How do you feel when you see this in an auction

[Archive]

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????

[Archive]

Posted By: JudgeDred (Fred)

Holy Crap!!!

You're definitely right... buy the card and then find someone that knows someone that will do a favor for them...

I would really like to here the explanation on this one...

Here's the current auction:

http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=54432&CurrentRow=1

Which auction had the card as an SGC40?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

Since you asked....

http://www.milehighcardcoauction.com/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=3232&getauctionid=46>

I see it happen more than most would realize. I bid on cards like this and they don't come up for sale to often.. Then when I see two or three in the same year going thru different auction companies.... You can pretty much figure it out...

[Archive]

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...

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

I guess the ink on the back is now missing...hence the higher grade.

[Archive]

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?

Damian

[Archive]

Posted By: JudgeDred (Fred)

Nice catch JC.

Elliot, you're right (from the Mile High auction description):

To start with, the card’s front is extremely well centered with outstanding imagery and focus combined with corners that rate between EX/MT and NM! The reason for the significant downgrade to VG is the presence of a small area of ink writing on the reverse of this already blank backed card and also a small barely noticeable wrinkle on the back. While the grading of sports cards is without question the norm of today, I must say that although the technical grade of this card is lowered due to the aforementioned negatives the overall beauty of this incredible rarity rises above its assigned grade and is without question one of, if not the best examples available in the hobby today.

Wrinkle and Ink - GONE!!! Presto, cha ching = now it's worth $7K+ more... wow!!!

[Archive]

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.

DJ

[Archive]

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..




Do grading companies buy high $$$ cards from auctions as well? Just a thought.

[Archive]

Posted By: HW

I bid on it in a prevous auction.

I believe that one of our own forum members owns this card. I wonder if he disclosed the work that was done to it.

Do you think that the removed blemishes are even visible?

[Archive]

Posted By: WP

It looks like pencil on the reverseof the card was erased was it ink??

[Archive]

Posted By: JudgeDred (Fred)

Wally,

Look a few posts up and you'll see a portion of the Mile High item description.... what happened to the wrinkle?

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

(censored)
(censored)

I could tales unfold...

[Archive]

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.

Soaking, by the way, will also reduce or minimize wrinkles in cards, and special erasers will remove writing without damaging the card.

[Archive]

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?).

[Archive]

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.

"Doctor, doctor give me some news. I've got a bad..."(pencil mark?)

BTW, who owns the card?

[Archive]

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.

grading is meant to bring consistency to the hobby. such examples demonstrate the short comings of the system

[Archive]

Posted By: JudgeDred (Fred)

Does anyone want to guess how many of these Keefe cards exist?

I would be willing to guess that the graded population of these cards is minimal so if there are two graded cards then the population report is off by 50%. Also, does this mean that SGC will now remove the SGC40 from their population report?

[Archive]

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...

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

I guess my point is that if the treatment does not involve the permanent addition to or replacement of a portion of the card (e.g., paper restoration, retouching text) or the physical alteration to a nonoriginal state (e.g., trimming), I wouldn't regard the card as being altered.

Perhaps SGC remembered the card as having that ink stain, but then felt that because it was removed without a trace remaining, they had to regrade it as if the ink stain never existed. If that is the case, in my view they did nothing wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

I don't have a problem with professional restoration which removes flaws from a card. It was just highly visible and profitable in this case. SGC clearly undergraded the card 1st time through, I'd have called it a 50. Appears to be a bit overgraded now, I would had called it a 70, it might be argued that Mastro got special treatment here. So a 1.5 improvement in grade is what you could had seen, rather than going to a "3" grade improvement.

I do find it annoying that people claim SGC "grades conservatively". To me, that means that SGC undergrades cards, that they ignore their own guidelines and not delivering the service that they promise. But for people who put cards into their collection, SGC does have the more attractive holder.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Josh

You raise an excellent point. Why wouldn't and more importantly why shouldn't the grading companies keep scans of rare high end cards they grade? Do any of them fact do this? (not have any high grade or rare cards, I seldom venture into this area, so my knowledge is limited)

When so much importance (and bid prices, it seems) is put by people on population reports, I can think that the grading companies are only leaving themselves open to criticism about the accuracy of their reports if they can't account for re-grades. It would seem like the prudent thing to do.

Max

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Manos

Jim,
That is incredible. It is amazing what people can do with paper. I have had a few similar experience with cards I consigned, ie... slabbed. I am always the guy selling them at the lower grade though... Great post...

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

<<if i causually erase a pencil mark sgc will reject the card as being altered>>

Just not true.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: david

below is a list of sgc rejection codes
SGC Rejection Codes:
Code Description Tag
A Altered ALT
B Bleached BLE
C Color Added COL
E Power Erased ERA
G Minimum Graded Not Met MIN
L Too Large to Holder (Oversized) LRG
N Miscut MIS
M Cannot/Do Not Grade NO
P Pressed PRS
R Rebuilt REB
S Too Small to Holder (Short) SML
T Evidence of Trimming TRM
X Counterfeit COU
Z Resurfaced SUR

A rejected card may exhibit additional alterations in addition to what is identified by the rejection code. SGC will reject a card upon identifying the initial evidence of alteration.

so i guess there is a difference between power erasing and regular erasing? where one is acceptable and one is not.

the reason psa gets bashed is because when they make a mistake the refuse to acknowledge the mistake and cover it up. in the past sgc has been more forthright with their mistakes and it will be interesting to see if they address this issue.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

David,

I believe that a "power erase" is quite different than a regular erase.

I once had a card that had been "power erased" which basically was a 1957 Topps which was off-center. Apparently someone had used an eraser, or electrical power eraser, to actually wipe out about a 1/8" strip of the entire image to make the image appear more centered. The ink is gone and the white card stock underneath looks like it is part of the border.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

I understand what you are saying.

However, my point is that in a regular erase, one may be trying to remove a pencil or pen mark that has been added after the manufacture of the card (something that was not intended to be there).

In a power erase, the whole image (or size of image) is altered by erasing the original ink for the picture - altering the card from how the card left the manufacturer. I think that this is a distinct difference.

[Archive]

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.

David, I guess you also have a problem with soaking a card in water to remove scrapbook paper from the back?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

There, I said it; happy, you PSA fans?

Just goes to prove that a really good removal job can beat the grading system of even the best graders. I think we've had threads on this exact issue before. Asking a grader to pick up a professional-caliber wrinkle or writing removal in many cases is asking the most difficult task for the grader. Not a justification, merely an explanation.

I've noticed that none of the graders are consistent w/r/t handling of writing on cards, removed or otherwise. Sometimes they grade them, sometimes they refuse to grade them as altered.

I do not fault any grading service for not keeping a photographic archive of graded cards. It would be impossibly expensive to go through an archive looking for every card submitted to see if it was the same. No one could afford to pay for that kind of time.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

As to removing stuff on cards that was not supposed to be there in the first place, like glue, ink and pencil...if it can be done without detection and without chemicals, why not? There are many types of ink that cannot be removed without using a professional restoration service.

I think you need to give the grading companies a break and trust that they (except for PSA based on the board consensus) put the cards through enough of an examination to determine if the cards have been altered. If you don't and have either lost confidence or never had any to begin with, then stay away from graded cards. I think they are more capable, certainly those at SGC and Mike Baker at GAI, than they are given credit for. Not sure I see the incentive for them to consciously holder a card that they even suspect might be altered. They make more money rejecting it and making the submitter try again (if he feels the card is worthy of grading) and absolve themselves of a potential liability.

[Archive]

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.

But I do agree that erasing a stray pencil mark is not altering the card. If anything, the pencil mark itself was an alteration to the card.

I also agree with Greg completely. There is nothing here to suggest that SGC missed an alteration that would prevent grading. We can only guess as to how the mark on the back was removed, how big it was, etc. Finally, as Ive repeated, unless they missed an improper alteration, there is no reason to expect that they would immediately recognize this card as one they have previously graded. I mean, sure, they may recall grading another yum yum keefe, but to remember what it looked like, how it was cut, or what distinctive marks were on the card - you got to be kidding.

[Archive]

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.

First, it is my understanding that non-power erasures are treated the same as marks, and downgrade the card but still lead to a numeric grade. A mark is technically an alteration, and its erasure would be as well, although the aesthetics could be remarkably different. I believe (but am not sure) that PSA will give a mark qualifier to a card that has been erased. A mark is a mark, whether a faint pencil stray or a barely visible erasure (assuming no paper loss). For purposes of a technical grade, they must be considered, but should not lead to rejection as altered, IMO.

Second, for grading card company consistency, standards must be adopted and followed. For example, as I understand it, a card with any kind of crease cannot grade greater than ex, and that's if it's a wrinkle. So too a a card with a mark should not exceed a lower to mid-level grade, regardless of appearance. Thus, IMO, the card in question should not have received an 80. We all know to buy the card and not the holder, and to that extent, much of this discussion is irrelevant. Still, there is a reason why we expect a more objective set of criteria, and the grading companies profess to follow that criteria, so consistency would require a lesser grade for that Keefe.

Third, as to whether SGC should have spotted this, I think the answer is yes. It certainly would be different, at least realistically, if we were talking about a 1961 Topps Chico Cardenas card, where dozens of examples have been submitted and thousands or more are laying around unslabbed for possible future grading submission. Here,the card is scarce and valuable, and extra attention warranted. I do not believe it unreasonable to expect a scan database of such cards, although it would be an interesting twist were this card to have initially graded low by PSA and then submitted to SGC after erasure--they certainly should not be expected to keep a database of cards they had not graded previously. BTW, I wonder how this thread would read if the SGC 40 card had turned into a PSA 6.

[Archive]

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.

It is entirely possible for a card to be altered or restored without leaving any evidence. All you need to do is look at many of the major auctions and then read the disclaimers to know that.

Part of grading a card does not involve searching through every conceivable auction that's happened in the past to try and figure out if that particular card had once been in lesser condition. A collector submits a card to a grading company, the grading company makes an assessment of the card, and then either they put it in a slab, or they don't.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

I agree Al.

People want to make all kinds of assumptions regarding this card that are unfair regardless of the grading company involved. To name a few:

1. SGC must have known the card had been graded before - thus requiring some sort of institutional knowledge and oversite. If this type of research were required for every card, how much do you think grading will cost - $50 a card, more? And how long will it take to get your cards back from grading - a month or two is my guess.

2. The "alteration" or erasure must have been evident. Since I doubt any of us experts have viewed the card in person and we dont have a scan of the back of the sgc 40 card, it is impossible, despite our best guesses as to where the pen may have been, to know if the erasure is detectable or not.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

It is not the first time, nor will it be the last.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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....

[Archive]

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.

As for what SGC should know, my point was that yes, in some instances they should know what they have graded, and probably have scans, where the card reaches a particular level of value or scarcity. Saying that such data cannot be kept on all cards and that grading costs would be probitive misses the point--in this particlaur case they shoould have known, IMO.

BTW, don't they already charge you more for grading when the card values reach a certain point? What are you getting for that extra charge? I would think they are giving the card a higher level of scrutiny, as the card itsef is not intrinsically different from a common, low valued card. Why shouldn't that include a heightened examination, and why not a scan database of their own, previously graded high-value cards? If they truly could not detect the erasure here, a quick review of a scan database would have shown that they graded this exact card previously. Seems like a prudent and not overly burdensome task.

[Archive]

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.