Holmes to Homes Joe Jackson

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am posting this for my good friend Jay Miller who saved it as a wrong type of file <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> ...<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1206456476.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Is that the same card in REA?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Yes, it is; although it appears to me that the crease has faded with time--possibly from being left out in the sun<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Well, you have to give SGC credit -- they downgraded it two levels from the esteemed PGA grading company.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tom Nieves</b><p>This card was purchased on Ebay in December 2007 by Gary Moser's buddy/partner/associate/whatever Gerry Schwartz (syzygy3.14).<br /><br />Ebay auction:<br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320191114891" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320191114891</a> <br /><br />Previous thread: <br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1197297562/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1197297562/</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Yes Jay, the sun will do that to creases!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>That is some nice work done on that card. And so quickly! Yeah, this sounds like a card I'd want to own -- if I had brain damage.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Jeff--If you had bought the George Wright bat in the last auction you could smack yourself on the head with it before bidding on the Jackson.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>LetsGoBucs</b><p>Well, it would at least appear that the person doing the original ebay auction was a straight shooter. <br /><br />I would agree on the comment regarding the crease, which means that maybe the original thread should have been about the buyer?<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>To Rob's credit he has modified the lot description to mention the crease.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Just wondering what the members of the forum think about SGC grading a card which has undergone an attempt at reducing or removing a crease in an effort to improve the presentation of the card. I know many here feel that would be considered an alteration and render the card Authentic at best. Maybe by SGC deciding to assign a grade, which I feel is accurate based on what I can see in the image provided, makes it more palatable or less of an offensive practice. Not implying that SGC is endorsing altering a card but maybe they are modifying their criteria for grading to be more in line with the reality of our hobby.<br /><br />Also if it is considered an alteration, and I suspect it would be by Rob's standards and his decision to revise the auction description, it was my understanding from several of Rob's mass emails that he does not take graded cards he feels are altered. <br /><br />Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Greg, it's more likely that SGC simply missed the cleaning up of the card, right?<br /><br />I hear your point -- basically, there are so many doctored cards out there at some point you have to just recognize that short of trimming and other more significant alterations perhaps a modified level of clean up should be accepted. <br /><br />The funny thing about this card is that the card doctor was so brazen that he had to know that the card would be outed pretty quickly considering it was just on ebay a couple months back. Or maybe the card doctors' intelligence is indirectly proportionate to their level of greed? Why not sit on the card for a year so that a thread like this never comes about? Anyone who buys the card now will be forced to live with the fact that a significant part of the group that might buy it upon resale will never go near the card due to the alteration that it underwent. How smart is that?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>People who make a career out of altering baseball cards may not be the smartest people to begin with.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>LetsGoBucs</b><p>Well...the best one's are professional restorers by trade - restoring artwork, paper money, stamps, newspapers, etc and they are actually fairly smart people I'd say.....and on the side if one or two of them spends significant time with some baseball cards...perhaps working on commission (say 50% of increased resale value).....then its easy money to them and unfortunately for those that collect graded cards I'd take the best professional restorers over the best baseball card graders any day.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Kravitz</b><p>Maybe I am missing something, but what is the alteration?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scott brockelman</b><p>If SGC had no prior knowledge of the card, which I would say they did not, they are not at fault. The card appears to have been soaked, which removed some of the creasing, which is undectable by SGC as the water leaves no traces<br /><br />Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Scott,<br /><br />Jay Miller wrote on the original thread that he emailed a picture of the card to SGC when it was in the PGA holder before the auction ended on eBay. PSA may not know the rarity of the issue but SGC does. <br /><br />Besides to address Jeff's question, SGC graders know if a card has had a crease attempted to be removed or minimized. Additionally considering this issue and quality of the surface and as heavy a crease as there is, it would be hard to not see it. <br /><br />The crease is still evident and the card is graded accurately even if an attempt was made to minimize the appearance of the crease. Not like they graded it a 50.<br /><br />Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scott brockelman</b><p>my point was that soaking a card in water is going to minimize the creasing while being undectable rather than spooning or other pressure methods

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Kravitz</b><p>If someone puts the card in a screw down holder, it doesn't sound like an alteration to me. Is that the only "alteration" in question?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>soaking is just WRONG! I just sold a PSA NM to MT graded 8 that was SOAKED out of a scrapbook! I asked the buyer what he thought he was receiving and he said if it is PSA graded within the last 3 years then it is untouched, unaltered, and perfectly graded as they state! Too funny. God I love grading.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Not sure that just soaking a card minimizes a crease. Never heard of that one.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>You caught them Greggy, you gotta roll it while its wet!!! Those Sinners!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>It won't burn that way. It has to be fairly dry (from what I am told of course)....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>James Gallo</b><p>Maybe its me or my computer, but the crease doesn't look all that different to me.<br /><br />So is this a big deal because it is such a rare card and it is known that is was soaked. I mean I don't think it is hard to believe that may of us have cards that have been soaked.<br /><br />I guess my point is, it is a problem it was soaked or is it a problem that we all know it was soaked.<br /><br />Honestly I still have interest in this card regardless of if it was soaked.<br /><br />I assume that is was not pressed or altered in any other way as I believe SGC would have picked it up.<br /><br />Anyway it is nice to have the added information in the auction but it doesn't bother me at all.<br /><br />I certainly find this a great deal less offensive then the restored Mantle or Plank they also have up.<br /><br /><br />James G <br><br>Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Yes u r correct SGC almost picked up the fact that my 1952 Mantle was in 2 pieces and elmers glued together. Almost only counts in horseshoes and grenades. My Mantle is in an SGC 2 holder. God I love grading.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Kravitz</b><p>doesn't bother me at all. I'm a bidder.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Well put Leon, I soak all of my cards so that when I get pissed, I can't burn them.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>James,<br /><br />I am no sure I see any differences in the card either but am going on what others have stated and the fact that Rob modified the description. I doubt the winner of the card was intending to get the card into an EXMT holder. It was a pure value buy and a great buy at that. I canceled my snipe as I felt I would be potentially throwing away money. <br /><br />Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Louis Bollman</b><p> Just my two cents, for whatever they are worth:<br /><br />1) Scanners, especially ones some use for Ebay lie. I personally have fielded my share of e-mails regarding graded cards I've had on Ebay. "How could a card get X grade with such a &lt;insert flaw here&gt;?" Many times I've pulled the card out for inspection in order to answer the question only to find that the flaw is nowhere near as bad as it showed up on the original scan. Take into that the fact that the surfaces of M101-4's, M101-5's, and the such have a layer of gloss that can be very reflective coupled with the fact that scanners and photography use intense lighting. I would think (in fact I know) that the same exact flaw can look two or more different ways using the same scanner; could look a heck of a lot different using two completely processes. I'm sure Rob uses much different equipment than the average Ebay seller. I can't say that I come across many M101-4's or M101-5's "in the wild", that said, I did see many failed attempts at this type of alteration during my tour of duty as the "goal keeper" of the card department at Mastro's. Many were attempts at consigning (after Mastro's had them graded) and, quite frankly, they were never even close to being considered by myself, Bill Mastro, or others on staff to even be submitted for grading. In my opinion, I trust the graders at SGC more than I trust scanners or other digital photography equipment.<br /><br />2) You can buy screw down type holders for Baseball cards just about anywhere. I can't imagine the size of the rock a person would have to be living under to not know of Joe Jackson (we'll assume the original owner knew nothing of the significance of Holmes to Homes). These holders can often leave a card with a pressed look at the edges/corners. I have not seen the card in person so I do not even know if this card has "the look". Again, if it was a pronounced pressing look I doubt SGC would grade the card; they happen to be hypersensitive to alteration matters.<br /><br /><br />Louis Bollman<br />louis@louisbollman<br /><br />ps. I guess I'm adding one more penny to my original two cents. Judging from the original scan, I can't see where altering the card would raise the card from the current SGC grade. Nor can I see the card, as originally scanned for Ebay, would be cause for a grade lower than that given by SGC.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>I asked SGC about the card when it was up on Ebay. They saw images of it then and I would hope that they remembered it when it was submitted for their review. Louis, you may be right, but my sense is that the crease has been reduced and not just through different lighting.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David R</b><p>Based on the original Net54 thread, Barry owes Leon a milkshake.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>How did I lose a milkshake? I demand an audit!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>You do owe me a milk shake. It was the hanging chads.....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Say no more...feel free to make it a malted! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>