SGC-no mas
 

WARNING: LENGTHY RANT

So being a loyal SGC customer, I dropped off a submission on March 24 for a 5-10 day turnaround. I had a prior disappointment with them recently, but I like their holders and, hey, I believe that sometimes people deserve a second chance. Well, I regret that decision……

I just got my cards back today, after a month—well, okay, whatever, but strike 1. I don’t know how you promise a 5-10 day turnaround, deliver the product after one month, and think that's acceptable.

But wait, it gets better. About a week ago, when the grades ‘popped,’ I noticed that they had given my blank-backed T204 Cicotte an ‘AUT’. This was a card I bought on the B/S/T from a highly reputable member, and I am 100% sure that nothing was wrong with it. So I contacted a person at SGC, who told me “I spoke to my vintage expert. We only authenticate T204 blank backs. We don't assign a numerical grade to them.” What? How’s that? First, the card is clearly not altered in any way, shape, or form, and it is somehow authentic but not grade-worthy? Are you kidding me? The logic of this decision left me speechless. Strike 2.

I did a quick Google search and found many examples indicating that SGC graded blank-backed T204s previously. I don’t know when they stopped doing so. However, I made the point that (1) if they did not grade these cards, they should have informed me beforehand, because there was nothing on their website that indicated this was the case, nor did they tell me when I submitted the card that the best I could get was AUT, and (2) I never indicated that I wanted a card to be encapsulated as AUT. So I asked them to crack out the card and refund my money for that card since I did not want a card--especially a gradable card--in an AUT holder. They did neither. Strike 3.

So now Big Ed is trapped in his plastic prison, and I will need to send it to my new favorite TPG to have it graded properly. Needless to say, I have decided to close my account after 20 years. I have sent one last email. My wife just thinks I am a schlimazel, and that I should just call it a learning experience and move on………

My only advice to SGC die-hards is to ask questions before submitting your cards. Anyways, thanks for listening.

Brian
(Br*i*an D*ynl*acht)

That's unfortunate, Brian...

Hey Brian,

I bet if you have a few drinks and squint hard enough, you might start seeing the Ramly logo on the card in the previous post. It can't be a blank back and have a numerical grade, right?

That is an older holder for SGC and probably graded when there were people that knew vintage cards for SGC.

I have no clue these days how and why rules are made by any TPG.

Yeah, it sure sucks to get to that point when you just say phuc it and move.

Sorry to hear about the BS. Would love to see a post of the card.

Frustrating experience Brian.
I've always said if another TPG wanted to put SGC out of business all they would have to do is offer a black apron.

Thanks for the support, guys. Another reason I love this site......

Yeah, frustrating. It's just cardboard, but you know what I mean..

I tried posting the card in the holder, but I must be doing something wrong because it would not upload--too big a file, I guess. Tried compressing, but it did not help. Suggestions welcome!

Brian

I wish they would update the turnaround times to reflect reality. I've sent them 7-8 subs and can only remember two where they fell within the window.

My last one of 50 cards was in the 5-10 estimated time and showed up about a month later. I have a current sub of about 60 cards and it's been a month since it was received. Customer service told me it should ship this week (tomorrow). We'll see if that happens.

It sucks but I'm also not anxious to go to PSA, which is more expensive with estimated return times of 45 business days.

Probably why they no longer give them a numerical grade is the fact that most of the non-square frame subjects which are the only true blank back T204's are in fact early two-part cards that had the front and back adhered to each other and separated later in life due to moisture or damp environments. These early two-part cards are very scarce.

Most collectors are unaware of the two-part T204's and often buy these "blank back" cards thinking they are a scarce error when in fact they are not. Again, Anderson, Bancroft, Bransfield, Burkett, Dineen and Moran can and do come with blank backs and were made that way. If one had one of these blank backs and one of the supposed blank backs in hand they will find a difference in stock thickness.

Interesting--I did not know that. Thanks for the info.

I think it is just lack of experience from the graders and not enough good vintage graders for these types of cards. Sorry for the issues and have had similar problems in the past with other prewar cards. I like silks and have had problems even when SGC does grade them, some come back authentic – really and they should get a numerical grade. SGC has graded these for a long time. What is PSA going to do now? grade them as well because SGC does – most likely not – simply crazy. All you can do is move on and keep on collecting - Jimmy

T204
 

So I think if SB's point were rigorously applied, they would never give a numerical grade to Zeenuts lacking the coupon, and they do (I have a bunch). They are also "separated" from ~1/4-1/3 of the card.

I spoke to SGC, and they said my points were "well taken."

I can't help but wonder if SGC's new masters are calling the shots re. your T204 blank backed card.

$15 no mas
 

I've sent around 1500 pre-war cards to PSA and over 2000 pre-war cards to SGC over the last decade. I have had WAY MORE aggravating moments with PSA than with SGC. That being said, both companies have had my blood pressure up with mistakes and/or questionable grades...NEVER have I had the inclination to go online and rant-blast either of them because I have seen it done a hundred times by as many people, and this tells me that neither service is perfect and that I'm not special in that regard. Its part of the modern hobby...

Not that big a deal, they're only baseball cards, not worth getting that upset about.

I would just display the card in a rigid toploader and call it a day. The Devo-esque bar code clashes with the ornate and antique beauty of the card anyway.

That said... there is a huge opportunity for a new Grading Company to rival SGC with the black apron. Would love to see it happen... or perhaps CSG can make the investment and change away from the unsightly baggie.

This one took months to get back from PSA; then I noticed the error and figured I'd call it a day.


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9f4dc2ec_z.jpg

I found this point both poignant and universally applicable to all aspects of the hobby we may find objectionable.

SGC, PSA, Kurt's Card Care, auction houses, eBay, certain types of collectors, breakers, content creators, and other random nonsense. There's enough crap within this hobby. All we can really choose is how these things affect us.

My answer all day long. And wait!--it only took one second to complete the process and cost you a few cents for the top loader. And look at all that money and aggravation that was saved.

Send the scan to me. I'll get it uploaded. bobbyw8469@nc.rr.com

I agree with you guys that it is, after all, just cardboard and a hobby to avoid the distractions of a pretty scary world.

I was fishing to see if I was missing something with their verdict on the T204 and to give a heads-up to anyone who may be thinking of submitting a blank-backed card to SGC. Full disclosure: they agreed to crack the card for me if I sent it back and agreed to a refund for the grading. They also agreed with the idea of being more explicit about what they do and do not grade on their website, as other TPGs have done. Hopefully, this will save others some trouble.

I will say the policy on cards with tabs is understandably different than that of a skinned card. One has a portion that was intended to be removed, whether it's a Red Man or a NY Journal American or a Zeenut, the tab was supposed to be cut off. That's why there's a nice premium for a complete version but a tab removed is still legit.

Brian
 

Brian, you’re not a schlimazel

Jeffrey,
This would upset me more than anything. If they couldn't get the label right, I can't imagine how I would trust their grading. I hope they corrected it for you.
It's a beautiful piece.

Scott, not that clarification is necessary, but would a "thinner" blank back T204 be like a skinned OJ?

That's great information! Thank you!



I completely agree with that - any Zeenut with the coupon removed should have AUTH on the label. All you can do is hope the TPGs understand the first couple years of Zeenuts didn't have coupons.


Now that is funny, and probably so true today. :p


Sacrilege! :eek: :p


OMG - the ultra rare Gogans with the "C" variation!



.

#23 Report Post
Unread Today, 10:34 AM
Fred's Avatar
Fred Fred is offlineFred
Member

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,015
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post
Probably why they no longer give them a numerical grade is the fact that most of the non-square frame subjects which are the only true blank back T204's are in fact early two-part cards that had the front and back adhered to each other and separated later in life due to moisture or damp environments. These early two-part cards are very scarce.

Most collectors are unaware of the two-part T204's and often buy these "blank back" cards thinking they are a scarce error when in fact they are not. Again, Anderson, Bancroft, Bransfield, Burkett, Dineen and Moran can and do come with blank backs and were made that way. If one had one of these blank backs and one of the supposed blank backs in hand they will find a difference in stock thickness.


Scott, not that clarification is necessary, but would a "thinner" blank back T204 be like a skinned OJ?

That's great information! Thank you!

As to value, perhaps similar to an AUT card. As to appearance, the back will be smooth, as these T204's were two parts put together, but the two pieces easily separated over time it seems.

Here is an example of the two-part cards

https://www.brockelmanauctions.com/T...-LOT17081.aspx

https://imgsrv.sellersourcebook.com/...jpg?1714239133
https://imgsrv.sellersourcebook.com/...jpg?1714239152

Ed cicolte? Was this ever corrected?

No, same on all.

I will say that is very strong embossing on the Cicotte, most of the two part cards have weak embossing. Could be that the soiling just highlights it. Either way, the highest it would have graded based on the wear would have been a 1. I don't think the label hurts the card(value) at all, it's still Cicotte and a tougher T204 as they get bought up and held.

Scott probably knows more about Ramlys than all of us put together. He was involved in a big Ramlys find years ago and really is your go-to guy with any questions about this beautiful set. I still have a super Jimmy Collins in my PC he sold me at the National years ago.

Thanks so much for posting scans for me, Bobby. It is much appreciated.

Scott, thanks for the information. I can say the back seems deeply embossed and does not look smooth, although obviously I can't say to what extent until I have it cracked. I can, however, say that the card looks better than the high res scans would suggest. It may have gotten a 1.5--a T210 Series 8 Cohen that I won in one of your recent auctions looks a lot worse IMO, and it got a 1.5 in the same submission. Who knows?

Scott, you should definitely ask Old Cardboard and the PSA site, among others, to add this information under the T204 entry. It will be very useful, to many of us.