View Full Version : Upgrades, Downgrades & What the !@#$#$%
I really felt this had a shot of going from 5.5 to 6. SGC agreed and I am very happy. It deserved this holder. Show Upgrades, Downgrades & What the !@#$#$% cards if you care to :).
barrysloate
08-10-2011, 09:03 AM
That's a great card to have in an 80 holder...and I too thought it was undergraded when you first posted it.
DixieBaseball
08-10-2011, 09:50 AM
Leon - That Cobb looks better than a 6 to me. :)
- I took this card to the National with intent to ask for an upgrade, but I forgot (Card was buried in my stack). Kinda bummed about it as I have been planning to plead my "Case" for 6 months. I have compared this card to my other 6's as well as other pre-war cards in 7 holders and I can't help but to think this is undergraded. I didn't want to mail it in and have it sent back with no action, as I have never seen another T210 look better. I was even going to ask for a 7, but settle for a 6.5 ! Oh well... I will take it next year.
hanksta
08-10-2011, 10:03 AM
Man that's a nice T210 Jeremy!
I don't have very many BVG graded cards in my collection, it is about 60% SGC, 30% PSA and 10% GAI but I had the opportunity to cross over the T207Weaver in to a 3 holder with BVG and was pleased with their service. They also graded a couple of Series 6 T210s for me at the same time and wouldn't cross over a Matty which I had asked for a full bump and they said they could give it only a .5 bump.
I think their service was excellent and will use them again. They seem to grade fairly but strictly. My one gripe is their holder doesn't have the eye appeal of SGC.
It was obvious BVG is more often used by collectors with the newer cards as everyone at the booth was dropping off shiny stuff, but with all the rumors about SGC and its future I may start giving BVG a chance from time to time.
Jaybird
08-10-2011, 11:48 AM
Hey Leon,
What was the procedure? Did you leave it in the holder and walk it up to the table or did you crack it and do a blind resubmit? Just wondering. It definitely deserves the 6.
Hey Leon,
What was the procedure? Did you leave it in the holder and walk it up to the table or did you crack it and do a blind resubmit? Just wondering. It definitely deserves the 6.
The card had a piece of dirt wedged between the card and the case, right on his cheek. It bugged the crap out of me so I cracked it out to start with. The piece of dirt flew off of him without me touching the card. I submitted the card in a toploader with the flip that was on the old holder...and it came back an 80 instead of a 70.
Jaybird
08-10-2011, 12:23 PM
I had a e90-1 CLarke with razor sharp corners (since sold to another board member) that I submitted a couple of times to SGC and once to PSA. there was a microscopic paperloss just in white area on the back that you could only see with a loupe. Came back a 2 each time.
So either I was missing something else or the graders were on their game those days. The first time it came back a 2, it took me a couple minutes to even find the problem.
danmckee
08-10-2011, 01:57 PM
Absolute 6, no question. Glad to see justice has been served.
Woundedduck
08-10-2011, 03:46 PM
I got this graded at the show. It was my first time ever grading anything. I was pretty happy with the result. I didn't think it would grade this high although I really don't have any experience with grading.
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff297/woundedduck/PC%20vintage%20NFT/shoeless.jpg
I missed you at the show Leon. I stopped by the booth, but you were out and about. I wanted to personally say thanks for your help over the past year as I've gotten into vintage. I've been able to pick up a few things aftering getting your opinion on authenticity. Thanks, even though it's not in person :)
e107collector
08-10-2011, 04:14 PM
I thought because of the centering, this card wouldn't have gotten a high grade, but the folks at SGC said it has the nicest surface they have ever seen on an E90-2.
brob28
08-10-2011, 07:23 PM
Not pre-war, but I though this one would grade higher.
asoriano
08-10-2011, 09:41 PM
I thought I'd take a chance and buy this card with the intention of crossing it at National. I really thought this card had a chance at receiving a SGC 60.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/9021/kgrhqnjke3llehtkbohsvio.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/163/kgrhqnjke3llehtkbohsvio.jpg/)
It now resides as a 50, but still looks great:
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/654/dahlen.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/15/dahlen.jpg/)
3-2-count
08-10-2011, 10:10 PM
But looks much more appealing in the SGC holder Turner. Nice card.
steve B
08-11-2011, 06:34 AM
Here's mine. The only flaw is a slight bend in the lower left. You can only spot it as a change in gloss while moving the card in just the right light.
I think I'm going to have this one reviewed, their standards say a "spider crease" is ok on a 60, and a 60 with better centering etc can be a 70.
Steve B
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=2593
3-2-count
08-11-2011, 07:21 AM
Graded at the Nat'l via PSA's $12 buck special not once but twice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this one qualifies as one of those "what the !@#$#$% type of cards", right?? :eek: No creases whatsoever, but got downgraded due to a couple very light paper rubs on the reverse above the letter "A" in cigarettes and above the letters "FA" in factory. Very hard to pick up. :mad:
IMO, this one would look right at home in a 5 or 6 slab.........
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/andreatny/johnsonportfront.jpg http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/andreatny/johnsonportback.jpg
Bridwell
08-11-2011, 11:42 AM
Wow, Tony. That's an awesome card! I've found that PSA will give a 2 if they find even the slightest bit of glue residue. Sometimes a card like yours will get a 4 with tiny paper loss but they hate glue residue for some reason! Go figure...
Graded at the Nat'l via PSA's $12 buck special not once but twice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this one qualifies as one of those "what the !@#$#$% type of cards", right?? :eek: No creases whatsoever, but got downgraded due to a couple very light paper rubs on the reverse above the letter "A" in cigarettes and above the letters "FA" in factory. Very hard to pick up. :mad:
IMO, this one would look right at home in a 5 or 6 slab.........
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/andreatny/johnsonportfront.jpg http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/andreatny/johnsonportback.jpg
Crazy....just crazy.....We can see a beat up looking piece of poo-poo get a 3-4 sometimes and a beautiful card like that gets a 2. I realize it's hard to grade on aesthetics but I feel, at some point, common sense has to be a factor. Great card Tony...and would surely sell for what a 3-4 would....(it looks like a 5.5 to 6 to me) ...regards
barrysloate
08-11-2011, 11:56 AM
Since PSA graded the Johnson a 2 twice, I would try one more time and send it to SGC. It's too nice not to.
PSA hates glue residue and SGC butchers cards (even blank backs) with the most minute paper loss despite beautiful fronts. At least a collector knows this going in.
ls7plus
08-11-2011, 04:01 PM
That Johnson reminds me of the 1910 PC796 Sepia Johnson I won in the last REA auction. The latter appeared EXMT-NMT, with nice centering and corners, but had been downgraded to "good" by SGC due to a near-microscopic pinhole and light indentations near two corners from being kept in a photo-type album. Value is now and will continue to be heavily influenced by eye appeal, as well as technical grade. Both the T206 Johnson and Leon's Cobb are really nice cards, and any collector would be proud to showcase both in his collection.
Best wishes,
Larry
sycks22
08-11-2011, 05:12 PM
I recently popped a '51 Bowman Williams out of a 88 case and resent back into SGC in hopes of getting a 92 and it happened. It's always fun tripling the value of a card with only a .5 bump.
3-2-count
08-11-2011, 06:39 PM
Just gett'in home from work and able to jump back into this thread. Thanks for the kind words everyone. It really is a crime what this card graded numerically, regardless of reason.
Luckily I'm one of those guys who puts zero stock into what's shown on a cards flip. Eye appeal trumps all, as well it should..... Happy collecting!!
joeadcock
08-11-2011, 07:31 PM
Beautiful Johnson, looks great even with the low grade.
Also a great looking E 90-2 prior
scooter729
08-12-2011, 06:48 AM
This card of mine is perfect for this - I have no idea why this got a 2, but I cracked and re-subbed to PSA and they were consistent with the 2. Anyone with any guesses?
DixieBaseball
08-12-2011, 08:55 AM
This card of mine is perfect for this - I have no idea why this got a 2, but I cracked and re-subbed to PSA and they were consistent with the 2. Anyone with any guesses?
Scott - My guess would be very small paper loss or possible eraser marks. PSA will give you the reason if you ask them.
Beautiful card!
Bridwell
08-12-2011, 08:23 PM
My guess is that it has a very slight glue residue on the back somewhere. You might have to take it out of the case and feel the back with your fingers to find it. It is a beautiful card.
teetwoohsix
08-13-2011, 12:36 AM
Tony & Scott-
That's a shame.........no way those should've been graded 2's.
Beautiful cards !!
Sincerely, Clayton
I just got these three cards in the mail today and they don't seem to match their grades at all. I haven't submitted anything to PSA in years, but it seemed like you used to be able to specify "no qualifiers" so on a card that would have graded a PSA 7 (OC) due to VG centering they would just give it an unqualified PSA 3 instead. Maybe that's what happened with these? :confused:
http://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss249/doug45121/1952TSchoendienst.jpghttp://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss249/doug45121/1952TFeller.jpghttp://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss249/doug45121/1952TDoby.jpg
rjackson44
08-19-2011, 10:20 AM
Love the site thank you for accepting me as a memeber,,awesome card just stunning wow,,,as always great stuff you have thanks for showing
Rich Klein
08-19-2011, 08:33 PM
On that T-202 is that a photo of Joe Jackson sliding :)
Rich
Scott - My guess would be very small paper loss or possible eraser marks. PSA will give you the reason if you ask them.
Beautiful card!
Does SGC provide reasons as well? I shot an email off to them 10 days ago after getting some cards graded and haven't had any response at all.
jcmtiger
08-19-2011, 10:19 PM
Leon, as a Ty Cobb collector I am jealous, that is a Great Card!!!
Joe
Leon, as a Ty Cobb collector I am jealous, that is a Great Card!!!
Joe
Thanks Joe. Short story on the T205 Cobby. The first time I posted it, right after I got it, a good hobby friend called me and asked me how much it was? I said it isn't for sale. He said, but you don't collect cards like that? I said, I know but I have always wanted that card, but only one that fit my standards for what I thought that card should look like AND was within my meager price range. As I said before in a poll about T205's, I just think that Cobby is the epitome of what a T205 should be. Anyone that doesn't think these cards are a form of art need look no further. And here is a Chase that was graded correctly....
http://luckeycards.com/pfunctangochase.jpg
3-2-count
08-20-2011, 11:15 AM
Leon that Chase card is fantastic!! Bet it even looks prettier in person.....
old-baseball
08-20-2011, 12:37 PM
If these are SGC NM 84's....
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=4360http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=4361
.... what's wrong with these?
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=4362http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=4363
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=4364http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=4365
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=4366http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=4368
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=4369http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=3764
Bridwell
08-20-2011, 09:17 PM
Whenever I see the color rubbed off 2 or 3 corners or edges, I figure the card should get an 80 at best. It wouldn't be worth re-submitting any of those I don't think.
shaunsteig
08-21-2011, 09:43 PM
a little hard to tell about those 1935 Goudeys. they appear to be scanned against a light background, which seeps in through the corner of the SGC holders, and makes discerning the true sharpness of the corners somewhat difficult.
may I submit this for the "What the !@#$#$%" consideration:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-zZ5XXzsQOSc/TWMrskjn30I/AAAAAAAAFUU/57uVyTC_WjU/s640/1940%252520Play%252520Ball%252520%2525239%252520Ke ller%252520-%252520front.jpghttps://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-tGZmPjsUm8s/TWMrs96jYoI/AAAAAAAAFUc/N7dFLcq1shQ/s640/1940%252520Play%252520Ball%252520%2525239%252520Ke ller%252520-%252520rear.jpg
There's a surface wrinkle to the left of his hat and maybe some scuffing to the right, but otherwise I thought it was pretty solid. (the smudge on the back by the E of his last name is a scan artifact). PSA gave it a PR 1. :mad:
MikeGarcia
08-23-2011, 08:25 AM
you can barely make out the glue /paste stains...but a ''1'' ? Cold.
a little hard to tell about those 1935 Goudeys. they appear to be scanned against a light background, which seeps in through the corner of the SGC holders, and makes discerning the true sharpness of the corners somewhat difficult.
may I submit this for the "What the !@#$#$%" consideration:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-zZ5XXzsQOSc/TWMrskjn30I/AAAAAAAAFUU/57uVyTC_WjU/s640/1940%252520Play%252520Ball%252520%2525239%252520Ke ller%252520-%252520front.jpghttps://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-tGZmPjsUm8s/TWMrs96jYoI/AAAAAAAAFUc/N7dFLcq1shQ/s640/1940%252520Play%252520Ball%252520%2525239%252520Ke ller%252520-%252520rear.jpg
There's a surface wrinkle to the left of his hat and maybe some scuffing to the right, but otherwise I thought it was pretty solid. (the smudge on the back by the E of his last name is a scan artifact). PSA gave it a PR 1. :mad:
I honestly don't know how any grader or hobbyist could give that card a 1. That is disgraceful and almost shows incompetence, imo. I mean really, not even a "1.5", which would still be an insult to that beauty??
I honestly don't know how any grader or hobbyist could give that card a 1. That is disgraceful and almost shows incompetence, imo. I mean really, not even a "1.5", which would still be an insult to that beauty??
Is there really a difference between a 1 and a 1.5? LOL. Appears there is paste or glue residue on the reverse so the technical grade would be right on. If ya grade ya got to be willing to play by their rules.
Is there really a difference between a 1 and a 1.5? LOL. Appears there is paste or glue residue on the reverse so the technical grade would be right on. If ya grade ya got to be willing to play by their rules.
Actually there is a difference between a 1 and a 1.5. That is why I made the comment. That card shouldn't be a 1, rules included.