With all due respect, the seller and you are probably incorrect.
CGC is correct as it's not a proof and most likely an ad cut. These are also on a bit thinner stock. No way are they proofs and CGC did their job correctly. They would have been completely wrong to grade it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynbotter
Trying to figure out what happened here with my first CGC submission. I sent in a M116 Mordecai Brown "proof" acquired a few months ago via BST. I noted that the card was a proof while submitting, and added an additional note about the Chi Nat marking on the back/missing name on the front.
What confuses me is "questionable authenticity" label. If it was simply something they choose not to slab, I figure they would have refunded me like SGC did a month prior with the same card, or ticked "service unavailable." It seems like they took a quick look at the card, determined it wasn't a standard M116 from the back, and said it was no good. The fact the label they printed lacks any mention of a proof, and the back being what triggered the "QA" designation led me to believe this.
The card traces back to a 2013 REA auction, Mordecai is featured in the first image https://robertedwardauctions.com/arc...walter-johnson
I'm mostly making this post to see if anyone here has had cards from the same lot/collection slabbed. I'm not sure what would lead them to deem the card questionable authenticity, and this is definitely a bit disappointing given the praise their 'expert graders' have received. It is entirely possible I'm missing something, but both the seller and I believe this should've wound up in an Authentic holder.
Photos https://imgur.com/a/VKkkkzp |