SGC-no mas

[sb1]

Probably why they no longer give them a numerical grade is the fact that most of the non-square frame subjects which are the only true blank back T204's are in fact early two-part cards that had the front and back adhered to each other and separated later in life due to moisture or damp environments. These early two-part cards are very scarce.

Most collectors are unaware of the two-part T204's and often buy these "blank back" cards thinking they are a scarce error when in fact they are not. Again, Anderson, Bancroft, Bransfield, Burkett, Dineen and Moran can and do come with blank backs and were made that way. If one had one of these blank backs and one of the supposed blank backs in hand they will find a difference in stock thickness.

[Brian]

Interesting--I did not know that. Thanks for the info.

[jbsports33]

I think it is just lack of experience from the graders and not enough good vintage graders for these types of cards. Sorry for the issues and have had similar problems in the past with other prewar cards. I like silks and have had problems even when SGC does grade them, some come back authentic – really and they should get a numerical grade. SGC has graded these for a long time. What is PSA going to do now? grade them as well because SGC does – most likely not – simply crazy. All you can do is move on and keep on collecting - Jimmy

[Brian]

So I think if SB's point were rigorously applied, they would never give a numerical grade to Zeenuts lacking the coupon, and they do (I have a bunch). They are also "separated" from ~1/4-1/3 of the card.

I spoke to SGC, and they said my points were "well taken."

[Yoda]

I can't help but wonder if SGC's new masters are calling the shots re. your T204 blank backed card.

[boneheadandrube]

I've sent around 1500 pre-war cards to PSA and over 2000 pre-war cards to SGC over the last decade. I have had WAY MORE aggravating moments with PSA than with SGC. That being said, both companies have had my blood pressure up with mistakes and/or questionable grades...NEVER have I had the inclination to go online and rant-blast either of them because I have seen it done a hundred times by as many people, and this tells me that neither service is perfect and that I'm not special in that regard. Its part of the modern hobby...

[iwantitiwinit]

Not that big a deal, they're only baseball cards, not worth getting that upset about.

[perezfan]

I would just display the card in a rigid toploader and call it a day. The Devo-esque bar code clashes with the ornate and antique beauty of the card anyway.

That said... there is a huge opportunity for a new Grading Company to rival SGC with the black apron. Would love to see it happen... or perhaps CSG can make the investment and change away from the unsightly baggie.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by jbsports33

...All you can do is move on and keep on collecting...

I found this point both poignant and universally applicable to all aspects of the hobby we may find objectionable.

SGC, PSA, Kurt's Card Care, auction houses, eBay, certain types of collectors, breakers, content creators, and other random nonsense. There's enough crap within this hobby. All we can really choose is how these things affect us.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by sb1

Probably why they no longer give them a numerical grade is the fact that most of the non-square frame subjects which are the only true blank back T204's are in fact early two-part cards that had the front and back adhered to each other and separated later in life due to moisture or damp environments. These early two-part cards are very scarce.

Most collectors are unaware of the two-part T204's and often buy these "blank back" cards thinking they are a scarce error when in fact they are not. Again, Anderson, Bancroft, Bransfield, Burkett, Dineen and Moran can and do come with blank backs and were made that way. If one had one of these blank backs and one of the supposed blank backs in hand they will find a difference in stock thickness.

Scott, not that clarification is necessary, but would a "thinner" blank back T204 be like a skinned OJ?

That's great information! Thank you!

Originally Posted by Brian

So I think if SB's point were rigorously applied, they would never give a numerical grade to Zeenuts lacking the coupon, and they do (I have a bunch). They are also "separated" from ~1/4-1/3 of the card.

I spoke to SGC, and they said my points were "well taken."

I completely agree with that - any Zeenut with the coupon removed should have AUTH on the label. All you can do is hope the TPGs understand the first couple years of Zeenuts didn't have coupons.

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Frustrating experience Brian.
I've always said if another TPG wanted to put SGC out of business all they would have to do is offer a black apron.

Now that is funny, and probably so true today.

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Not that big a deal, they're only baseball cards, not worth getting that upset about.

Sacrilege!

Originally Posted by calvindog

This one took months to get back from PSA; then I noticed the error and figured I'd call it a day.

OMG - the ultra rare Gogans with the "C" variation!



.

[sb1]

#23 Report Post
Unread Today, 10:34 AM
Fred's Avatar
Fred Fred is offlineFred
Member

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,015
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post
Probably why they no longer give them a numerical grade is the fact that most of the non-square frame subjects which are the only true blank back T204's are in fact early two-part cards that had the front and back adhered to each other and separated later in life due to moisture or damp environments. These early two-part cards are very scarce.

Most collectors are unaware of the two-part T204's and often buy these "blank back" cards thinking they are a scarce error when in fact they are not. Again, Anderson, Bancroft, Bransfield, Burkett, Dineen and Moran can and do come with blank backs and were made that way. If one had one of these blank backs and one of the supposed blank backs in hand they will find a difference in stock thickness.


Scott, not that clarification is necessary, but would a "thinner" blank back T204 be like a skinned OJ?

That's great information! Thank you!

As to value, perhaps similar to an AUT card. As to appearance, the back will be smooth, as these T204's were two parts put together, but the two pieces easily separated over time it seems.

Here is an example of the two-part cards

https://www.brockelmanauctions.com/T...-LOT17081.aspx

[bobbyw8469]

[ullmandds]

Ed cicolte? Was this ever corrected?

[sb1]

No, same on all.

I will say that is very strong embossing on the Cicotte, most of the two part cards have weak embossing. Could be that the soiling just highlights it. Either way, the highest it would have graded based on the wear would have been a 1. I don't think the label hurts the card(value) at all, it's still Cicotte and a tougher T204 as they get bought up and held.

[Yoda]

Scott probably knows more about Ramlys than all of us put together. He was involved in a big Ramlys find years ago and really is your go-to guy with any questions about this beautiful set. I still have a super Jimmy Collins in my PC he sold me at the National years ago.