Overgraded SGC Ramly

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I'm not surprised to learn that SGC makes mistakes. But this one is pretty obvious. How could anyone call this VG?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1854799668

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

The card looks to be about Ex with a crease. Either G-Vg or Vg. Do you see something else wrong with it?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I have seen plenty of SGC cards with no creases but more corner wear adn they got 30s. That just doesn't seem right. I would grade a crease free card with rounded corners higher than a creased card with sharp corners. I'll take eye appeal any day.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

<< I have seen plenty of SGC cards with no creases but more corner wear adn they got 30s. >>


And without stains, tears, tape, glue or other significant defects? I haven't.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay berhens

some back stains. But still, that crease is pretty heavy and I would still rather have a back stained creaseless card with round corners over one with a big crease like that. But then, that's just me.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Jay --

I agree. Given the same technical grade on two different cards, some defects appear less obtrusive than others.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I had always thought that one giant crease all the way across the card reduces it at least to Good. VG cards have lots of corner wear and maybe a noticeable wrinkle or two. But maybe standards have changed.

I agree with the rest of you that I'd much rather have a card with badly rounded corners than one with a crease like this.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I feel this is consistent with SGC grading. Unfortunately, like MW said, the technical grade doesn't take into account eye appeal. It should.
best regards,
leon
ps....I know this is a very subjective issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

If it has one crease of an inch or longer, combined with any other crease (regardless of size), it gets reduced to 'good'. The 'good' card could have tremendous eye appeal - here's an e95 Wagner (cracked out of an SGC 'good' holder) that failed the 'crease' rule, but looks much better than this Huggins Ramly. The creases are so faint you can barely see them in the scan, but they are there:

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I'll buy a card that looks like your Wagner, rather than the Huggins,every single time. It seems like they're using a real bad mechanical rule that doesn't take into account traditional grading standards or the appeal of the card.

Perhaps their focus is on distinguishing 7s from 8s and distinguishing 8s from 9s, and they don't care much about lower end cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: jeff s

two things:

1. the crease isn't quite as bad as it looks (though, of course, it's still pretty bad) and

2. i wouldn't be surprised if slightly less stringent standards were applied to ramlys -- not much, but it's much more uncommon for a ramly to survive in this kind of condition (minus the crease, of course) than other contemporaneous caramel & tobacco cards.

that isn't to say that SGC ought to grade that way, but it's plausible that really condition-sensitive cards (in mid or low grade) get cut a little slack.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Caramel cards are graded just as tough as the tobacco issues, even though some (e95's and e96's for example) are printed on thinner stock and had less of a chance of surviving in top condition than most tobacco issues. I also think, based on examples I have seen and submitted to them, that they are just as tough on Ramlys as caramels.

I would love to hear an opinion from Scott Brockleman, since he has seen many more SGC-graded Ramlys and Philadelphia Caramels than I have.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

But as I have said elsewhere, a clear scan shows the buyer just what this "VG" card is all about.

From SGC's website:

Centered 90/10 or better. This card usually exhibits one or more of these characteristics: heavy print spots, heavy crease(s), pinhole(s), color or focus imperfections or discoloration, surface scuffing or tear, rounded and/or fraying corners, ink or pencil marking(s), and lack of all or some original gloss.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Thanks for the quote from SGC's website. This card certainly fits within SGC's own definition of VG. I just didn't think that "heavy crease(s)" or "pinholes" or a "tear" or "ink" (at least on the front) could ever qualify as VG. I guess SGC just has very strict standards for the high grades, and very loose (but openly stated) standards for the low grades. Of course, that still doesn't explain why that really nice caramel Wagner is a 2.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

....