View Full Version : SGC Grade of "0 - C"
t206hound
08-19-2010, 12:51 PM
Just checked my submission status, and one of my T206 cards has a grade listed as: "0 - C"
What is this?
glchen
08-19-2010, 12:54 PM
If you look at:
http://www.sgccard.com/grading_scale.htm
It seems to say:
0 = back surface
C = color added
t206hound
08-19-2010, 12:54 PM
I see that it indicates "color added" on the back... didn't think that the crayon would result in a rejection since ink, pencil and stamps don't.
Rob D.
08-19-2010, 12:54 PM
C = Color Added
0 = Back-Back Surface
http://www.sgccard.com/grading_scale.htm
Robextend
08-19-2010, 12:56 PM
I believe that indicates Color Added.
When you submit you have the option of having the card being slabbed as an "A" if it is deemed altered.
I see that it indicates "color added" on the back... didn't think that the crayon would result in a rejection since ink, pencil and stamps don't.
Conjecturing here, but a distinction could be made between that which is done to alter/enhance the card like coloring in borders and that which is done with no such intent.
Exhibitman
08-19-2010, 04:36 PM
Since intent is so hard to figure I'd simply prefer an "A" with an explanation note on the flip, like "color added to back" or "trimmed left edge".
Since intent is so hard to figure...
I think in most cases with cards it's pretty easy to figure - when someone writes a players name or position on a card it's not done with intent to make the card appear as if it's in better condition then it was; when they take a black marker and color in the border on an N300 then it is. Of course your point is well taken in those cases where there is some ambiguity (I'm actually curious which way the TPGs would go with those) would , but IMO most cases are pretty clear.
t206hound
08-19-2010, 09:00 PM
I was wrong about which card was rejected. I assumed that it was the one with crayon, but it wasn't. The one with crayon graded a 10 as expected. The rejected card was the Stovall from this ebay listing... reference the back scan on the right:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370392708814
I think in most cases with cards it's pretty easy to figure - when someone writes a players name or position on a card it's not done with intent to make the card appear as if it's in better condition then it was; when they take a black marker and color in the border on an N300 then it is. Of course your point is well taken in those cases where there is some ambiguity (I'm actually curious which way the TPGs would go with those) would , but IMO most cases are pretty clear.
I absolutely agree with this statement. I also believe SGC will look at "intent" on the "marks" too. I am surprised that a crayola on the back of a card would get an A. I would guess there is something else wrong. If not, then they must have felt the crayola was meant to enhance the card in some way. best regards
woops, I missed reading that last post....my assumption was correct :)