have a different tone of yellow, too.

Oh, well. Great look card still.

And there's the telltale black notch in the 'T' in the word "STARS."

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Wow. Although the card's back is not posted, I'm confident that is a MB. The white line is impossible to miss.

I believe the MB's have a different tone of yellow, too.

Oh, well. Great look card still.

It is...but what do you do now?? Sell it as a Milton Bradley and just say that SGC labeled it wrong???

[soxinseven]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

It is...but what do you do now?? Sell it as a Milton Bradley and just say that SGC labeled it wrong???

They likely won't do anything before it ships but I would send it back to have it corrected.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Hey all,

Grade update: Bobby sent me the garbled info from SGC and I am in the process of organizing it into a clean document. Will post when ready.

[bobbyw8469]

Thank you. I know it looked a mess.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Hey all,

Grade update: Bobby sent me the garbled info from SGC and I am in the process of organizing it into a clean document. Will post when ready.

Sure, no rush at all...

SweatingAirplane01.jpg

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Thank you. I know it looked a mess.

No problem! Happy to help, considering how much work you have done already

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by jollyelm

sure, no rush at all...

lol

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

lol

Stop screwing around on this thread and work on posting the grades!

[bobbyw8469]

Also guys....7 cards didn't get graded....SGC only refunded me for 6 though. I got to figure out what is up with that.

[BobbyStrawberry]

See next post

[BobbyStrawberry]

.

[Casey2296]

Thank you Bobby

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Thank you Bobby

Apologies for the blurry images....I can't seem to make it clearer without going past the max filesize. Hopefully everyone can manage to read it.

[Tyruscobb]

Thanks to the two Bobbies!

[chaddurbin]

Thank you to both Bobby's....these are not grouped according to the submitters correct? I see my t206 lajoie portrait is away from the other 4 candy cards.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

Thank you to both Bobby's....these are not grouped according to the submitters correct? I see my t206 lajoie portrait is away from the other 4 candy cards.

Yes..we all have to find our own cards somewhere in the list.

[JollyElm]

frankcostanza.jpg
"Now it's time for the airing of grievances..."

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

Thank you to both Bobby's....these are not grouped according to the submitters correct? I see my t206 lajoie portrait is away from the other 4 candy cards.

Correct....SGC has the bright idea to randomize everything.

[BobbyStrawberry]

One correction from Bobby...#161 of the sub is a hand-cut A, not a 6. (And probably with a cert number of 6887001)

-Matthew

[todeen]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Attachment 543714

"Now it's time for the airing of grievances..."

I can't complain loudly, my modern cards did very well. I got three 10s, including my 1991 Tiffany KGJ! My 1991 DS KGJ wasn't graded, so I guess I'll just need to send to PSA.

I am pleasantly surprised by my 1914 Polo Ground game Wagner, which got a SGC 5.

But my 2001 Bowman Heritage Bonds auto got a SGC 6! I was really expecting a better grade (8 or 9). It's centering is near perfect. That card immediately went into a holder. So I wonder what's wrong with it?

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[todeen]

Also there are two 1998 Topps Chrome Adrian Beltre, #57 SGC 7 and #100 SGC 9 (refractor). I submitted the Refractor, but my card is 70/30 centering and I was not expecting a SGC 9. I thought 70/30 centering dropped a card two grades.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[IronHorse2130]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Wow. Although the card's back is not posted, I'm confident that is a MB. The white line is impossible to miss.

I believe the MB's have a different tone of yellow, too.

Oh, well. Great look card still.

I submitted this card and can't believe it wasn't graded as a Milton Bradley. Here is a shot of the back.

[JollyElm]

I rightfully have grievances about the top pair here, and I don't know what's going on with the 1968 Mantle.

• The Winfield rookie is a wrong back card, so after talking with them about it, here was the reply:
"The Winfield would be labeled as wrong back and get an A."

But they graded it a 6.5, even though they told me directly it would only get an 'authentic,' as I wanted it to. WTF??

• The Brett rookie is just a cool, wildly miscut card that I was under the impression would also only get the 'authentic' grade. The card itself is pretty sweet, but they number-graded it an SGC 1, presumably because of how miscut it is. Argh!!! What's the point of that? Everyone can see it's crazy cut, so I wanted nothing more than an 'A.' Were I ever to sell it, how would I explain it? All anyone is going to see is an SGC 1 grade PLUS it's terribly cut, making it fall into the negative number grade category for anyone looking at it. Geez.

• And the 1968 Mantle got an 'A?' grade. What in high heck is that? Questionable authenticity?? Do they think it's a fake? Hopefully, the slab will have an explanatory word present.

winfieldrcbrettrcmantle1968.jpg

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I rightfully have grievances about the top pair here, and I don't know what's going on with the 1968 Mantle.



• The Winfield rookie is a wrong back card, so after talking with them about it, here was the reply:

"The Winfield would be labeled as wrong back and get an A."



But they graded it a 6.5, even though they told me directly it would only get an 'authentic,' as I wanted it to. WTF??



• The Brett rookie is just a cool, wildly miscut card that I was under the impression would also only get the 'authentic' grade. The card itself is pretty sweet, but they number-graded it an SGC 1, presumably because of how miscut it is. Argh!!! What's the point of that? Everyone can see it's crazy cut, so I wanted nothing more than an 'A.' Were I ever to sell it, how would I explain it? All anyone is going to see is an SGC 1 grade PLUS it's terribly cut, making it fall into the negative number grade category for anyone looking at it. Geez.



• And the 1968 Mantle got an 'A?' grade. What in high heck is that? Questionable authenticity?? Do they think it's a fake? Hopefully, the slab will have an explanatory word present.



Attachment 543751

Sounds like the mantle and winfield grades got swapped.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Sounds like the mantle and winfield grades got swapped.

No. The Mantle is Authentic with a description of miscut. The winfield is not miscut. Some errors were made. And they don't really have a good customer service number.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

No. The Mantle is Authentic with a description of miscut. The winfield is not miscut. Some errors were made. And they don't really have a good customer service number.

That’s my kinda miscut...

[big-six]

There are two duplicates- 1953 Berra and Rizzuto.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by big-six

There are two duplicates- 1953 Berra and Rizzuto.

There were supposed to be duplicates. Let's let the cards come back and see what actually is in hand.

[bobbyw8469]

The problem was never with duplicates. The problem was I was asking if more than one person sent in the exact same card. I could never get a clear cut answer from anyone whether they did or not.

[bobbyw8469]

OK....I just found out that one of us submitted a fake card. SGC doesn't refund for fakes. So that fee is lost. The other cards are simply issues they do not grade.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I rightfully have grievances about the top pair here, and I don't know what's going on with the 1968 Mantle.

• The Winfield rookie is a wrong back card, so after talking with them about it, here was the reply:
"The Winfield would be labeled as wrong back and get an A."

But they graded it a 6.5, even though they told me directly it would only get an 'authentic,' as I wanted it to. WTF??

• The Brett rookie is just a cool, wildly miscut card that I was under the impression would also only get the 'authentic' grade. The card itself is pretty sweet, but they number-graded it an SGC 1, presumably because of how miscut it is. Argh!!! What's the point of that? Everyone can see it's crazy cut, so I wanted nothing more than an 'A.' Were I ever to sell it, how would I explain it? All anyone is going to see is an SGC 1 grade PLUS it's terribly cut, making it fall into the negative number grade category for anyone looking at it. Geez.

• And the 1968 Mantle got an 'A?' grade. What in high heck is that? Questionable authenticity?? Do they think it's a fake? Hopefully, the slab will have an explanatory word present.

Attachment 543751

As long as they are not hand cut from a sheet SGC has always given wrong back cards number grades. My favorite 2 cards in the hobby a Wade Boggs/Roger Clemens wrong back pair are sitting in 8.5 and 9 slabs.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by bnorth

As long as they are not hand cut from a sheet SGC has always given wrong back cards number grades. My favorite 2 cards in the hobby a Wade Boggs/Roger Clemens wrong back pair are sitting in 8.5 and 9 slabs.

Ben, I think he was looking at the Ebay listing. There is a seller on there, selling the exact same card for $3k. He claimed the card could only get an authentic grades. Now, Darren's card proves that not to be true. And I with you. Why would it NOT receive a numeric grade?? It is a legitimate card....albeit with the wrong back.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Ben, I think he was looking at the Ebay listing. There is a seller on there, selling the exact same card for $3k. He claimed the card could only get an authentic grades. Now, Darren's card proves that not to be true. And I with you. Why would it NOT receive a numeric grade?? It is a legitimate card....albeit with the wrong back.

My guess is the card on eBay was hand cut from a sheet so it got the A. I have been collecting wrongbacks for over 30 years. Unless it is a junk era card you see way more hand cut than factory cut. Buying a sheet and cutting it up for the wrong backs has been a thing the entire time I have been collecting. Same thing for mis cuts. Usually they come from a normal sheet someone miscut on purpose to sell at a huge markup.