|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Jim Clarke
This SGC 40 was in an auction a few months ago and sold before juice at 7135.00. Now it has re-appeared in a different auction but as a SGC 80 and is currently at 13,155.00. I have never seen SGC regrade cards with this big of a difference. I wonder who the submitter was? I guess we need to buy the card and not the holder... Or pay someone to submit them for you.. Thought SGC was NOT like that???? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: JudgeDred (Fred)
Holy Crap!!! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Jim Clarke
Since you asked.... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Jeff Lichtman
Very freaking disappointing. SGC just is printing up money for its special friends. I expect this from PSA...but I guess I assumed SGC was a bit more pure. I'd love to know who the submitters on the two cards were...when they were submitted...who did the grading... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Elliot
I guess the ink on the back is now missing...hence the higher grade. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Damian
Does anyone think this card was unaltered in between trips to SGC? How did they miss the alterations if so? I have carefully erased heavy pencil writing on a card and got away with it through PSA. Thoughts? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: JudgeDred (Fred)
Nice catch JC. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: DJ
Guys, guys, guys...we only talk about PSA guffaws here. What's going on? Seriously, that is really disappointing and I hope SCG sees this and brings forth some kind of explanation. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Jim Clarke
Here is a scan of the back.. Mile high did not show the back so we have nothing to compare. I can pretty much guess and figure out where the ink lines were by looking at the Mastro scan.. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: HW
I bid on it in a prevous auction. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: WP
It looks like pencil on the reverseof the card was erased was it ink?? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: JudgeDred (Fred)
Wally, |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Julie Vognar
(censored) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: T206Collector
...submitted a T206 card to SGC without realizing that there was a small amount of paper glued to the front of the card -- it blended right in with the player's jersey. When I got it back as an SGC 10, I looked and looked until finally I saw the piece of paper. I cracked the card, soaked it, removed the paper and glue and then resubmitted it to SGC. It came back as an SGC 40/3, which is what I thought it would grade the first time. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: barrysloate
This N403 is truly disturbing and I think SGC has an obligation to respond and acknowledge the error. No question they missed the cleaning the second time around (didn't anyone there have a vague recollection that they had seen this card before? How many Yum Yums do they handle?). |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Jay Miller
I don't think SGC owes anyone anything. Pencil and some pen marks can be professionally removed with no remaining evidence. When you pay someone ten bucks to slab your card they are not going to spend an hour doing it and they will hardly ever find evidence of this removal. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: david
i think sgc does have some explaining to do. when i disagree with a grade or if sgc thinks a N, T or E card is altered their word is gospel and they dont want to hear it. They can't possibly handle enough yum yum's not to recognize this example, especially since sgc claims to only have a handful of graders that deal with pre war material. if sgc will reject a card that has had a pencil marked erased for being altered this card should be rejected as being altered. it should not matter if the work was profesional or not. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: JudgeDred (Fred)
Does anyone want to guess how many of these Keefe cards exist? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Jim Clarke
I would love to know who the submitter was???? Yes, SGC has some explaining to do... I think I will personally hand deliever some cards to them I want re-graded and have this Keefe example (photos only)on hand to use like "Case Law" on them. Great point on the how many will show up on population report... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: WP
Wasn't this card originally sold raw in a Mastronet auction in '03. I wonder if the winner of this card in Mile Highs auction and the submitter to SGC are the same person. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Josh K.
I think you are expecting an awful lot from any grading company if you expect them to recognize cards that they have graded once before - its not like they take pictures of the cards for future reference - rare or not. The see thousands of cards a week and its unlikely that they retain a photographic memory of every card that they see. Further, there is no way to know if the same grader even touched the card the second time around. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
I'm not sure I understand why removing a foreign substance (e.g., ink, lead, glue) should necessarily be regarded as altering a card. Suppose my kid puts a glob of silly putty on the back of a card and I remove it. I think we will all agree I haven't altered the card. Or suppose a piece of scotch tape is on the back. A skilled conservator often can dry-peel the tape off with no trace remaining. I don't think we would call that altering the card. Some might say that in the case of ink, lead or glue removal, another substance/object/chemical must first be applied in order to effectuate the removal and it is the application of that other substance/object/chemical that constitutes the alteration. But if that other substance/object/chemical is then removed without a trace along with the original foreign substance, why should that treatment be regarded as altering a card any more than when the silly putty or scotch tape is removed? In fact, in the case of the silly putty or scotch tape, another object was applied to effectuate the removal (my finger in the case of the silly putty and a tool in the case of the scotch tape). I don't think that there should be a distinction between an object (a finger or a tool) or a chemical effectuating the removal of the foreign substance provided that in both instances the object or chemical is removed without a trace. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Rob
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Max Weder
Josh |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Josh K.
I completely agree with Corey - I do not consider removal of pencil/ink to be an alteration. It is the removal of something that never should of been there in the first place - completely different IMO than trimming, bleaching, retouching, etc. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: david
the point is that if i causually erase a pencil mark sgc will reject the card as being altered. you can not have it both ways and be an objective third party |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Jim Manos
Jim, |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: T206Collector
<<if i causually erase a pencil mark sgc will reject the card as being altered>> |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: barrysloate
I have to say that both sides for this argument have made valid points and I share some feelings with each- I think it is okay to remove a small foreign substance from a card without comprising its integrity, and I also feel that having the same card graded twice at two entirely different levels raises some serious concerns. But to take yet another perspective, how do you think SGC feels if they have read this post? Regardless of your individual position, this is not good public relations for them and they can not be happy about it. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: david
below is a list of sgc rejection codes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Josh K.
David - that is incorrect. I have removed pencil marks with an eraser (by hand) and had those cards graded by sgc. I have also tried to erase pen (which of course really doesnt work). The result was an obvious lightening of the area around the pen. Still graded by sgc, but no benefit since the mark was still there. I think the only time sgc will reject a card is when it was bleached to remove the mark or power erased. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Josh K.
I will also add that I do not think sgc made a mistake here - they graded the card the first time a 40 due to the pen. The second time, finding nothing to downgrade, it rec'd an appropriate grade for how the card then appeared. My guess is that there was nothing obvious in their examination of the card that would lead to a rejection for alteration - and absent any knowledge that it was the same card (which is the most likely scenerio), there would have been no reason to inquire further. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: david
if that is the case then sgc is completely useless as an objective third party. you can not selectively apply the grading guidelines. case in point two years ago REA auctioned off a G and B which had dirt erased around the portrait and as a result would not grade by sgc. how is that different then this case? the point of erasing errant marks it to visually enhance the card and by proxy increase the grade. according the third party guidelines this is unacceptable. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Richard
David, |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: david
there should be no distinction between power erasing, erasing and bleaching. is bleaching acceptable, that has the same effect as erasing. all methods alter the card from the present condition to visually enhance the card and increase the value. this is one of the purposes that sgc serves, to detect alterations. they can not selectively apply grading criteria and still remain legit. if they want to accept cards that are erased, bleach alterterd trimmed that is fine but then all such cards should be treated the same. sgc as an objective third party can not say it is okay to ignore alterations in one case and not in another. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Richard
I understand what you are saying. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Josh K.
There is also a distinct difference between using an eraser by hand and using chemicals such as bleaching. Bleaching whitens the entire card - it doesnt erase marks. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: warshawlaw
There, I said it; happy, you PSA fans? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
Regular erasing to me is clearly different than bleaching or power erasing. Regular erasing, if done well, does nothing more than return the card to its original state. Powering erasing or bleaching changes the card to something it never was. As Richard said, there is a distinction, and to me this distinction makes all the difference in characterizing the power erasing or bleaching as an alteration and the regular erasing as a nonalteration. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: T206Collector
The distinction is returning the card to factory condition, not altering what the card looked like when it came out of the factory. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth
Power erasing is a mechanism to make cards appear better centered by removing part of the image to equalize the appearance of the borders. It is done using an electric power erasure and is different than using an art gum erasure to remove stray pencil marks. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Josh K.
T206- The distinction is not exactly accurate - as I dont believe anyone would condone retouching a card or rebuilding a card to return it to factory condition. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Todd Schultz
Power erasing is definitely different than using a simple hand eraser, both as to mechanism and intent. That being said, the questions remain whether "normal" erasures comprise an alteration or simply a downgrade, to what extent the grading companies should stay consistent, and to what extent SGC should have spotted this change in card appearance. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Al Crisafulli
Regardless of the grading company, if they find evidence of alteration, they will reject the card as having been altered. If they do not find evidence of alteration, they will grade the card. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Josh K.
I agree Al. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Julie Vognar
It is not the first time, nor will it be the last. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth
By the way, if the card had writing and a crease, even if it were otherwise NM-MT, can it be considered VG? It would suggest that the "flaws" were fairly minor if SGC felt the card was still VG. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: leon
I have had a few conversations today with executives at SGC about this card. They called me, I didn't call them. Their policy is, and always has been, that they will stand behind this card, or any of their graded cards 100%. They might come on the board later but their response is the same as it's always been, if a card is misgraded they will deal with it. If the scan is accurate then they admit it "could" be slightly overgraded. They will not grade cards definitively from scans, and rightfully so. They are very concerned about this matter and want all to know that they stand behind this, and every card they grade, 100%. As the moderator of this board for several months I have never got a call from anyone at GAI or PSA concerning issues. I think that speaks volumes.....I will give my personal comments on this card's grade, and erasing vs. altering, in another post...possibly. Best regards.... |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Todd Schultz
Al and Josh. First, altered cards are given numeric grades--the fact that this card was graded SGC 40 when it had a pencil mark and the fact that PSA uses a mark qualifier are evidence that such marks will not lead to rejection as altered (see also 1921 Herpolsheimers). To say that altered cards are per se rejected then is untrue, unless you don't consider pencil marks to be alterations. Second, and again, I am pretty sure that the mere fact of erasure is not sufficient to cause rejection, but I'd like to hear others' views on that. I know it's a slippery slope when trying to glean intent, but it generally seems silly to me to turn a pencil-marked card into an erased pencil-marked card and have it go from graded to rejected strictly on that basis. If so you are allowing one alteration but not another. If intent to deceive is the test, then I suppose all erasures should be treated as alterations and rejected. In that case, the Keefe card should not be in an SGC slab at all. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
How do you feel when you see this in an auction
Posted By: Todd Schultz
Just wanted to say that none of my remarks are meant as a slam of SGC--they get all my slabbing dollars for a reason. Just hoping that procedures or systems might be implemented or improved so that this doesn't or most likely won't happen again, at any grading company. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How do you guys feel about... | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 5 | 08-17-2007 03:22 PM |
Is it just me or does anyone else feel overwhelmed | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 11-26-2005 12:09 PM |
Please make me feel better | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 36 | 05-19-2005 05:50 PM |
Well If I Ever Feel the Need to Own the Best.... | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 20 | 04-14-2005 06:12 AM |
Do you feel like we do..... | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 12-11-2003 08:16 PM |