Which card do you prefer?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not sure, but the SGC grade was pre transaction.

Can you give us your opinion or guess as to why SGC would have assigned that grade? I tend to agree with others that to be that far off on what appears to a high-graded card usually means the grader saw or thought he saw some flaw that lowers the technical grade regardless of eye appeal. Put differently, it seems unlikely the grader just randomly thought this card graded less than excellent given its appearance in the scan.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Can you give us your opinion or guess as to why SGC would have assigned that grade? I tend to agree with others that to be that far off on what appears to a high-graded card usually means the grader saw or thought he saw some flaw that lowers the technical grade regardless of eye appeal. Put differently, it seems unlikely the grader just randomly thought this card graded less than excellent given its appearance in the scan.

I've answered this, but again, my assumption is some kid used to grading shiny stuff is not familiar with vintage and mistook some tiny thing that should not be marked down for at all, like a print speck, or something that's a normal feature of the paper stock, as a major problem. If it was one card, I could see your point. It was the whole sub as I have said many times but people just ignore. Like I missed something on 30 consecutive cards? Sorry, no.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've answered this, but again, my assumption is some kid used to grading shiny stuff is not familiar with vintage and mistook some tiny thing that should not be marked down for at all, like a print speck, or something that's a normal feature of the paper stock, as a major problem. If it was one card, I could see your point. It was the whole sub as I have said many times but people just ignore. Like I missed something on 30 consecutive cards? Sorry, no.

One question and one comment...

Q. Did they upcharge you (after the fact) on any of the 30 shitty grades?

C. It appears that they've already gone the way of PSA. Merger is in full swing now, and they don't want any variance between the two divisions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

One question and one comment...

Q. Did they upcharge you (after the fact) on any of the 30 shitty grades?

C. It appears that they've already gone the way of PSA. Merger is in full swing now, and they don't want any variance between the two divisions.

No upcharges. But this was pre merger.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've answered this, but again, my assumption is some kid used to grading shiny stuff is not familiar with vintage and mistook some tiny thing that should not be marked down for at all, like a print speck, or something that's a normal feature of the paper stock, as a major problem. If it was one card, I could see your point. It was the whole sub as I have said many times but people just ignore. Like I missed something on 30 consecutive cards? Sorry, no.

Nobody ignored it. You feel the entire sub was undergraded. That's not the same as the entire sub being 5 grades undergraded. We are not talking about your whole sub. We are talking about this card. And to get a 4, there was a flaw you and PSA missed. The rest of the sub being a couple grades off for vintage is within the range of SGC just being tougher on certain things, or a particularly tough grader. No reason to assume incompetence is the sole reason for the grades. But you believe what you want.

[Beercan collector]

Does anyone know how or grader submits their findings when they’re done ..
Prior to encapsulation ?
Do they press a “9” or a “4” on a keyboard ?
Do they write “9” or “4” on paper ?
With all the stories about TPGs mislabeling cards and putting cards in the wrong slab - Maybe it was just a big fat user error

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Nobody ignored it. You feel the entire sub was undergraded. That's not the same as the entire sub being 5 grades undergraded. We are not talking about your whole sub. We are talking about this card. And to get a 4, there was a flaw you and PSA missed. The rest of the sub being a couple grades off for vintage is within the range of SGC just being tougher on certain things, or a particularly tough grader. No reason to assume incompetence is the sole reason for the grades. But you believe what you want.

You know best, I'm sure. Again, the problem is they think something is a flaw when it's a normal part of the card, because they don't know vintage. This really isn't hard but be the contrarian and know it all, that's cool.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You know best, I'm sure. Again, the problem is they think something is a flaw when it's a normal part of the card, because they don't know vintage. This really isn't hard but be the contrarian and know it all, that's cool.

We all see things differently. It always confuses me when just because of age people think cards should be graded differently. To me it is a card and no matter the printing date they should all be treated the same or it just adds more confusion to the process.

[nolemmings]

Peter, I don’t deny the possibility of a hose job but was just looking for more info. I know nothing about the set and chuckled at the thought that it is considered “vintage’, which makes me paleozoic. Was your entire submission all cards from this set? You say there must be some minor, insignificant trait that caused the grader to downgrade. Assuming that’s true, do you have even a guess as to what that could be, and do you think the same “flaw” was observed in all of your submitted cards?
Way back in 1989 I bought boxes of Score baseball cards, which were then considered all the rage. Dozens upon dozens of them in many boxes bought at different times and places had one or more corners somewhat pressed down slightly, as if they had been packed too tight. These were noticeable only if you held them up and looked at an angle, and were resolved at least to my satisfaction with thumb and forefinger or just having them laid flat for awhile with something on top. To this day I do not know if this is discernible to a TPG since I have no intention of submitting any of them for grading. Is there any known characteristic for this Panini set that collectors disregard because it is apparent in many or even most all of them?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Wide range of mostly nonsports from the 30s on. I will look at Senna again I don't have it back in hand yet. The grading on European issues tends to be very inconsistent by both SGC and PSA because they don't know the difference between natural and trivial imperfections in the paper stockor the printing, and wear. And it's because, I infer, many of the new graders are used to seeing mostly perfect new shiny cards and are not trained how to grade older cards.

If you take any high grade card that isn't ultramodern, put it under high power magnification and under a powerful light at an angle, you are going to see "stuff." The question is when should it matter.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You know best, I'm sure. Again, the problem is they think something is a flaw when it's a normal part of the card, because they don't know vintage. This really isn't hard but be the contrarian and know it all, that's cool.

Ironically, it is you who thinks he knows best, and has even profiled a completely unknown grader along with an evaluation of the validity of the flaw he may or may not have noticed as beinig a completely normal part of the card, and assume he is a young kid who only knows modern cards. All the while you have literally zero facts to support all those assumptions.

But sure. I'm the contrarian know-it-all. Just because I assume the simplest answer (and one I've seen in countless message board complaint threads like this one: the submitter missed something)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Ironically, it is you who thinks he knows best, and has even profiled a completely unknown grader along with an evaluation of the validity of the flaw he may or may not have noticed as beinig a completely normal part of the card, and assume he is a young kid who only knows modern cards. All the while you have literally zero facts to support all those assumptions.

But sure. I'm the contrarian know-it-all. Just because I assume the simplest answer (and one I've seen in countless message board complaint threads like this one: the submitter missed something)

I don't think I know best, I own the card and have examined it closely, and you in your arrogance think you're in a position to tell me I missed something. In terms you will understand (presumably anyhow), lack of foundation for your opinion.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think I know best, I own the card and have examined it closely, and you in your arrogance think you're in a position to tell me I missed something. In terms you will understand (presumably anyhow), lack of foundation for your opinion.

Yet all you give us is a crappy scan of the front of the card, eliminating any possibility we can look at the surface for ourselves and forcing us to take your word that the card is mint. Hmm.

Face it, you were deceptive from the first post, trying to hide the fact that they were the same card, and have concealed the actual condition of the card intentionally. Someone who truly wanted us to look at the card and give informed feedback would have taken high quality photos in good light at various angles. But that was never your intent. This whole thread was an SGC bash thread, created in hopes we would just take your word for it and join in on making fun of this neophyte grader. I'll pass. I'd rather trust my experience that when one grader grades a card and 9 and one grades it a 4, there is something the grader who gave it a 9 missed.

But hey, you know best (because you guaranteed you were the only one with the information in this thread).