SGC- I have never been madder in my life!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>TBob</b><p>I sent a package of cards to SGC who dilly-dallyed around on the turnaround time until I sent an email in which they said "oops" sorry about that and sent my cards back. I got my usual undergraded cards, but that's fine. What is NOT FINE is what they did to my E94 Cobb blue background. The card was sold to me in an SGC 30 holder. Desiring a higher grade, I broke it out and resubmitted it. It came back ungradeable. The box was checked that there was an "erasure." Fine, I don't agree and why did they grade it the first time, but such is life. THEN, in looking in the little black circle they drew on the card holder, I saw a red "E" presumably for "erasure." THEY MARKED IT RIGHT ON THE CARD!!!!!! What the hell is wrong with them???? <BR><BR><img src="http://members.aol.com/silversands27/cobb.jpg"><BR><img src="http://members.aol.com/silversands27/cobb2.jpg"><BR><BR>I have emailed them and will share their response. I simply can't believe any company employee could be so negligent, uncaring and just plain stupid.<BR><BR>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Kennedy</b><p>SGC do something wrong??? TBob are you sure about this??? I was under the impression that SGC was the almighty and that they did not ever make any mistakes or use bad judgement. To think all the PSA collectors always getting bashed about their preference over SGC. I can't believe this!! I thought that PSA was the only one who makes the mistakes. Thanks for enlighting us TBob. It just goes to show you that SGC is'nt exactly as perfect as some would like to think.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>mrc32</b><p>Your pics didn't work...lets see what they did!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd (nolemmings)</b><p>TBob, I'm amazed to hear this report-please tell me it's a belated April fools joke. I've had a couple of bad experiences with SGC, but they were extremely minor in the scheme of things- a card or two that suffered some minor edge "wear" after being holdered. Your story is one of sacriledge-- no one other than a kid or senile antique dealer from the 60's should ever write or mark anything on a card, period.<BR><BR>I have never submitted a card to PSA for grading, at least in part because of stories I've heard about their handling, so no way am I trumpeting their cause. Jeff, I respect your right to prefer PSA, but what happened here is just sad no matter who bungled it. <BR><BR>I'm certain SGC will do right on this in the end, TBob.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>B C D</b><p>was due to the erasure issue. That is why the card has visual appearance of a higher graded card! You would have known that ( being as it is recorded )if you would have resubmitted it in the holder. But thay surely is no excuse for inking your property......your an attorney,you should know what to do. Sue them! That will be your only recourse. To induce court fees not worth the hassle to them not to compensate you. I would guess, they owe you $500. !

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>BCD</b><p>Cardknowledge@earthlink.net<BR><BR> thanks

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>that is fairly difficult to find anyway -- not to mention it is a Cobb. Extremely unprofessional, and I hope that you can get compensated for full value of the card.<BR><BR>Did you save the original flip?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob Luce</b><p>TBob,<BR>SGC never marks cards that we reject. That red mark is what somebody attempted to erase. It is just a coincidence that the mark slightly resembles an "e". As for the card being graded previously, erasure marks due not cause an automatic rejection. For instance, erased pencil writing is basically treated the same as unerased pencil writing. If you believe we erred on the side of caution in rejecting the card, please feel free to resubmit the card and we will consider it again.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>B C D</b><p>Don't attempt to sue them! The above response is believeable.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>This implies that tbob didn't notice the red mark on his Cobb prior to submission. Could this be another case of a Democrat re-writing history? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>If Bob didn't notice this ink mark in the first place, I would be shocked! How did it draw a 30 eith a mark like that????? If SGC marked it, I actually would be a little shocked as well because that is just insane! But if I was a gambling man, my $$$ would be on Bob.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>My money would also be with Bob - most Arkansans have fairly good eyesight, as evidenced by the remarkable marksmanship demonstrated on the "Welcome to Arkansas - home of President Bill Clinton" sign at the Louisiana/Arkansas border.<BR><BR>If you all recall, a case similar to this was recently discussed on this board involving Julie and a Jackie Robinson card. In my opinion it is deplorable to write on someone else's card. Maybe the red "e" was written with disappearing ink and someone at SGC accidentally poured lemon juice on it?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>TBob</b><p>I am searching for a prior scan of the Cobb prior to submission. It is unbelievable that someone would suggest I didn't NOTICE the mark on the card. Give me a break. I don't care what SGC's policy is, just because a policy exists doesn't mean that it is followed 100% of the time. The SGC explanation for the card not being graded was not "ink writing on the card" it was for "erasure". That is the written explanation. On the hard holder there is a black circle which surrounds the "e" and then it says "erasure." I knew there would be some way to try and avoid responsibility. It is an awfully huge coincidence that the ink mark just happens to be in the shape of an "E", that it just coincidentally happens to be in the exact spot where the erasure is alleged to have occurred and that the explanation is no grade because of erasure. Coincidence? Uh-uh. I sent 2 E94s Cobb to be graded. One made it, one didn't. Neither had any markings on them. The only card I have in my collection with an ink mark on it is a T207 Lowdermilk which has a tiny word "rare" in ink on the back in an open space. Strangely enough that card was graded by....SGC.<BR>1) I didn't fall off the watermelon truck.<BR>2) As an attorney I know exactly what my legal recourses are and what compensation should be due.<BR>Bob- The ball is in your court. I have fellow collectors who have seen my Cobb without the red "E" unless you think that I decided to add the letter before sending it in to enhance the value of the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Just look to see if part of the "E" is erased. If it is, chances are the "E" was already there.<BR><BR>No offense to TBob, but I find it very difficult to believe that SGC put the "E" on the card. Is it possible that the card was accidentally pressed against a surface that had been written on sometime during submission or when the invoice was being filled out? The reason I'm thinking this is because the number "3" may have been written on the invoice or elsewhere. Just an idea.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>quan</b><p>i am kind of slow so let me get this straight...is sgc/mw suggesting that tbob knowingly cracked the card out of the sgc30 holder with the marking, then tried to erase it and sending it in hoping for a better grade? then when he didn't get his way he's up here complaining???<BR><BR>If other collectors have seen the card previously then it's pretty much case closed...I know before submitting cards I like to take them out of the sleeves/toploaders and stack them up onto the submission form so the fan won't blow the undercopies. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p><i>i am kind of slow so let me get this straight...is sgc/mw suggesting that tbob knowingly cracked the card out of the sgc30 holder with the marking, then tried to erase it and sending it in hoping for a better grade? then when he didn't get his way he's up here complaining???</i><BR><BR>No. I am not suggesting that at all. Please re-read what I wrote.<BR>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>It sounds ridiculous that any grading company would place any mark on a customer's card. However, did we not read a post recently about a 1952 Jackie Robinson card marked by PSA? I believe it was a card belonging to Levi or Julie and PSA placed an identifying mark to flag changes made to the card. As hard as it is for me to fathom why a grading company would do this, the story about the other card tells me anything is possible.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>was marked, pretty descretely, on the back, with a 1/8th inch "x" in a corner, in black ink because: The card had been a $2000 PSA 7 ; I discovered an erasure on it (over the net)--an erasure of printed ink, not added after the printing process). I suppose the card belonged to Bleam at the time--but I'm fairly sure PSA compensated him for it (though he didn't tell me this). It was made clear to me that the card did NOT belong to me, until it was offered to my for $750 with x and without holder. The "x" is to keep it from ever being graded again=--lots of luck!!! (I won't, of course.)<BR><BR>The idea of SGC marking the front of a Cobb (or any card) with red ink is--ridiculous! Even the cop out is bad. That red thing is not "erased"! The whole thing smells like week-old fish!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian H</b><p>My guess is that NEITHER Bob nor SGC intentionally marked (or erased an existing mark) this card. The question rather is who had custody of the card when it became marked. Let's assume that it was an ACCIDENT. Still if it was an accident that happened on SGC's watch -- as described by MW, for example -- SGC ought to make it up to Bob.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian H</b><p>What I meant was that EITHER party could have accidentallly gotten the ink on the card and that it depends whose error it was. IF it was indeed SGC's fault than SGC needs to make it up to Bob ....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>brian parker</b><p>Anyone who has dealt with Bob (I have on many occasions in the past) knows that he is honest, upstanding man of his word. If he says that there was no ink mark on the border (this one would not be missed unless you were Mr. Magoo), then it was not there when he sent it in to be graded. The mark, whether accidently or purposefully administered, would have to have come while in the possession of SGC, and thus Bob should be compensated for his loss. Ideally Bob will be able to come up with a scan of the card in its prior state, but even if he is unable, I think SGC should step up to the plate and take financial responsibility on this one.<BR><BR>Just thought I would mention that I am anti-card grading from way back, and this just gives me another reason to scoff at the whole concept.<BR><BR>Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>Thanks!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>TBob</b><p>Thanks to Leon who listened to my rants today and calmed me down. I was understandably pretty upset. On reflection, I would state the following:<BR>1)I agree with the comments above that SGC does not employ anyone as a grader ignorant or careless enough to have designated an area which had been erased by placing an "E" there. I agree that does seem pretty strange. I once had a T207 set consigned to Mastro and received a phone call from Bill himself apologizing but letting me know that apparently someone had apparently thrown away the EXMT Lowdermilk, one of the keys. Bill and I worked out an amicable agreement on value and the rest of the set went in the auction. I had some problem believing that someone could have simply thrown away or lost the card, but I accepted it, and Bill Mastro has always been straight with me. The reason I mention this is that weird things happen sometimes.<BR>2) I spoke with 2 collector friends about this, both had seen the card previous to submission, albeit a couple of years ago. One emphatically said there was no mark, the other couldn't rule out that it might have existed. Since I can not be 100% sure and have no scan in my possession, I can not say with total conviction that I am absolutely 100% positive the mark did not exist based on what my friends have told me. I do not believe the mark was there but I can not 100% rule it out. I do not understand why the card was initialy graded and then determined to be not gradable 2 years later if the mark were there in the first place.<BR>3)I appreciate the support of all my collector friends, guys I have never personally met except on line or talked with on the telephone. I have learned a valuable lesson, always make scans before submitting any cards for grading and always make scans of any card, for that matter, which is going out of your possession to someone else.<BR>It's been a long day. a long grinding day. I am going to end this thread now. <BR>Thanks again to everyone who emailed me and especially Leon for lending a sympathetic ear on the phone this afternoon. I think Neitsche (sp) said, "that which does not kill us makes us stronger." I'll survive....<BR>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>BCD</b><p>There was no red mark. Bob, if you recall you sent me an e-mail with pix a few weeks ago because we discussed an overprint as well if you recall. The scan I saw and deleted had not the red democratic sign of dissaproval.