time to play.... [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

11-23-2002, 12:14 AM

Posted By: jay behrens  geuss the SGC grade. Everyone is eligble to play except Lee since he already knows the answers. click on the link and try to geuss the grade SGC gave. I know, I don't have back scans, but they are just as nice as the fronts with no paper loss or centering problems. <img src="http://webpages.charter.net/sabrjay/e50pics/e50cody.jpg"> Hint on the Roosevelt card, max grade for a diamond cut is 84 <img src="http://webpages.charter.net/sabrjay/e50pics/e50roosevelt.jpg"> <a href="http://webpages.charter.net/sabrjay/n36pages/manchief.html" target=_new>http://webpages.charter.net/sabrjay/n36pages/manchief.html</a> <img src="http://webpages.charter.net/sabrjay/63oliva.jpg"> Jay

Archive

11-23-2002, 10:37 AM

Posted By: Dan Mathewson...but I don't want any rocks thrown at me anymore. LOL...

Archive

11-23-2002, 10:39 AM

Posted By: jay behrensgo for it, I won't be throwing any at you Jay- because I fling poo :p

Archive

11-23-2002, 11:13 AM

Posted By: MWCards 1 & 2 -- trimmed/irregular cuts -- not graded Card 3 -- SGC 80 Overall, it's difficult to tell without seeing the cards in person. Corner wear and small creases do not show up well in some scans.

Archive

11-23-2002, 11:31 AM

Posted By: jay behrensall cards recieved grades, although I had my doubts that the Cody would pass muster. Jay

Archive

11-23-2002, 11:34 AM

Posted By: MWCards 1 & 2 -- SGC 50

Archive

11-23-2002, 11:36 AM

Posted By: jay behrenswhy only 50 on them? Jay

Archive

11-23-2002, 11:44 AM

Posted By: Brian WeisnerAlright Jay I'll Bite, 80,70,84.

Archive

11-23-2002, 11:48 AM

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)80-60-80.

Archive

11-23-2002, 11:52 AM

Posted By: runscott36-24-36

Archive

11-23-2002, 11:53 AM

Posted By: jay behrensgeuss I better slab some of the 19th century actress cards I got for Scott. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> Jay

Archive

11-23-2002, 11:59 AM

Posted By: Mike WilliamsNice one Scott!

Archive

11-23-2002, 12:09 PM

Posted By: MWAlthough perhaps virtually all cards from that series had that type of cut...I'm really not that familiar with it.

Archive

11-23-2002, 12:13 PM

Posted By: TBobBut with the slabbers, who knows?

Archive

11-23-2002, 12:20 PM

Posted By: Dan Mathewson...but, no poo, Jay. LOL... Number 1: Deserves an 84/7, (got an 80/6 or a 70/5.5) Surface looks nice; centering is good up/down, side to side, sits slightly left; edges look nice; corners slightly touched. No creases. Number 2: Deserves a 70/5.5, (got a 60/5 or 50/4) Surface looks nice; centering is good side/side, up & down, tho, it sits a little high; edges look nice; corners slightly touched. No creases. (Lower grade factored for diamond cut). Number 3: Deserves an 86/7.5, (got an 84/7 or an 80/6) Surface looks nice; centering is good all around; edges look nice; corners slightly touched. No creases. That's my guess, from the scans. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

11-23-2002, 12:23 PM

Posted By: leon60-50- 80

Archive

11-23-2002, 01:29 PM

Posted By: Dan Mathewson...without Flinging any Poo... Show us what's behind door #1, 2 and 3..

Archive

11-23-2002, 01:41 PM

Posted By: petecld60 - 50 - 80

Archive

11-23-2002, 01:48 PM

Posted By: jay behrensgeuss we need to start calling him Ms Cleo. Cody got a 60 Teddy 50 Oliva 80 there was also a link to another card, it got a 70 based on those grades, I double dog dare Pete to crack the SGC70 e93 Collins he bought from me and resubmit it for grading. The Collins is no doubt an EX+ by anyone's standard, but given the harness that befalls almost all caramel issues Ir eally doubt that card would ever get a 70 and 50 wouldn't be out of the question. Personally, I will sending a note to SGC that I will not be getting any of my cards slabbed by them until they start issuing report cards as to why a grade was given. I would be surprised if they graders don't ahve something like this already tot ake notes on the card as they grade it. Why can't they include these notes with the card. This another I did not show here becuase I do not have a scan of it, but thought it would pull an 80 or so, but got a 50. I really want to know what is wrong with the card to get a 50 when I couldn't see any flows other than a minor chip on the corner similar to the one on the Oliva card in the upper left corner. If everyone started sending messages to SGC that they want report cards with their cards, maybe they will listen. I would certainly be willing to pay a little extra to have it. Jay

Archive

11-23-2002, 01:48 PM

Posted By: leoncopycat !!

Archive

11-23-2002, 01:59 PM

Posted By: leonWith all due respect a report card is nice but consistant grading is key. The reason I guessed the cards is because I have Derek in my pocket (NOT...that's a joke).....but IMHO they are very consistant. My T217 got an 80 and I wanted an 84 <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> but alas ( I just like saying "alas") it did not make it....and most of my other SGC cards are fairly graded too. I have gotten them to re-evaluate, and change, only one grade for me. It is a 1914 CJ Knabe and I made a case that they should not have knocked it so bad for the caramel stains....hell, without them I would think something might be up <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> and Derek agreed and gave it one grade higher.....best regards all.....

Archive

11-23-2002, 02:25 PM

Posted By: Julie VognarCorners are soft on Cody; teddy's a diamond cut, and any excuse will do--I really couldn't see anything wrong with the Olivia, though the upper left hand corner may be a bit thin on the color, and when I can't see anythiung, SGC can usually see 20 points.

Archive

11-23-2002, 03:32 PM

Posted By: runscottmight be 80-60-80 <a href="http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=27804" target=_new>http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=27804</a>

Archive

11-23-2002, 03:49 PM

Posted By: Dan MathewsonBecause I think we're on the same page in a few respects, at least... >>> ...I will not be getting any of my cards slabbed by them until they start issuing report cards as to why a grade was given. <<< This has been one of my main gripes, and a reason I switched grading companies. >>> ...a report card is nice but consistant grading is key... <<< And this was my other main gripe and reason for switching. OK, everyone can start throwing rocks again. LOL...

Archive

11-23-2002, 04:24 PM

Posted By: jay behrensyes, we all want consistant grading, but when you submit a card that you think could pull an 80 and it comes back a 50 and you cannot find any flaws that would warrant that grade, then a report card would be nice. Would also save them a lot of headaches with people calling and writing wondering why their card was given a certain grade. Wihtout disclosing why a card was given its grade, you may as well be spinning a wheel to get the grade as far I am concered. There is no reason for secrecy regrading why a card got a given grade. Jay

Archive

11-23-2002, 04:41 PM

Posted By: MWJay -- Take a look at the top left and lower left corners on the first card. I think that the assigned grade is consistent with SGC standards. Dan -- I don't think your best interests are being served by a grading company that is most interested in making things look "pretty." Sure, Grade Tech issues a report card, but take some cards to them at a show and ask their opinion about something and I think you'll understand why they need more practice before they start encapsulating more vintage baseball cards. I think you're at a point now where you just need to sit down with a grader and discuss some of the finer points of grading. I remember when I first started selling PSA cards and I was still confused about their grading standards (I guess to a certain extent, I still am). But after spending many hours talking to their head grader, I become much more comfortable with how they graded cards. Bring some cards to SGC and talk to one of the graders. I think they'll answer many of your questions and address many of your concerns. You just want a grading company that is consistent & reliable -- one that you'll feel comfortable with -- I understand that.

Archive

11-23-2002, 04:43 PM

Posted By: MWlower right, not lower left.

Archive

11-23-2002, 05:09 PM

Posted By: Dan Mathewson...thanks MW. From me and my "pretty holders" which I guess is the "sole reason" why I went with them. Heh heh....you guys are a hoot. -dan

Archive

11-23-2002, 05:18 PM

Posted By: jay behrensstill doesn't warrant a 60. How the card isn't at least a 70 is beyond me. There is one perfect corner, one with lightest of wear adn 2 others with noicable wear and the card is dead center with no stains, but nothing to warrant downgrading the whole card to EX. Especially when compared to the other cards I ahve that are graded 60 and 70. Someone mentioned consistancy in grading is important, well, wihtout a report card I can't justify the grade this card and few of my other cards got. Not that it's grossly out of line, but it certainly doesn't deserve a grade of EX Jay

Archive

11-23-2002, 05:20 PM

Posted By: MWDan -- I didn't write or otherwise indicate that "pretty holders" were the "sole reason." Take, for instance, the pretty customer service voices on the phone and the pretty report cards...I'm sure there are many other "attractive" reasons too. Certainly, if I were only describing the holders, I would have written "art decorative" or "modern & metallic."

Archive

11-23-2002, 05:22 PM

Posted By: MWthere is also some discoloration on both the right and left borders.

Archive

11-23-2002, 05:45 PM

Posted By: petecldNo, great minds think alike.

Archive

11-23-2002, 06:00 PM

Posted By: Dan MathewsonFrom SGC's own site: 60 EX 5: 80/20 or better centering, minor rounding or fuzzing of corners, roughness or chipping along edge (no layering), one VERY slight surface or "spider" crease may exist on one side of the card, gloss may be lost from surface with some scratching that does not detract from the aesthetics of the card. Your CODY card got this 60 grade. I don't see your card showing these flaws at all. A couple of the corners are touched, but not rounded. Criminy! A 10 has perfect corners, I'm not saying it should be a 10, but certainly not a 5. The centering sits slightly left, but is easily better than 80/20 or even 70/30. There certainly aren't any creases! I honestly think it is closer to SGC's description of a 7: 84 NRMT 7: 70/30 or better centering, slight wear on some corners, minor scratching, some print spots or speckling, and print lines or refractor lines are acceptable. Card may exhibit a slightly skewed (diamond) cut. It makes the centering cut; there is slight wear on some corners, not all; maybe some scratching? i can't see any; MW said there are some border spots/discoloration, but I can't see any on the picture. Now......Your OLIVA got an 80? 80 EX/NM 6: 75/25 or better centering, slight fuzzing of corners may be evident, skewed cut may be more evident, focus or register may be off, and slight notching of edges may exist. I thought it would get an 86, or AT LEAST an 84. Here's SGC's 84 and 86 descriptions: 86 NM+ 7.5: 70/30 or better centering, a few small flaws may exist upon close examination. A small flaw may be, but is not limited to: very minor wear on one corner, a gloss break or surface scratch, a print line or refractor line, a focus or color imperfection, or a print spot. 84 NRMT 7: 70/30 or better centering, slight wear on some corners, minor scratching, some print spots or speckling, and print lines or refractor lines are acceptable. Card may exhibit a slightly skewed (diamond) cut. Centering, your OLIVA looks dead on. Again, slight wear on corners, but no "edge notching"; I don't see a skewed cut or scratching. And, Teddy got a 50? Here's SGC's 50 description: 50 VG/EX 4: 85/15 or better centering, corners are slightly rounded with modest surface wear. Light hairline crease may show on one or both sides. A light tear or surface break may exist. I just don't see that at all. That's kinda outrageous. The Teddy easily passes muster for the next grade higher (the SGC 60, copied above)... ...which allows for minor rounding of corners, edge chipping, a surface crease and lost surface gloss and scratching. That's just crazy. I'm sorry, but I just don't get it... It's like a card fits a grade, and it gets at least one grade lower, to be tough. This is what I said about consistency over time. The written standards are the same, but they are applied inconsistently over time, tougher now than they used to be. That is my simple, humble opinion. That, and a "report card" would be extremely helpful and good, basic customer service. Did I forget to mention "pretty"? LOL.....

Archive

11-23-2002, 06:02 PM

Posted By: petecldJay, (just based on my experience, nothing personal) Cody got a 60 - considering the soft corner (upper, left) and what looks like some very light staining I'm not surprised SGC gave it a 60. Teddy 50 - Tough call from the scan. Is that a little bit of surface chipping along the left edge and in the bottom, left corner? If there is any chipping, SGC consistantly give those card no better then a 50. Oliva 80 - seems like a good grade to me. A vintage card with a minor nik won't get an 80 grade. A modern card - yes. <<...based on those grades, I double dog dare Pete to crack the SGC70 e93 Collins he bought from me and resubmit it for grading.>> Gosh Beaver, I hate to back down after being "double dog dared" and all but I will agree with you in that I don't think that card would receive the same grade today. Standards are getting tighter. Leon, what am I thinking right now? Hint: patio.

Archive

11-23-2002, 06:23 PM

Posted By: MWBut take another look. (1) The Cody has slight rounding in the UL corner and a slight ding or small corner crease. There is discernable wear in both the UR and LR corners. Finally, both the right and left borders have some slight "foxing" or discoloration. (2) The Roosevelt has a pronounced diamond cut. There is paper loss in the LL corner and moderate wear in the UR and UL corners. (3) Oliva. There is discernable wear on every corner with the LL perhaps having a slight ding. Judging a card based solely on a 72 dpi scan is difficult if not impossible (well, except for Leon). If the above documented flaws are all visible, there would certainly be a few more upon closer visual inspection. And have we even begun to consider what is on the reverse side of each? I see nothing to make me believe that the SGC grades aren't both accurate and consistent.

Archive

11-23-2002, 06:59 PM

Posted By: Dan Mathewson...<looks at Alex Trebek and the Jeopardy judges to see if this is allowed...> I don't agree that the "discernable" wear to the corners is as dramatic and downgrading to these cards as you do. As I said, they are not perfect 10 corners. But, the cards are not 10's or 9's or even 8's. We're not talking about the top third tier of the grading scale here. (Or even the additional step higher to the 10+ Pristine whatever thing...) The cards do show some "slight wear on some corners" which SGC states is allowable on 84/7 grades. 84/7's can also exhibit spots or speckling, or a skewed cut. AN 80/6 allows for "skewed cut may be more evident", card can be somewhat off-focus, fuzzing of corners, and notching of edges. The 60/5 says you can have all these flaws plus your card can start to exhibit surface creases, lost gloss and surface scratching. None of his cards exhibit this or the spider creases or surface creases! These are SGC's own printed standards... But then again, if you do your math, drop the number a grade or two, you have what Leon's cards got. I think it's crazy and I see "nothing" whatsoever that tells me these grades are consistent with their own standards.

Archive

11-23-2002, 07:09 PM

Posted By: MWDan -- "Fuzzy" corners or slight wear does not mean slight rounding, slight paper loss, or a corner ding. A Near Mint card (SGC 84) will appear to be virtually perfect when scanned at 72 dpi. Neither of the first two cards would qualify.

Archive

11-24-2002, 12:09 AM

Posted By: Lee BehrensJay never did let me play. <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> One question for Mike. How are rough cut edges downgraded. The reason I ask is that I sent in a group of 1957 Topps with varing degrees of minor flaws, one was a rough cut edge. All receieved an 84 or 86. I did get an 88 on a Zimmer but I could not find a flaw on this card, I would like to know where the minor flaws are. By the way I have 16 T202's graded and there seems to be no consistancy in the grading of this issue.

Archive

11-24-2002, 01:20 AM

Posted By: MWLee -- The "rough cut" phenomenon is one I have trouble with. Nearly every major grading service downplays this defect to the extent that it almost never lowers the condition of a card by more than a half-grade or, in some cases, is completely ignored (that is, unless the cut runs into part of the card). Take 1957 Topps for instance. I've always felt that a card with a smooth cut (e.g., from vending) should be graded higher than a card in the same condition but with a rough cut. In reality, they're often graded the same. I don't necessarily agree with this, but as long as a grading company is consistent in how they look at a rough cut, who am I to argue? As for the 1957 Zimmer, it's probably an outstanding card with a bit of microwear on the corners. Get a 5X loupe and you'll probably see a couple of light touches. SGC will also downgrade a card from a 96 if it has some slight wear on the reverse corners or a light "ding" on one of the edges. Don't get me wrong though -- like you, I've had some SGC 88s that I thought were pretty close to Mint.

Archive

11-24-2002, 10:23 AM

Posted By: Lee BehrensI have 2 10X magnifying glasses, you guys at the Nationals got me into looking at cards through them. But they sure give you a good closer look at your higher grade cards. Thanks Mike

Archive

11-24-2002, 11:03 AM

Posted By: Bruce MorelandThis is the problem with any printed standard that doesn't include a lot of pictures, or at least a lot of very technical language that nobody seems capable of writing. The reason that corner is not NM is that it's not NM, and no language that talks about "wear", "touch", "rounding" or any other subjective term is going to convey this, unless you've already seen a NM card and know what it looks like. Which means that these written standards are almost worthless. The typical written standard cannot be used by a novice to distinguish a VG card from an EX card, or an EX card from an NM/MT card. bruce

Archive

11-24-2002, 12:43 PM

Posted By: jay behrensGiven the discussion we've had here about grading, what do you think of the grades Mastro is giving to their unslabbed cards? Check lot 1100 in particular, this grade seems pretty indicative of how they are grading anything raw. jay

Archive

11-24-2002, 02:43 PM

Posted By: runscott...much better than the loupe I paid for myself.

Archive

11-24-2002, 03:16 PM

Posted By: MWBruce -- Excellent point! If someone were unfamiliar with anything hobby related and they read the typical grading standards published by any of the major grading companies, they might envision a NM-MT or NM card as one that possessed a fair amount of wear. On the other hand, if this same person were presented with an actual NM condition card, they might easily consider it to be in perfect condition. Not that long ago, Beckett used to publish pictures that matched different amounts of corner wear with different grades. I think a similar guide today, published by any of the major grading companies, would be extremely useful.