|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why did SGC make a point to say this card is unaltered?
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
They probably feel that the card is original, but does not meet their minimum size requirement.
Last edited by Baseball Rarities; 12-10-2010 at 08:27 AM. Reason: spelling |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
good question
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Could the seller have asked SGC to not grade numerically?
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Kevin was right,
the seller just emailed be back and said "it didnt meet size requirements" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
So if does not meet minimum size requirements and it was not altered, what happened, did it shrink?
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
The more significant issue about the card is the listed price -- about 3-4x what it's worth.
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/sets |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Wasn't this card just in a major auction? I believe it was purchased from Heritage (for half that) a month or two ago.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mile High $7,300 ?
David |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I do know that for a card that does not meet minimum size requirements, SGC looks for evidence of trimming. If they find such evidence, they advise it is trimmed/altered. If not, they will still refuse a numerical grade, but they will specify that the card is unaltered and authentic. (And FWIW, on a card like that, if you specify on the submission form that you don't want an "A" holder, they will return the undersized card to you with a voucher in the amount of the grading fee you paid - at least they did that for me on an undersized but unaltered card from my last submission. If they find evidence of trimming, no voucher.) Cheers, Blair
__________________
My Collection (in progress) at: http://www.collectorfocus.com/collection/BosoxBlair |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Welcome to ebay BIN.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|