E94 or M131 [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

11-06-2008, 09:50 PM

Posted By: Bobby BinderI thought the Baltimore News cards where designated M131. Why would SGC call it E94? I know they use the same front design. <img src="http://i9.ebayimg.com/08/i/001/19/92/a266_1.JPG" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i15.ebayimg.com/03/i/001/19/92/a554_1.JPG" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

11-06-2008, 10:01 PM

Posted By: robert aBecause they weren't paying attention to what they were doing. PSA-like mistake. Rob

Archive

11-07-2008, 03:38 AM

Posted By: Jim Riveram131 is a regional issue of e94. This is a m131-same front and same checklist but Baltimore News at top of back

Archive

11-07-2008, 05:45 AM

Posted By: leonIt should be an M131 and I would guess they would reholder it free of charge for this mistake. It is a mistake, imo.....

Archive

11-07-2008, 06:50 AM

Posted By: Bill KaselIs SGC getting sloppy? I've always been a fan of SGC (over PSA) but this, and the E91 that they labled and E90-1 in the BST are pretty obvious errors. We pile on PSA for these mistakes, but now I've seen two from SGC in a week. Bill

Archive

11-07-2008, 06:51 AM

Posted By: MattI don't think anyone is immune to mistakes, especially considering the volume. The question is, what do they do when they occur; SGC is top notch in that department.

Archive

11-07-2008, 06:53 AM

Posted By: peter ullmanIt's not a "terrible" mistake......not a gross inaccuracy...not like labeling Heinie Honus, guys?!

Archive

11-07-2008, 07:00 AM

Posted By: leonThis SGC mistake is rather small.....All companies will continue to make mistakes as they are run by humans. I wouldn't totally bash PSA if they made this one. The N172 Delehanty I sent PSA, that came back trimmed when I knew it wasn't, and SGC graded it an 84, is a little more egregious.

Archive

11-07-2008, 09:22 AM

Posted By: quanthat could be the way they label this series, since they got the balt newsboy correct...or they're not aware the subset has the m131 designation. here's another example: <img src="http://home.earthlink.net/~quannimir/images/m131speaker.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

11-07-2008, 11:26 AM

Posted By: robert aThat's not the way the series should be labeled. SGC doesn't get to assume that M131 cards have any relation to E94s. I agree with Matt though. They are the best at responding to and fixing their errors.

Archive

11-07-2008, 11:28 AM

Posted By: MattThis REA auction of 2 SGC graded M131s is interesting in our context: <a href="http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/278.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/278.html</a>

Archive

11-07-2008, 11:31 AM

Posted By: bigfishI agree with you 100%. This is a small error. I bought an e104-2 Honus Wagner in a PSA 1.5 holder that had the card labeled as an e90-2 with a blank back! I have two standard biscuits with PSA labels that have the wrong year, Zach Wheat's name is spelled wrong, and I have a psa 5 with a super nasty crease going through the card. Those are terrible errors that are unacceptable. The M131-E94 error is small. SGC has the best quality control on all levels.

Archive

11-07-2008, 11:33 AM

Posted By: Dave F With the other two examples showing E94 it doesn't look to be an error though. This was the M131 I used to own, PSA doesn't bother to put any designation on it besides just labeling it a Newsboy. <img src="http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l111/asphaltman76/m131batesf.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

11-07-2008, 11:38 AM

Posted By: dstudeba

Archive

11-07-2008, 11:39 AM

Posted By: leonTechnically classifying these as E94 is incorrect, I don't care who says otherwise (at least to me). Now, if we are talking about what the masses go by then I would say it could be considered correct as E94. Sort of like the E97 black and white proofs...that aren't even close to being proofs but are still labeled as such. I think we need to give our friends at SGC a call on these <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif">... regards

Archive

11-07-2008, 11:42 AM

Posted By: Steve Murray<img src="http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/jacklitsch1/Elite%20100/MurrayM131.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

11-07-2008, 06:42 PM

Posted By: JasonDthis is what i'm talking about psa is very careless about what they do with their grading and don't spend the right amount time on one card.the other problem is they have been known to put fake cards in these holders you can tell the difference between reprints and origanals.

Archive

11-08-2008, 07:28 AM

Posted By: dan mckeeThese are M131's, period. Not E94's. They weren't issued with candy. They were issued by the Newspaper to their paper carriers only. A truly tough issue.

Archive

11-08-2008, 09:17 AM

Posted By: BobI sold an M131 Cicotte a while back and as I recall SGC graded it as an M131 not an E94. It was graded about 4-5 years ago so maybe these cards coming out recently with the wrong set designation are from the same uneducated grader?

Archive

11-08-2008, 12:44 PM

Posted By: JimBSGC screwed up. Hopefully they will attempt to fix their mistake. Now that it is more public (I have noticed these for a couple of years now), perhaps they will do something. Both grading companies make labeling mistakes. They are human. Misidentification due to lack of knowledge is troubling. JimB