REA Ewing Ramly
 

Lot 598 in the just-concluded REA auction is a T204 Bob Ewing Ramly graded SGC Gem Mint 98. This is a remarkable grade for a Ramly card of course. The explanation for this grade was given by Rob Lifson in his Spring 2014 auction when Rob auctioned off about 30 Ramlys with amazing near-mint mint and mint grades. In the catalog, Rob (true to his remarkable knowledge and integrity) said: "As noted in the introduction to the Ramly section of this auction, we believe that some of the early SGC-graded T204 Ramlys were sheet-cut decades ago by legendary hobby pioneer Frank Nagy, who in the 1970s had a pristine T204 Ramly sheet (the only one in existence), and this fact is likely related to the unparalleled perfection of this card". The Ewing card in this last auction was also in the 2014 auction and the write-up included this disclosure above (this disclosure was included for all of those high-grade SGC Ramlys in that auction). Here's the link:

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...e?itemid=30246

This same peripatetic Ewing card was subsequently sold (after the REA 2014 auction) in a Mile High Jan. 2016 auction (Lot 283). Mile High did not disclose that this card was possibly (likely?) cut from a sheet. Here's the link:

http://www.milehighcardco.com/1909_T...-LOT43038.aspx

Neither did Brian Dwyer disclose this "possibility." (By the way, I consider Brian to be a very worthy successor to Rob in terms of knowledge, integrity and being a nice guy.)

Especially odd to me is that this Ewing card in REAs last auction was either reholdered by SGC, or a new label put on the old one. The same number was kept, but a newer SGC label was put on, replacing the older SG, LLC label. I assume the purpose wasn't to make it appear that the card was recently re-graded (to differentiate it from "earlier graded" SGC cards that Rob Lifson referred to.) But should this card have continued to receive a Gem rating, as opposed to "Authentic"?
Smarter people can answer.
Rich Rubin

WOW! That is very interesting Rich.

Nice detective work!

Dan

Hi Rich,

This card was reholdered sometime between 2016 and now. It also sold in a Goodwin auction: http://goodwinandco.com/LotDetail.as...entoryid=28336. We did not submit the card for the new label but rather it was submitted for consignment that way.

My understanding of the reholder/relabel process has been that the card undergoes a grade review as well, but I can't speak to that for sure. (As many here know, I worked at SGC for a period of time up until 2010). Seeing the card in a new label certainly made us feel that SGC stood behind the grade.

I am not in a position to check the winner of the card right now, but I will cancel the sale if the winner feels the possibility of the card being sheet cut is something he's not comfortable with. It is interesting to note that the card sold for less this time than it did in REA in 2014. When I'm back in the office tomorrow, I will contact the winner and make sure he's aware of the past sales and potential history of the card.

Brian

And that is the definition of integrity......

Great job, Brian!!

There are several of these from the same 2014 lot that sold prior that have now been reholdered in the new SGC holder and subsequently offered at auction and on ebay. For those like Rich and myself they are easy to pick out and do not bring the value of a legitimate card, however over time they will devalue the "real" high end SGC T204's.

I doubt these cards were just sent in and reholdered, rather they were cracked out and resubmitted. The old holder would have been a huge red flag.

I have several scans of the different before and after holders. I also have about a dozen raw cards cut from the original sheet and a PSA holdered example or two.

I still cant believe he cut that sheet...how cool would that be today?

Brian's timely response to Rich's narrative concerning the Ramly Ewing sets the standard for integrity by an auction house. I am certain that had he known of any potential question regarding the card's provenance before the latest auction began, Brian would have talked with the consignor and probably have pulled it.

Thank you for your reassuring take on this, Brian.

Cheers,
Mike

I agree
 

I know an owner of a lot of the old labeled 1950's red man cards and he was told he had to resubmit for review any in the old label to see if they would qualify to be put in the new labeled holders. It was not just a simple reholdering process.

If the policy has not changed at SGC, I would venture to guess today's SGC
stands behind the grade too.

They should put "hand cut" on the labels and not make more mistakes like putting "hand cut" on cards which they absolutely know are not handcut.

There wasn't all that much demand in the hobby for uncut sheets in the 1960s and 70s, when many of them came to light. They were mainly seen as novelties, or evidence for how the cards were printed. When a guy brought several 1933 Goudey uncut sheets to a show in New York in 1974, he wanted to put them in the show's auction, but nobody was willing to pay the $200 minimum bid, so they went unsold.

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...ts-at-auction/

Uncut sheet
 

Would Scott or any other advance Ramly collector be able to answer this question? Was the uncut sheet 11 x 11 cards, thus meaning there would be one each of the 121 cards in existence that was hand-cut? I have never been able to find a picture of the sheet in question, and am curious.

Thanks.

The only person that I talked to that was involved and saw the sheet, told me it was "a partial sheet", now what that meant I don't know. There are well over fifty cards that I have accounted for off of the sheet. They are all instantly recognizable(at least to me) due to a variety of factors.

Yes, one would assume the sheets were 11 x 11 cards to get to 121 in the set. However........we still are far short of accounting for 121 different T.T.T. backs which would have been printed from the same front plate. At last count there were a little over 50 confirmed T.T.T. backs with no new ones confirmed in quite some time.

Thanks
 

Thank you, Scott.