hard lessons learned

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

This is how my collection got started. My first 14 Cracker Jack purchased. Roger Bresnahan no number in a BVG 4 holder. Buy it now on eBay for $1500. Wanting uniformity with PSA, I broke it out and sent it in for grading hoping for another 4. Dismayed and heart broken to learn it had been "altered", I spoke to customer service and unfortunately PSA couldn't/wouldn't tell me how it had been altered. I think I spent with shipping close to $100 to have it graded. I was a little annoyed that I wasn't given specifics on how it was altered. Wanting a second opinion I sent it in to SGC and they confirmed that it was altered and that someone had taken off the "number" on the back to make it the no number variety. I couldn't believe it! Who in their right mind would mess with a 100 year old beautiful work of art? It's not like the no number version is valued at a huge premium over the other one. Another $75 down the drain. Next I sent it back to BVG with the original serial number and tag asking if they'd just put it back in the original holder. They had their top guy take a look and he too came to same conclusion and because I had broken it out of the holder they couldn't put it back in. (my dumb mistake) Finally I sent it back to PSA and now it sits in my collection the most expensive "Authentic" ever slabbed! :-)

p.s. if you look at the back scan you can see a little smudge at the top over the "han" in Bresnahan but for the life of me can't see anything out of the ordinary above that where the number normally is.

[rainier2004]

This is how my collection got started. My first 14 Cracker Jack purchased. Roger Bresnahan no number in a BVG 4 holder. Buy it now on eBay for $1500. Wanting uniformity with PSA, I broke it out and sent it in for grading hoping for another 4. Dismayed and heart broken to learn it had been "altered", I spoke to customer service and unfortunately PSA couldn't/wouldn't tell me how it had been altered. I think I spent with shipping close to $100 to have it graded. I was a little annoyed that I wasn't given specifics on how it was altered. Wanting a second opinion I sent it in to SGC and they confirmed that it was altered and that someone had taken off the "number" on the back to make it the no number variety. I couldn't believe it! Who in their right mind would mess with a 100 year old beautiful work of art? It's not like the no number version is valued at a huge premium over the other one. Another $75 down the drain. Next I sent it back to BVG with the original serial number and tag asking if they'd just put it back in the original holder. They had their top guy take a look and he too came to same conclusion and because I had broken it out of the holder they couldn't put it back in. (my dumb mistake) Finally I sent it back to PSA and now it sits in my collection the most expensive "Authentic" ever slabbed! :-)

p.s. if you look at the back scan you can see a little smudge at the top over the "han" in Bresnahan but for the life of me can't see anything out of the ordinary above that where the number normally is.

That sucks, does anything glow under a black light on it?

[Exhibitman]

One lesson to be learned is never, ever crack the slab on a cross-over. I guess another is that Beckett doesn't know vintage too well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's not even close to the most expensive authentic ever slabbed. :D

[CW]

That does suck, and it wasn't a cheap experience, but based on the tone of your post it sounds like you will live and learn from it, while still enjoying your collection.

Thanks for sharing your story, as maybe someone else will read it and learn as well.

[scooter729]

I'm surprised they would still call it the "no number" variety since that is what was altered. In reality it should say its the number 17 variety, since that's how it began.

A "Magee" altered to be a "Magie" would not be slabbed as a "Magie" so I think this slab shouldn't state it in this manner.

Sorry about the experience with this one!

[brewing]

One lesson to be learned is never, ever crack the slab on a cross-over. I guess another is that Beckett doesn't know vintage too well.


I agree on both counts.

[HRBAKER]

Who in their right mind would mess with a 100 year old beautiful work of art?

Oh, several folks in this hobby I'm afraid if there's a buck to be made. Very sorry this happened to you.

[Brian Van Horn]

I'm sorry about your experience, but this is another example of why I do not recognize Beckett as a grader.

[thescooper]

I would of thought the "HONUS WAGNER" was the most expensive AUTHENTIC card!! Know what I mean?

[steve B]

So I have an odd question similar to why is it still shown as the no number if that's the alteration.


As a normal card - Shouldn't it get a 1 or 10? It's not much different from one with paperloss. Which it actually has. Of course there's some intent here, but looked at purely from a technical standpoint all paperloss should be treated the same right?

Steve B

[sox1903wschamp]

I'm sorry about your experience, but this is another example of why I do not recognize Beckett as a grader.

Agreed.

[DerekMichael]

That is a horrible story, and I am sorry you have not received justice.

Gorgeous card though, and I am sure it will look great in your collection.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Did you ask BVG to reholder it after you realized it was altered?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

@Steve B - Yeah I think the distinction being that if someone purposely alters the card with the intention to deceive vs. normal wear and tear

@I Only Smoke 4 the Cards - yes I actually sent BVG their tag that came out of the holder with serial # but since I had broken the card out they could no longer verify it was the same card they put in. (which I understand)

[Peter_Spaeth]

if you knew it was altered wasn't that inappropriate to get BVG to put it back in a 4 holder?:confused:

[abothebear]

He didn't "know" it was altered. the original Beckett opinion was still a valid opinion... until they changed their mind.

[Peter_Spaeth]

He didn't "know" it was altered. the original Beckett opinion was still a valid opinion... until they changed their mind.

Sure he did, SGC explained it to him.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

@peter_spaeth that's a valid point. The dealer I purchased it from said he'd give me a refund if it was still in the BVG holder. I wouldn't try and sell it to someone else given that both PSA and SGC came to same conclusion.
Such a shame though...card is incredibly clean and easily a 4 or 5.

[Peter_Spaeth]

@peter_spaeth

This ain't no Facebook.
This ain't no Twitter.
This ain't no fooling around.

:D