Why would SGC not grade this card? [Archive]

Archive

07-27-2005, 12:19 PM

Posted By: Josh K.I recently purchased a GAI 1.5 E121 Grover Alexander from a board member. The card is good in all respects - its only defect being scrap book paper over about 40% of the reverse of the card (as shown in the scan). I cracked it out of the GAI slab and submitted it to SGC. SGC did not grade the card and provided this as the only explanation: "Can't grade." Now, I know that they will not grade cards with significant paperloss (ie a skinned card). As plainly seen, this card does not have that problem. Does anyone have any idea why it "cant grade." <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1122488075.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1122488095.JPG">

Archive

07-27-2005, 12:54 PM

Posted By: JudgeDred2Good question. Personally, I'd have sent it to SGC in the GAI holder.

Archive

07-27-2005, 12:57 PM

Posted By: Bryan LongHave them give you an explanation over the phone. They have always been nice to me when I inquire about these types of things - if the remember your card <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

07-27-2005, 12:58 PM

Posted By: Josh K.Judge - I would have as well since there is generally little chance of an upgrade - however, I thought I would give soaking the card a try. Unfortunately, didnt have much luck removing the paper. Now that I have the card back, I may try again as I didnt soak it for very long the first time. Bryan - I tried calling but they are closed until next week due to the national.

Archive

07-27-2005, 01:00 PM

Posted By: JudgeDred2In any case, nice card!

Archive

07-27-2005, 01:05 PM

Posted By: Scott ForrestI've been told that they won't grade cards that they can determine have been soaked.

Archive

07-27-2005, 02:28 PM

Posted By: Bryan LongIf you can tell it has been soaked then they won't grade it. This may be the reason behind it all.

Archive

07-27-2005, 04:09 PM

Posted By: Josh K.and how would you be able to tell? it looks exactly as it did b/f I soaked it. Plus, they have graded several other cards that I soaked in the same fashion. my understanding is that they wont grade it if its been chemically altered - such as to whiten the card, but soaking in water has never been a problem as far as I know - I also doubt it would it be detectable.

Archive

07-27-2005, 04:12 PM

Posted By: Josh K.In addition, if that is their policy, it could only be because they think soaking alters the card - my rejection sheet does not state it was altered. it states "other" - "cant grade".

Archive

07-27-2005, 04:39 PM

Posted By: Scott ForrestI'm just parroting what I've heard - I can't even tell you how they determine trimming, much less soaking (we had a soaking discussion previously here and the issue was never resolved). But I have called SGC and talked to their employees about various grading scenarios, and they have always been very helpful - sounds like you should give them a call.

Archive

07-27-2005, 05:06 PM

Posted By: Josh K.Scott - I definitely intend to give them a call - unfortunately, I cant do so until next week since their offices are closed.

Archive

07-27-2005, 05:44 PM

Posted By: Max WederI agree with Josh that I don't understand why soaking would be considered grounds for rejection by a grading company. What if I accidently adhered a post-it note to a card (where are those darn things anyway?). Is removing that forbidden? What if an electrostatic effect could loosen the glue molecules? What degree of molecular damage to the cardboard is needed before a card is rejected? I think we need the physicists and chemists to come to our rescue. Alternatively, the solution is simple. Abandon the card, and send it to me <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Max

Archive

07-27-2005, 06:06 PM

Posted By: cmokingwhat does soaking it in water do? were you trying to get rid of some stains or other things that was glued onto the card?

Archive

07-27-2005, 06:10 PM

Posted By: MarkI think one reason soaking is taboo is that the process can be used to remove wrinkles. Said wrinkles have even been known to reappear after the cards are slabbed.

Archive

07-27-2005, 06:30 PM

Posted By: Max WederMark I guess the next thing to do to get rid of wrinkles is to inject the cards with Botox <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

07-28-2005, 04:42 AM

Posted By: T206CollectorI have soaked plenty of T206 cards in water to remove scrapbook paper from the fronts and backs of my T206 cards. I have had at least two of these submitted to SGC, and each time they come back graded, and fairly well. I got a SGC 70/5.5 on one of them that originally had about 75% of its reverse covered in scrap paper. It came off very easily in water and now is one of my best looking T206 cards. HOWEVER, I have also had two cards, which I did not soak, be rejected for soaking. And each time (I resubmitted them once) the SGC explanation was something like "Soaked/Cleaned". So, if they couldn't grade your card because it was soaked, I think they would have said so. And I think, based on a review of the cards themselves and what people on this board have previously told me, those two cards were chemically soaked to remove tobacco staining from Polar Bear cards, which are notoriously tobacco stained. Someone indicated that bleach may have been used. I don't know, but I do know that the backs of the Polar Bear cards have a strange blue fluorescence that I have not seen in any of the other T206 cards I own. SGC was definitely picking up on that. But, to my knowledge, they cannot generally determine if a T206 card was soaked in water, or if they can, it doesn't prohibit them from grading it.

Archive

07-28-2005, 08:18 AM

Posted By: Josh K.T206's explanation makes the most sense and is what I have always understood with respect to soaking - if you bleach/soak to clean (which ordinary water typically wont do) it will be rejected if discovered (bleaching, of course, will also leave a distinct odor). The slip will also state that the card was soaked/cleaned as the reason for rejection (mine did not). On the other hand, I think routine soaking in water to remove scrapbook paper and glue is common and normally grades. Finally, I have never heard of removing wrinkles while soaking - the issue was discussed by the brain trust on the psa board and made little sense.

Archive

07-28-2005, 11:04 PM

Posted By: barry arnold i don't have a clue Josh but had to drop a note and say how great the card looks!! all the best barry arnold

Archive

07-29-2005, 02:33 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackAs you have to have Botox injections regularly, you'd have to remove the card once a month to take it to the dermatologist. The best bet may be a Dorian Gray-like deal, with the portrait of what the card really looked like locked in an upstairs room. Your soul will be damned for eternity, but there won't be any need to removed the card from the holder.

Archive

07-29-2005, 05:34 AM

Posted By: cmokingso soaking in water doesn't ruin the card in anyway? Not knowing otherwise, I thought it would screw up the card in a major way.

Archive

07-29-2005, 07:34 AM

Posted By: T206CollectorMany baseball cards would be ruined "in a major way" if they were soaked in water. T206 cards are not, however, and there's a reason for it that someone once explained on the board here... something like because they're lithographs, or something. But, in any event, a water soaked T206 card that is properly pressed for a period of time after soaking and while drying, will not be harmed in the least, except if the water had minerals that eventually show up, which is why some people argue that you should use distilled water. But I've never had a problem with just plain old tap.... at least not yet!

Archive

07-29-2005, 09:20 AM

Posted By: Richarddo most of the pre-war cardboard type cards fall into the same catagory as the t206 as far a soak-ability? E-cards? t205's, etc?

Archive

07-29-2005, 06:49 PM

Posted By: cmokingthanks T206Collector, great info. You saved me from getting into by soaking some Goudey cards!

Archive

07-29-2005, 09:31 PM

Posted By: Josh K.I dont know about all cards (or goudey's in particular) but I can definitively say E121's can be soaked with no problem as long as you are gentle when drying them.

Archive

08-02-2005, 01:37 AM

Posted By: BCDit totally depends on the paper stock they were printed on.

Archive

08-02-2005, 01:38 AM

Posted By: BCDthe staining tone around the loss area is 100% certain from soaking old glue*** this is surely why it was not graded. The integrity of the card was tampered but not to the point of authenticating it for you~

Archive

08-02-2005, 02:58 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackThe answer to the earlier questions is that lithographic ink doesn't disolve in water. Only certain toxic liquids disolve lithograhic ink, none of which come out of your water tap. Though if you soak a card long enough, perhaps the paper stock itself might loosen taking some ink with it.

Archive

08-02-2005, 10:23 AM

Posted By: warshawlawWhile I assume that the "experts" on the CU board are well-versed in the art of card doctoring (heh heh), they are dead wrong on this point. If the wrinkle is minor you can soak the card and press it dry and in the process relax out the wrinkle. If it has eroded the ink or broken the cardboard, there will be a trace of it, however. I've not seen hard evidence of wrinkles returning in soaked cards that were properly dried and pressed. I guess it could happen if the card was released from the press and encapsulated prior to the card being fully dry.

Archive

08-02-2005, 12:19 PM

Posted By: Josh K.I contacted SGC yesterday about this card and spoke to Bob Luce. He did not grade the card and was not familiar with the reason for it not grading. He asked that I send it back in for him to review. Which I intend to do. However, he did confirm for me that SGC WILL grade cards that have been soaked in water. They will not grade cards soaked in any type of chemical to enhance the card (such as bleach) if detected. BCD - not sure I understand - I soaked the card in water, but do you think there is a problem other than that? The scan above is actually from b/f I soaked it (I broke it out of the gai slab).

Archive

08-09-2005, 10:34 AM

Posted By: Josh K.The Alexander was resubmitted to SGC after I spoke with Bob Luce. It has now been graded and is on its way back to me.

Archive

08-09-2005, 11:47 AM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)What grade? Just curious.

Archive

08-09-2005, 11:52 AM

Posted By: Josh K.it was correctly given a 10. it was originally graded by gai as a 1.5, and when I cracked it out, I knew it would be an sgc 10 unless I could remove all of the scrapbook paper from the back - I couldnt as the glue did not appear to be water based. The half grade drop is fine with me as I prefer my cards to be in sgc holders.

Archive

08-12-2005, 11:49 PM

Posted By: Josh K.<a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/2417/file05874ox.jpg" border="0" width="509" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>

Archive

08-13-2005, 06:16 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI don't care what's on the back -- that's an incredible image for a 10.

Archive

08-13-2005, 08:16 AM

Posted By: Scott ForrestAs David said, the ink won't dissolve; however, I've noticed that you have to be extremely careful with t205's (more so than t206's) - the letters rub off the back if you are not very careful.

Archive

08-13-2005, 09:03 AM

Posted By: Josh K.Thanks Jeff. I think the card looks even better than represented by the scan. The scan actually makes the lower left corner look much worse than it is.

Archive

08-13-2005, 09:17 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI think the grading companies, in order to make some extra money, should allow cards like this just to be slabbed as authentic, period, without a grade. (Do they now?) Here's a card that looks like a 40-50 on the front but has paper loss on the back and it gets the lowest grade which clearly is not indicative of the card's condition on the part that matters not just the most but by far the most - the front. Why for grading purposes is the significance of the back's condition for a card of this age equal to the significance of the front?

Archive

08-13-2005, 09:31 AM

Posted By: leonThe problem with just putting AUT on this holder is that then folks would think it has a problem...trimming, coloring (well, not on this one), etc.....as now the standard has been set, at least for the time being, that if a card has AUT then it couldn't get a grade for some reason....I had a disheartening experience at the National about this topic...but it was rectified, in the end, to my delight....regards....ps...no way this card is a 1 either (at least from looking at the front) edited for clarification

Archive

08-13-2005, 09:38 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanLeon, fair point. I know that PSA has offered (for an extra fee, of course) to put the submitter's name on the label. Perhaps in a situation like this, the opportunity to put the description of the card and the name of the owner on the label could be had. It just pisses me off to see a card with this condition on the part of the card that matters most get the same grade as a card that has paper loss all over the front. After all, isn't it just a computer typing out the labels?

Archive

08-13-2005, 09:44 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisI think someone should start collecting cards that have SGC 88+ fronts... but have TERRIBLE backs so that they only grade as SGC 10's. Think about what BARGAINS you could get on these! How much would a 1914 Christy Mathewson Cracker Jack card sell for if it was in an SGC 10 holder because the entire back was peeled off... but the front was pristine and the corners were sharp??? Seriously?? Wouldn't it sell for a huge FRACTION of what the card would sell for if the back was also pristine ($150,000+)?? How much would a T206 Honus Wagner go for right now in a Mastro auction if it was PSA 8 condition everywhere... but it was in a PSA 1 holder because the back had complete paper loss and writing?? Still not cheap...but an INCREDIBLE card to own!! This would be a fabulous way to have some VERY rare and very presentable cards...that are REAL and awesome!! WHO CARES ABOUT THE BACKS????!!! ------------------------------ SO... can I get some of you guys to start peeling the paper away from the backs of your very nice cards so that I can buy them cheap?? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

08-13-2005, 10:15 AM

Posted By: leonAs one of many "back" collectors let's don't say "who cares about the backs <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>". Backs are cool but let's don't downgrade an Old Judge to a 20 because it has any, especially minor, back damage. I have seen PSA, SGC, and GAI grade Old Judges rather high (50-60) and all you could see on the front was little more than a ghost (keeping with the theme nowadays) image. I wish all of the grading companies would have started out grading AUT, in the beginning, but they didn't. Maybe they could declare something like an "edict" date, when anything graded after that day, which grades AUT, instead of a grade, doesn't necessarily have an issue. They could publicize it and make alright to have AUT on the label. It could be a little ambiguous though, perception-wise. (can I do that little hyphen thing?) regards

Archive

08-13-2005, 10:18 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanLeon, I agree with your post. The backs are oftentimes a very interesting part of the card but, as you correctly point out, not as significant as the front. Perhaps what should occur is that any damage to the backs of cards like these should count as only 1/2 the same damage to the front of a card when grading is done.

Archive

08-13-2005, 10:46 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisI'm not talking about "rare back" cards where the BACK is obviously important. I'm talking about cards (like the 1914 CJ Matty and the T206 Wagner) where there is NOTHING special about the backs of the cards... and 100% of the "value" is in the FRONT of the card. This is especially true for all BLANK back cards.

Archive

08-13-2005, 11:07 AM

Posted By: ElliotThere's an easier solution than having a cut-off date. Why not just have a new designation like NSG (No Specific Grade), that would signify that the card has not been given a numerical grade, but was eligible for one. That would distinguish it from AUTH which could be used for cards that were altered in some way.

Archive

08-13-2005, 11:35 AM

Posted By: Josh K.Here is the back of the Alexander for anyone who is interested: <a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/7781/file05886gq.jpg" border="0" width="509" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>

Archive

08-13-2005, 01:55 PM

Posted By: MWBoth paper loss and glue are very evident on the reverse side. The grade of SGC 10 is accurate, in my opinion.

Archive

08-13-2005, 02:06 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI don't think anyone disagrees that the card merits a 10 based on the paper loss and glue on the back -- a 10 based on SGC's present grading scale. The point is that if the sides were reversed and the damage was on the front of the card, SGC would still give it a 10 - but these two cards would hardly be equal in the eyes of a collector. In fact, the back rates a 10 and the front probably a 50.

Archive

08-13-2005, 03:09 PM

Posted By: leonI tried to get to a grade of 20 and couldn't. Too much missing (albeit not that bad, compared to some others) for it to go higher. It's a shame too. Maybe this is when you say "the generic back isn't that big of a deal", though as purist I can't personally do that. And that's not to say I don't have a few cards with back damage, I do. I have seen much less damage on backs, and decent fronts, that still got a 10. I think those are the kind that need to be re-evaluated. There is too much room (grade wise) for differences in an SGC10 (1) holder. To each their own but buy the card not the holder...

Archive

08-13-2005, 03:37 PM

Posted By: jay behrensHow about an even easier solution. And SGC doesn't have to look any further than it's comic slabbing conterpart. Green labels and grades for unaltered cards with notes as to defects and red lables for alterd cards with notes as to alteration. You can still grade the red labels too. But just like in the comic world, red lables would end being worth much less than it's green counterpart. I really don't see a problem with a red label card graded 96 and noted as trimmed on the label. The card will sell accordingly, there is no deception and all problems are known. Jay My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.