View Full Version : Undergraded?
Chicago206
03-23-2010, 12:19 PM
Im no grading expert by any means, but how does this card get a poor?
http://cgi.ebay.com/1911-Piedmont-350-460-T206-Buck-Herzog-Bo-SGC-10-Poor-1_W0QQitemZ220574313554QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Baseb all?hash=item335b40ec52
AndyG09
03-23-2010, 12:25 PM
There must be some paper loss we can't see on the scans. Sure does look nice though!
FUBAR
03-23-2010, 12:29 PM
might be a pinhole on his cap, or maybe a slight tear on the right shoulder..
hard to tell from the scan...
does look like a 40 at first glance...
Anthony S.
03-23-2010, 12:33 PM
There's a white squiggle on his collar, just to the left of his chin, that shouldn't be there. Could be someone etched it with a pin, or it could be paper loss, or maybe pen -- can't tell from the scan. Whatever it is, it's very minor.
wonkaticket
03-23-2010, 12:40 PM
http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/large/Untitled-1.jpg
Who knows perhaps minor paper loss, maybe a residue or mark..ahhh those wacky graders. :rolleyes:
Robextend
03-23-2010, 12:44 PM
Wow great looking Devlin! Sometimes its tough to see, but other times it can also be a mistake.
I sent a 1934 Goudey card in for review where I couldn't quite figure out what the problem was, and it got bumped up a grade...
Chicago206
03-23-2010, 12:46 PM
That Devlin looks like an easy 7, maybe 8 to my UNTRAINED eye!
teetwoohsix
03-23-2010, 12:49 PM
John,I would try to send that one back in to re-grade,,,that's insane!!That card looks no less than EX,,,,,,,
As for the OP's question--it surely doesn't look like a poor,,but the scan/photo is so dark,I think there has to be something we can't see too well.
Regardless,it is a beautiful "10" :D
Clayton
FUBAR
03-23-2010, 12:53 PM
Id be very happy with that Devlin
Herzog has a surface abrasion on his collar otherwise it's a 50.
ChiefBenderForever
03-23-2010, 01:17 PM
Look at the m on the back in piedmont, could be ink added or a small gouge in the back, something happened there that I think dropped this to a 1.
Jacklitsch
03-23-2010, 01:57 PM
That Devlin looks good to me. :rolleyes:
Seriously, the grade is appropriate. There is either paste or glue residue on the reverse. SGC kills a card with residue and will not grade it much above the assigned grade.
Potomac Yank
03-23-2010, 01:57 PM
That graders are capable of Undergrading, or Overgrading a card?
Isn't that what they use to say about some dealers in the early '80's?
The graders were suppose to eliminate that, or something to that effect.
The only difference that I see is ... the graders are great with corners, and sides, BUT some dealers, and collectors are better at Authentications.
Is it possible, that the reason why cards were cheaper during the non grading days ... was because we didn't have a middleman Undergrading, or Overgrading our cards? :)
Just a thought.
Joe P.
FUBAR
03-23-2010, 04:42 PM
I bought an Emmitt Smith graded a Gem Mint 10 by some grading company i cant remember, and when i received it, it was 70-30 centering at best.. i would have given it a 7 myself.
old-baseball
03-23-2010, 07:45 PM
When I got this back from SGC I was absolutely shocked. I couldn't understand why it should be graded 20 - Fair. Started to look a little closer and there's some paper loss on Mel Harder's shoulder in the white uniform just above his name. I never noticed it before the card was graded.
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=1905http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=1906
teetwoohsix
03-23-2010, 08:23 PM
That's an awesome looking 4 in 1 Kevin,,way nicer than the grade given.
Clayton
frohme
03-23-2010, 09:25 PM
As others have said, SGC is particularly specific and harsh - yet relatively consistent - about residue on the back.
This was graded May 2006, and while it holds no candle to John's Devlin (stunner!) it was knocked to the same grade for likely the same reason. The tape residue is only noticeable to the naked eye when tilted to the light - it is much more noticeable in the scan.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x51/frohme/Other/9007-1.jpg
wonkaticket
03-23-2010, 09:27 PM
Ouch Mike that hurts mine is the same thing residue only seen when held at an angle..
Super looking card Mike!
FUBAR
03-24-2010, 12:14 AM
you could always send it to BCCG and get an 8 or 9!!!!
Robextend
03-24-2010, 09:00 AM
you could always send it to BCCG and get an 8 or 9!!!!
They might have to create an "11" for those cards!!
onlychild
03-24-2010, 11:36 AM
Hummm...guess I'm always the skeptic. When I look at 206's (or same era) that have missing or rubbed off light blue colors, especially the background, I immediatley think of cleaned and/or bleached. Light blue is the first go...by far.
When I see that other cards being sold by the same person has missing light blue ink as well, I throw up a red flag. But that's just me and my personal opinion.
John's Devlin is a head scratcher though, light stain or not.
Kevin
Jantz
03-25-2010, 01:10 AM
On most home computers, under the accessibility function, there is a magnifier which will help when viewing cards to find defects and so-on. Another cool feature is that you can invert the colors on the image that you are magnifying. This is a very handy tool when viewing cards. When the colors are inverted it will point out wrinkles/creases, paper loss, pencil/ink stains, discoloration in borders etc. etc. etc.
Jantz