T206 Red Cobb SGC 60/Altered? on eBay

[whycough]

I've never seen a listing (by grays) like this before. Wonder what you people think of this. Read the entire listing, please. Most interesting.

[ullmandds]

that's bizarre! it looks trimmed to me. i'm a little surprised that sgc didn't make this right?
http://cgi.ebay.com/1910-T206-Ty-Cob...item2c53d8947d

[Clark7781]

Do you have a link or something?

[jp1216]

Ebay - Red Cobb SGC link

[M's_Fan]

It is a beautiful card, despite the corner in question. If it measures up to par, I'm not surprised it got a 60.

[calvindog]

Kind of a hilarious listing. It sounds like the seller has a major axe to grind with SGC and is selling the card solely to bash SGC. After all, the card normally sells for much less than the BIN price he has listed; so if the card is advertised as altered wouldn't it be worth less than the average selling price instead of 30% MORE? Finally, the card was just recently bought from a B & L auction. Perhaps Leon or Scott can talk about the provenance of the card.

[Matt]

Jeff - I was thinking similarly - maybe he's trying to use the listing to leverage a buyback from SGC; that would explain the high BIN.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Perhaps the focus should be not on the seller's motive for giving such a candid description, but on how the corner he describes could have become that way in the absence of an alteration. One suspects if it were a PSA card at issue there would be much more discussion of the merits.

[calvindog]

Well, considering that this thread exists I would say it's hard to complain that there is not a full discussion about this card.

It's pretty clear that the seller is off the rails a bit based on his listing and is trying to get SGC's attention because he wasn't satisfied with the response. To suggest that the seller is being "candid" here for altruistic reasons is just false. He's selling it for far more than it's worth as an SGC 60 and listing it as altered. He knows full well that the card will not get a bite at that price (or even half the price now). He bought the card for the very price he's selling it for -- clearly with the intention of trying to bump it to the higher grade. Why else would he buy the card for 30% more than it normally sells for in this grade?

I can't say that I fault the seller in the sense that if I was pissed at SGC or PSA with regard to their handling of such an issue I would probably do the same silly thing, i.e. cutting off my nose to spite my face type of thing. After all, the listing has gotten some attention.

And finally, Leon and Scott sold the card -- maybe one of them submitted it to SGC?

[Peter_Spaeth]

The only discussion of the merits so far is the one comment that it looked possibly trimmed. I don't have an opinion about that although it does look a tad short, but as I understand the seller's description of the corner, I can't fathom how it could be the result of natural wear. If someone more expert could comment that would be helpful.

[calvindog]

Peter, I hear you -- it's pretty damn clear on the scan. In fact, check out the B-L auction listing from which the ebay seller got the card: http://www.b-lauctions.com/site/bid/...etauctionid=78. Ray Charles could see the problem with the back corner in the scans they provided. Indeed, even the B-L listing notes the problem with the corner (which is provided in the ebay listing).

I'm not sure what the present owner was thinking -- perhaps he wasn't -- when he bought the card. And now he even claims that the card is short! Why on earth did he buy it then? He wants SGC to reimburse him for a card he noted was short prior to buying it? It's not like he bought the card from B-L and then cracked it out to check for trimming as he clearly admits in his listing.

Again, I'd like to hear from Leon or Scott about this. I'm curious if one of them submitted the card to SGC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't think it's clear at all from the scan -- I think whether the apparent lift that can be seen on the scan is the result of natural wear or alteration is something that could only be seen on examination of the card and probably with a loupe. Read the seller's description of why he feels the corner has been altered -- you absolutely could not identify the points of attachment from the scan, or at least I couldn't.

[calvindog]

And what about the size of the card? The seller admitted that he hasn't cracked it out to check for trimming yet claims it's short. He couldn't see that either in the B-L scan? He did -- he just had dollar signs impeding his vision.

As for the corner, I've seen T206s with cracks in the paper which look like that. Three corners suggest the card is a 7 or 8 in grade; the one corner knocked it down to a 5.

As for fraud, the card with those three perfect corners would probably grade a 3-4 anyway. How much fraud was the original submitter looking to make here?

[Peter_Spaeth]

As I read it the seller did not ask SGC to buy it back because it was short but rather because of the corner.

"The card was presented to SGC for a buy back due to the corner lift alteration and after review SGC found the card to be graded accurately."

[calvindog]

And as I noted, three corners which would grade 7-8 and one cracked corner knocked it down to a 5.

And now the ebay seller is sad that a card for which he paid a 30% premium with the hope of cracking it out and getting a bump is actually only worth the true price of an SGC 60. Speculators engage in speculation. You can't win them all.

Edited to add: the seller doesn't exactly have stellar feedback either. I'm guessing all those negs were from people who ripped him off too. Here's his response to one buyer who left him a neg:

"Here is the reason abortion should always be legal. Imagine hatching this creep."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Your focus is on the seller, mine is on whether SGC made a mistake here. I know it is sacrilege to suggest that on this board, but from the description anyhow (not having seen the card) that does not sound like a paper crack to me.

[calvindog]

Yes, the description provided by a mentally imbalanced seller who is clearly motivated to trash SGC and provide false info.

[Ladder7]

I've seen similar circumferential cracks where the fibers weren't completely severed. Of course they were all beaters.

Trimmed?.. I just assume all high-grade prewar is trimmed

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Yes, the description provided by a mentally imbalanced seller who is clearly motivated to trash SGC and provide false info.

Let he who is without bias cast the first stone.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let he who is without bias cast the first stone.

Agreed; so I guess that means both of us should stop posting on this thread.

[alanu]

It almost sounds like this buyer knows how bad the corner was popped, because it was done while he was trimming the card.

[lharri3600]

He had it listed a few days ago with a penny starting bid. Then he yanked it then put it up with the price he has now.:d

[lharri3600]

Alan,alan, ????????

[teetwoohsix]

My guess is that somewhere along the line the corner of this card got pinched in something.It may appear to have been re-attached,but maybe it's as simple as that-it may have been pinched in something.I'm just guessing,of course.

As far as the card being a little short,it doesn't always mean it's been trimmed,right?From what I've learned,these T206 cards can be slightly shorter or longer than the standard size (1 7/16" X 2 5/8")..........

SGC graded it,,,then this seller re-submitted it,and SGC stood behind their original grade after reviewing the card a second time-I would think they would scrutinize the card a little harder the second time around?

I think the card is a well deserved SGC 60.

Sincerely,Clayton

[ullmandds]

There are absolutely size variances amongst most cards, t206's being no exception...but I still think the card looks trimmed...just my opinion.

[nolemmings]

Seller discloses what he believes to be an alteration and there is no focus on the merits of the claim--instead he is called mentally imbalanced. Better I guess if he would just pass the buck and let the next poor schlep deal with the card.

Seller is asking what he paid for the card, and what was one increment more than some other bidder was willing to pay in a prior auction. The card, if unaltered, supports the price. If altered, is does not. If altered, it should be graded "A", or, if the alteration is removed, it might grade 3. Either way, it drops as much as a grand in value.

It appears seller was unable to obtain a refund from his auctioneer, and unable to get compensation from SGC. He is unhappy about that. I would be too. So he tries to get his money back, and states his observations about what he perceives to be a flawed card. Is this designed to leverage some relief? Maybe. Is it wrong? No. Frankly, I'm not sure I would not have done the exact same thing.

If there is no alteration and seller is wrong on that point, the next buyer will get a decent deal on a great card after full disclosure, and the market is unharmed. If the seller is right and kept his mouth shut, another bad card gets passed along through the hobby like the "Old Maid" in the children's card game. Auctioneer and SGC are apparently willing to stand behind their reputations on the card. Seller apparently is also. Time will tell.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Todd, are you suggesting it is even possible SGC made a mistake, much less made the same mistake twice? Remember where you are posting, my friend. With the possibility that the seller may be right about the alteration unfathomable, the only reasonable conclusion is that he is demented.

[e107collector]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that seller is a regular poster on the forum, "Bottom of the Ninth". Maybe he can shed some light on this whole situation.

Tony

[chaddurbin]

simple case of buyer and grader disagreeing on the assessment of a grade. imo i don't think sgc would've missed a reglued corner...twice, which is what the buyer is suggesting. maybe a flowery description here would've been nice because i'm confused to what a "popped" corner means (nicked, dented, severed, chopped, etc..)

[Al C.risafulli]

Greg knows his stuff. So does SGC. It's interesting, because even with the card in the holder there's CLEARLY an issue with that corner, definitely not something that would have been missed - and definitely not something that would have been missed if Greg submitted it and brought it to SGC's attention. I guess the question is whether its an alteration or simply a bad corner that took an otherwise EX-MT or NMT card down to just EX.

Interesting that there's such a difference of opinion from two entities that are so knowledgeable.

Greg, did you take the card out of the holder and examine that corner? From your description, I'm guessing you think the corner was rebuilt. Could it be a tear on the back? I've had some T206s where the chipping at the top edge of the back is so pronounced that it manifests itself almost like a tear. I've never seen it on a corner before, though. Many T206s seem to have chipping on the back of the top edge to one degree or another - is it possible that's what it is?

Either way, it's a shame. It's a gorgeous card. I know it's really common, but that's my favorite T206 Cobb.

-Al

[botn]

Well you asked and I am never short on words. I tried to condense this to something you could read quickly but I was not able to. For those who care to delve deeper…

The card was being purchased for my personal collection. I have dismantled my collection more times than I can count but have always gravitated to Cobb, Wagner and Jackson (Joe that is), along with certain Brooklyn Dodgers’ cards when I rebuild it. I have never had a T206 Cobb in my collection as my focus was generally on the more exotic issues. Visually, the SGC 60 had what I considered to be outstanding eye appeal, which is something that is very important to me. The card presented as NM, maybe better in the scan, not taking into account the obvious corner irregularity which I had concluded was nothing more than a flipped corner, which I have seen on many issues.

Prior to bidding I asked Leon, who referred me to Scott, if the corner was creased or bent from the front, as it appeared there was an impression, but it was simply the scan (which is the same scan I am using for my ebay listing). I acknowledged to them I was aware of the corner flaw, and playfully referred to it as a “hanging chad.” Scott examined the corner with a loupe and told me there was no wrinkle or crease, only some wear. Looking back maybe I should have expected him to notice the corner was detached as I did when I used a loupe to examine it. I certainly never thought to ask the question based on what could be seen in the scan as it appears the loose piece was only severed at the bottom. Dunno, maybe he too never thought to look at the corner with consideration of it being altered. Anyway, I was good to go. Thought to myself, “NM on the front EX on the back due to the flip makes this a sold EX card.”

I won the card for a strong price but an EX which is that nice is well worth the premium. Upon getting the card I did not like the way the corner looked and decided to loupe it and instantly saw the corner was severed circumferentially and could only be hanging on by a few fibers of paper, at best, which I just did not see as plausible. When it comes to the cards I retain in my collection I am hyper vigilant about their passing my scrutiny of not only being worthy of the grade but not having been messed with. Ask those who know me what I have done to cards I have purchased for my collection that have turned out to be altered. I would be happy to share a picture or two.

To make a short story longer, I contacted SGC immediately after having examined the card. Sean told me to send it in and told me a very upstanding submitter sent the card to them and it was crossed over from a GAI 6.5. VCP has only one record of a GAI 6.5 selling, which I believe was back in 2006. I forwarded Leon the email string with Sean as I thought he should know what was going on. I never asked Leon or even intimated that I felt he should take the card back. He was not the person in SGC’s grading room to make the decision to place it in a holder. I will not go repeat the content of our emails without Leon’s permission but I did feel his responses were a little defensive or hands off but maybe I misinterpreted them. My issue was not with Scott or Leon. In my book, liability transfers to a grading company once they put their name on it. After all they are the ones who offer guarantees.

I have never had any luck in cards being bought back from grading services though I know they have, just not any of the ones I present to them. I reluctantly sent the card to Sean. And as I expected prior to sending it in, the card came back as having graded properly and SGC stood behind the graders' assessment.

I have not examined the card outside the holder as that would void any possibility of the “guarantee”. Have done that far too many times already and I would be happy to provide scans of those cards too. The Cobb is far too obvious an example of an altered card just based on the back corner. I am also uncertain if the card had been trimmed as it is smaller than usual and measures 1/16th of an inch smaller, however I know cards vary in size and could not determine as much without breaking it out. This was less of an issue for me given the severity of the back corner issue. It is a Catch 22. You have to break a card out to determine if it is altered but then once you prove it you have voided your guarantee. So what good is the guarantee?

Prior to listing the card on ebay I did ask Sean twice if he could have someone there submit the card to PSA and if it graded EX I would reimburse them for all the fees and issue an apology. He did not want to take me up on the suggestion.

I have put the card out for what I paid for it disclosing what I feel is wrong with it and do not think I have diminished its value in any way as SGC has after all, seen the card twice and agrees with their assessment. Until I start GDS grading and steal their market share I would say their opinion carries far more weight than mine. Not just here on this board but the hobby in general.

[Potomac Yank]

Again I say:

Graders did not improve on the grading non uniformity that they were suppose to replace.
They just became a third party, middlemen.

Put that in a Pop Report.

[calvindog]

Greg, I had to laugh at the description of the SGC submitter as "very upstanding." In our hobby? That's like being the Mayor of Simpleton, or the tallest pygmy.

And for the record, Greg's not insane, at least in my estimation.

[botn]

Originally Posted by calvindog

And for the record, Greg's not insane, at least in my estimation.

Hey what do you know, you're just a lawyer. I would feel better if there were a shrink on the board who could corroborate that. Heck I would accept the opinion of any of the dentists who post here...

[Peter_Spaeth]

In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by botn

Hey what do you know, you're just a lawyer. I would feel better if there were a shrink on the board who could corroborate that. Heck I would accept the opinion of any of the dentists who post here...

I was a psych major, too. And I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[botn]

Someone close Jeff's eyes or turn off his computer...

Here is a pic of a card I bought for my collection in a well respected 3rd party grading company's VG holder. Looked great in the holder would not cross over so I broke it out. Was submitted to both PSA and SGC multiple times and never regraded.

[Anthony S.]

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

[sox1903wschamp]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

x2

[onlychild]

About the CJ:

"Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it."



Kevin

[teetwoohsix]

Anger management?

[botn]

Here is a 1200 dpi scan of the front and back of the corner of the T206 Cobb SGC 60. SGC calls this a "corner pull" deeming it a legitimate and natural flaw. From the scan of the front you can clearly see a VG-EX naturally aged and worn corner with a donor piece behind it that is EXMT+ to NM. This is the corner which Derek Grady, so I have been told, has examined, not once but twice, and states is "fine."

I don't know about any of you but I have never seen this type of flaw on a card and not sure how such a flaw could occur naturally. Would love to know what Kevin Saucier thinks. Kevin????


Greg

[slidekellyslide]

How do the other corners look? It'd be hard to believe a card could get that much wear only on one corner.

[FUBAR]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Anger management?

That quote my friend is from "fast times at Ridgemont High" when they run the guys car into the wall of bricks

[teetwoohsix]

Good one Jim!!

Thanks for providing the high res scans-I would also like to hear what Kevin thinks of this.

Sincerely,Clayton

[slidekellyslide]

It definitely looks like a built up corner that came apart...you'd have to think that the other corners were altered as well right?

[botn]

The other 3 corners are not built up. They are NM or slightly better however I cannot rule out whether or not the card is trimmed on the bottom which would account for the higher grade appearance.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Lol.

[botn]

This thread will be directly responsible for 12 new OT threads in the next 24 hours.

[Jim VB]

Nothing happens until you get outraged and demand that a moderator lock/delete this thread.

Then the fun begins.