Questions Regarding "Skinned" OJs / N172

[scotgreb]

I recently purchased my first "skinned" OJ and I'm looking to better understand how I can make this best work for my collection.

I purchased on ebay and curious about how these are handled in the authentication process (I'll follow-up with that info). I would ultimately like this in a PSA or SGC holder.

My questions:

Should I leave it as is?
Should I re-back? And how would I go about doing that? Is that accepted by OJ purists? Jay?
Do SGC and/or PSA grade / authenticate / slab either skinned or re-backed OJs?

Apologies if this is inappropriate for the front page.

All information and opinions are appreciated.

Scott

[Fred]

Best it will come back is "A" from SGC or PSA. You might have to include a note that you understand it is skinned and request encapsulation. If you don't then they may send it back with the comment "skinned" and not slabbed.

Personally, unless it is something special (HOFer or tough card), I'd put it in a penny sleeve and then inside a hard plastic holder.

"I" wouldn't attempt to re-back it because "I'd" probably botch the job.

[scotgreb]

Thanks Fred -- I'm definitely expecting an "A" but I can't recall ever seeing a graded skinned OJ -- though I've never really looked.

It's a nice image of Bobby Mathews -- been on my want list for years.

Mathews OJ.jpg

[pete zouras]

Good luck getting an answer from them one way or another on whether they'd grade. Their answer to such questions has been send it in and we'll let you know most of the time. They should have an upfront policy on that.

[Fred]

Scott,

That's a nice Mathews (skinned or not). He's one of those non-HOFers I'd send in for encapsulation if I were still submitting cards for grading.

I believe I have a skinned card encapsulated with the "A" grade.

[ValKehl]

I just now sent this email question to Brent Martin, SGC Collector Support rep: "Regarding skinned N172 Old Judge cards, am I correct in believing that SGC continues to grade such cards as "Authentic" and slab them?" His immediate response is: "Regarding the skinned Old Judge cards would most likely receive an A for the alteration." One of my pet peeves is hedged responses, but it is what it is.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

Thanks Fred -- I'm definitely expecting an "A" but I can't recall ever seeing a graded skinned OJ -- though I've never really looked.

It's a nice image of Bobby Mathews -- been on my want list for years.

There are skinned SGC graded OJs out there. Their old slabs even used to indicate "Skinned" although I'm not sure if the new ones do.

IMO the only reason they might not slab it (other than authenticity) is if they deem it too thin/fraglie.

[Fred]

I go through ebay to check out the OJs and I'm finding SGC doesn't do a great job with knowing what to look for in OJs. I've seen at least 3 OJs with the bottom ad part trimmed off that were assigned numerical grades in the NEW SGC holders. Here's the most recent one I found:

Darling 117-5 SGC trimmed.jpg

Go TPGs! Aint nothing like grading/slabbing stuff that you don't understand.

[scotgreb]

A quick update on the Mathews . . .

Just returned from SGC ungraded. No real explanation other than "Cannot / Do Not Grade" noted on the flip.

Will probably give try PSA a try.

Scott

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Fred

I've seen at least 3 OJs with the bottom ad part trimmed off that were assigned numerical grades in the NEW SGC holders.

Picked up one recently. I've not seen many Wilmot (Chicago) variations out in the wild, and the price was right.

I do wonder what the justification is for not taking into account the cut on them, though.

I also don't really understand why this is a 1889 N172 unless they just throw that label on all the pink/colored/etc ones that popped up mostly in 1889-1890 or for all the "changed teams" versions. Unless this one was produced in the last 5 weeks of 1889, this was a 1890 card.

[pete zouras]

I purchased one a few years back unknowingly and the seller worked with me on a part refund. I remember light shining through its membranous surface being the instance of recognition that I had been deceived. It's raw and will stay that way. SGC used to grade authentic but they may have changed their standards. I've also encountered rebacked ojs and the rebacking doesn't add value for me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

I recently purchased my first "skinned" OJ and I'm looking to better understand how I can make this best work for my collection.

I purchased on ebay and curious about how these are handled in the authentication process (I'll follow-up with that info). I would ultimately like this in a PSA or SGC holder.

My questions:

Should I leave it as is?
Should I re-back? And how would I go about doing that? Is that accepted by OJ purists? Jay?
Do SGC and/or PSA grade / authenticate / slab either skinned or re-backed OJs?

Apologies if this is inappropriate for the front page.

All information and opinions are appreciated.

Scott

Can't speak for all OJ collectors, but the truth is that all the Old Judge cards are actual albumen photos that were then attached to a plain cardboard backing. So the images were never actually printed on the cards themselves. It is the photo that is IMO most important to an OJ collector, and though if one had a choice, would prefer it was still attached to the original backing it was first applied to in the 1880's. But if you come across a "skinned" OJ photo, I've always felt most OJ collectors will still appreciate and desire them, even in that "skinned" condition. You could try to re-attach the "skinned" photo to another cardboard backing, to actually add some strength and protection to the otherwise very fragile photo itself, or leave it as is. Personally, I'd leave the "skinned" photo as is, as I'd be afraid to screw it up and ruin the photo if I tried re-backing it myself. To an OJ collector, I feel the need to have it attached to a cardboard backing is then more of a personal preference, and I don't believe there would be much, if any, difference in value between a "skinned" or re-backed OJ photo. Obviously, a "skinned" OJ photo will not have the same value as one that comes with the original backing still attached. And a "skinned" OJ photo that is re-backed is primarily considered as in a similar condition/state and comparable value as one that is simply just "skinned" and not re-backed. At least that is the case in my experience and opinion.

I've always thought that in this regard, OJ's are a little bit like the S74-1 white version silks that originally came with an advertising back attached to them. The S74-1 silks without the backing are still considered very collectible, and when it comes to grading them, for years SGC has been the primary TPG for doing so as PSA never has, and still doesn't, grade any S74 silks. SGC has a fairly strict grading policy in regard to the S74-1 silks that have had the backing removed, and automatically will not grade them as anything other than "Authentic". They will only give a numerical grade to S74-1 white version silks that still have the original paper/cardboard advertising backing attached. This appears to be somewhat similar to what TPGs mostly seem to do when it comes to being asked to grade "skinned" or re-backed OJ photos, just give them an automatic "A" grade. As to why some TPGs will occasionally say they won't encapsulate a "skinned" or re-backed OJ photo, as opposed to encapsulating it as "Authentic", is as others have mentioned, a bit of a head scratcher, but it appears that it is what it is.

Again, the value of the OJ cards really rests in the photos themselves, and even the "skinned" or re-backed photos can be very desirable and valuable. Now as for how much less a "skinned" or re-backed OJ photo should be valued than a similar photo that is still attached to its original backing, I don't think there is any set percentage/amount reduction that is recognized by OJ collectors. Since OJ's photos themselves are very sensitive, fragile, and extremely prone to fading, I can easily see that a really great and clear image OJ photo that is "skinned' or re-backed could be worth close to, or in some rare cases maybe even more than, the exact same OJ photo image that was still attached to its original backing, depending on the condition of the card that hadn't been "skinned" or re-backed. I know that I personally would rather have a complete and very clear, bright, and contrasting OJ image/photo that was "skinned" or re-backed than a crappy, faded OJ card that you couldn't really make out the image, and/or maybe was severely creased, or missing parts of the image/card on front as well. The image on that "skinned" Bobby Mathews OJ you have is gorgeous. Of course, you also have some rough edges and rounded corners, along with the small part of the bottom right-hand corner that is missing, as well as the smudge, missing paper, or whatever that is that shows on the top of Mathew's left foot. Still, I would be very happy to own that "skinned" OJ card just as it is if my alternative was to own an "unskinned" version with a really crappy image that was faded like crazy, and/or has even more significant imperfections on the front, missing corners, and/or other significant paper loss or other issues. Great item, I'd keep it as is, unless you can find a professional conservator that could re-attach that OJ photo to a new backing for you, at a VERY reasonable price. And my sole reason for doing so would be to help protect the otherwise extremely fragile "skinned" photo. Getting it encapsulated by a TPG would be mostly for the same reason, protection of the item more than anything else. Great item though, and good luck with whatever you end up deciding to do with it.