Greg, everyone that you dealt with on that card is a great guy. I've had awesome dealings with all. You can be comfortable with dealing with all of them. I've never had a bad experience with any of them. You can trust them. This hobby is great.

Jeff you are just jealous because you do not have any cards, let alone a Cobb, that hav 5 corners.

Jeff
 

Since Greg only dealt with SGC and myself and Scott Brockelman (B and L) and your statement is dripping with sarcasm, why don't you give each and every bad experience you have had with anyone involved? Here is your big chance. Go ahead and put all of the factual information right on out here.

You're just trying to tempt me to buy it from you. And it's not working. But seriously, let's keep this thread positive because the hobby deserves it.

Jeff
 

Jeff- Please answer my question about all of the bad dealings you have had with those you mentioned. If your post was serious, and I was mistaking, please let me know. It's sometimes hard to tell. If you don't say anything then you have said plenty and I would appreciate you putting a sock in your piehole, if that is the case.

Who would have thought that it wouldn't be until 2010 that a card which has 5 corners would be discovered? I thought my pointing that out was being positive, no? New discoveries, such as these, can only foster more interest in collecting cards.

By the way, can anyone suggest who I should contact at SGC to get them to pedigree the flip?

I'm going to send this thread to Mike O'Keeffe. It's important that he write about the good stuff in the hobby instead of the few bad apples who ruin it for the rest of us.

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...omer_drool.jpg

Mmmmmm Piehole....

Returning to the merits of the card, I am not an expert but it certainly appears to me from the front scan that there is a piece propped up behind the corner for the purpose of making the corner look square that now seems to have moved off at an angle. In my opinion, at the very least there is sufficient doubt about alteration that SGC should have stepped up to the plate and honored its guaranty, and I am surprised that they did not.

I'm not an expert on alteration; however, I suppose Greg would have been well-served to have looked at the card under a loupe before buying it. But who would travel out of state for a 2K card?

What Kind of Business Strategy is this?
 

You know, if the grading co. swallowed its pill and took this card back or otherwise made it right, they would look pretty good; a straight shooter and friend of the hobby. But to dig heels in when the grade is wrong for several (obvious) reasons, I don't get it.

Jeff imagine my trying to remain nonchalant as I am louping it so as to not give away my discovery of this hobby relic? Surely someone would have noticed my reaction and then I may not have been given the chance to purchase it at such a level or even at all. It is not everyday, not yet anyway, that one is given the opportunity to purchase an SGC graded PentaCobb.

IT's like how some cats have 5 "fingers" on their paws...they're usually extra special!

How does someone create a corner like that? Take a piece from a different T206 and use some kind of adhesive to secure onto the Cobb?

Well not according to head grader Derek Grady, Wes, but it suffices to say that on the floor of someone's lab is an otherwise NM T206 common with corner envy. Hope they used a Piedmont 350.

Derek and SGC have really outdone themselves this time. To dig in their heels over an alteration which is so obvious shows how unethical and corrupt they really are. On the flip side, without any obligation to do so, Leon and Scott (B-L Auctions) have forced me to take some compensation. SGC should be ashamed but they may too great for that.

Sorry to hear about this Greg.

I am surprised that SGC will not honor their buy back policy on this one.

Well it should be an eye opener for everyone on here. I am sure they have bought back cards however I am not sure under what conditions this would happen. I suppose a card with 5 corners is not obvious enough though.

I am sorry as well that this happened. Not the error of holdering the card but their rigid stance and unwillingness to admit to making the mistake.

In my opinion, there is not any clear evidence that the card was altered, there are many ways that the corner could have been damaged in that way naturally. Simply getting stuck under something could cause a pull in that fashion.

People often think that if a card has been graded, it has been guaranteed or certified that it has not to ever have been altered. That is simply not the case. SGC or PSA can't guarantee any card has not been altered in some way.

They can only refuse to grade a card if there is evidence, in their eyes, that it has been altered. There is a difference.

From the back of the card, I agree it is hard to tell if the card was altered. However, from the front end, it seems pretty clear to me. You can absolutely make out the original rounded corner with the sharp corner behind it.

From the original ebay auction scan,to me,it really just looked sort of like a pinched/or pulled corner.But when you look at the high res scan of the front of the card,it does look odd.The high res scan of the back of the card doesn't look as strange as the scan of the front.
Either way,I hope something good will come out of this somehow...........

Sincerely,Clayton

a quick note
 

I want to note that B and L Auctions gave back some compensation as a matter of good will. We are not 100% on the card. It's too hard for us to tell from the scans. Yes, it looks like there is an issue but we can't tell for sure. Greg is a good customer, and we hope he will continue to be, and SGC is still our grading company of choice for our auction business. This was an extraordinary situation, that we made an exception on, and generally speaking buyers remorse is not a reason for a return or refund. Happy collecting to all....

I agree....
 

....that the card looks funny like that. But I have taken a close look at a lot of fuzzy T206 corners and edges through a 10x loupe and it is amazing what kinds of interesting/bizarre things you see that you never saw with the naked eye. Which is to say that I think you could have a "corner pull" on the reverse of a card that would look like that.

But the fact that the wear on the front does not match the wear on the corner that had been pulled is what makes it seem to me rather obvious that someone put a piece of the card back on there -- or put another card's piece on there.

Just a suggestion for Greg if he feels the compulsion to tear that Cobb card up into 50 pieces...send it to me instead? :D

He can't break it out, that would void the guaranty.

From SGC
 

Sean Skeffington, VP of Operations for SGC, has asked me to post this for him.


I am reluctantly making this post because I have discussed this issue in detail with Greg in private. I believe this is an issue between SGC and Greg, however since he has posted images of the corner in question and there are clearly opinions on both sides, as to the originality of the corner. Here is our opinion on the card: The SGC grading team has thoroughly examined this card raw on two different occasions. Each time the conclusion was the same, that the card has a corner pull on the back and is not the result of an alteration. Cards exhibiting similar characteristics have been submitted for grading in the past. While we acknowledge the unique nature of this card, by no means do the scans provided indicate proof of any alteration.
With respect to SGC and our Guaranty. We have and will continue to purchase cards that are either overgraded or otherwise deemed not worthy to be in our holder. The cards we remove from the market are at the sole discretion our grading team, not by those who scream the loudest. I know that in the past we have bought back cards, some of which belonged to members of Net 54.
Finally from a business position, we are quite confident that our reputation is worth more than the $2400.00 Greg paid for the card. If we believed the card to be altered we would most certainly admit our mistake, avoid the negative publicity and move on. Regardless of the "evidence" Greg provided, the card is not subject to our Guaranty since we do not believe it to be a mistake. This will be the last comment we have on this subject, however if anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Sean Skeffington
Vice President-Operations
973-984-0018 x101
973-984-8447 Fax
sskeffington@sgccard.com

I think that was very commendable for B & L Auctions to do what they did,especially because they didn't have to-and it was very decent of Mr.Skeffington to come on Net54 to explain their stance to us.As always,there are two sides to every story.Thank you.

Sincerely,Clayton

If those scans particularly the front scan don't constitute evidence of alteration I cannot imagine what does. If SGC insists this card is good can we trust its assessment of other cards? Just my opinion.

While I know Sean will not reply I have comments/questions about what he posted.

Oh really? How similar are those characteristics? I would love to see scans of those. I have certainly never seen anything like this before.

What do you mean by the "unique nature of this card"? It cannot be unique if you have graded cards with similar characteristics.

I don't think you anticipated that you would get this kind of backlash from me. I think you figured due to our years of friendship that I would go away quietly.


And what other evidence do collectors have, Sean, other than visual assessment once the card is in the holder? You look at the card and make an opinion based on what you see based on what your level of experience and expertise is in distinguishing between alterations and natural anomalies. The card would have to be broken out and submitted to other grading services for independent assessment. If I were to break it out and submit it to other professional grading services I void your “guaranty.” Though legally speaking there has to be a guaranty in place in order for it to be voided. And even then if the other grading services reject the card you would say, "Sorry SGC stands behind the grade." It is a bit of a catch 22. That is why you told me to send it to PSA and if they rejected it you would place it back in the 60 holder. You do not care what anyone else says in assessing the card.

I know Sean stated "...by no means do the scans provided indicate proof of any alteration." What about these? And what exactly is a corner pull?

http://www.botn.com/cobbstudy.jpg

Awesome reference...Mr.Spiccoli.

[QUOTE=botn;799138]I know Sean stated "...by no means do the scans provided indicate proof of any alteration." What about these? QUOTE]

These new pics look like the corner split into 2 cross-sections and the one side started to pull up. In other words, no alteration.

If SGC took extraordinary effort to review this corner, it would have been easy for them to give it an "A" and be done with it.

[QUOTE=egbeachley;799165]So why is there wear on the front but the back piece is square??:confused:

That's my take exactly. I believe in the existence of corner pulls on T206 cards -- I think I've probably even seen them before. But I would expect the wear to be more even front and back.

Notwithstanding this, I would be willing to take the SGC graders at their word on this one. Hardly worth the headache if they thought it was a jump ball, which obviously they don't.

If the split corner had one side fold over and stay folded over for some time it could end up like that. And a clumsy attempt at flattening it could cause the pull of the nicer half. The thinner corner would wear more easily than a full thickness corner too.

But the lack of much wear to the other three corners makes it very weird. I'd really love to see the way the card had been originally stored. Perhaps in a part of a box that exposed one corner only? If so, there should be others from the same source with 3 nice corners and one more worn one.

Steve B

that corner looks like it could have been layered. I worked with document preservationists from the Ohio historical society that used similar techniques to restore damaged documents and such. Donor paper from the correct era is needed or you have to have someone make paper for you.

My first soaking of a dirty Obak card back in 2000 revealed alterations that were unable to be detected with the naked eye or with my magnifier. After soaking the card for about 5 minutes in warm , distilled water I noticed that not only were the pieces of gunk that looked like tobacco coming off the card, but part of the bottom right corner just floated away revealing a rounded edge underneath. you could see several very thin pieces of paper floating around in the water. Since then my brother and I have discovered a handful of T206's in our collection that had similar alterations. We bought them all off of Teletrade years ago, and not all of them were high profile cards.

I don't see, based on the scans, how it is any better than a jump ball, in which case the tie should go to the customer.

all well and good except....
 

All well and good to be a tie and a jump ball....except neither of the 2 opposing sides feel that way. Otherwise, it's a great way to break a tie!!
I think one prevailing theory, which I am sure can be shot down with another, is that the corner in question was flipped up and then laid back down (most collectors don't have a big problem with this as it's done all of the time) some time later in it's life, and that is the reason for the uneven wear on front as opposed to the back. We know T206's are quite thick compared to some other cards so I guess it could be possible. It could also explain the complete break in the paper. I am not stating this is MY view but it is a view, nonetheless, and a potential explanation. For me personally, I am still not 100% either way, but it does look weird. regards

BTW, Peter...your statement about how can we trust SGC after this, was absolutely ridiculous imo. I trust them with my personal cards and they are still our grading company of choice for B and L Auctions. Have you ever lost a case? (not inferring who is correct on this card, just making an example) If you have then how could any future client trust you? :D IT sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Leon I agree with the proposition one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, and if it were just a mistake on initial grading I wouldn't think about it at all really, but the insistence after a further review that this card is not possibly altered does make me wonder more generally.

Peter
 

Any question is fair. This board is known for tough questions. Yours truly has had some of the toughest ones thrown at me. It's all good.

I think on this one card in question both sides will continue to disagree with the other. The graders at SGC are adamant as well as Greg is adamant. Maybe they can leg wrestle at the National for it? With enough alcohol I might even leg wrestle :eek:, not sure for what, but I might do it!!

Hey Leon,

SGC calls this a corner pull. While I am not sure what the definition of that is (though maybe if you look it up it says see T206 Red Cobb SGC 60). Your theory of the flip does not work as the piece in question is completely severed at the side, the top and the bottom which you can see from the new pictures I posted. For it to be a "flipped" corner it would need a hinge. No hinge on this piece.

So why does the front of the corner have wear yet the back does not? The back piece is the most fragile and if it were not added to the card recently I cannot see how it would remain on the card or not sustain wear as well.

Due to the piece being severed how is it staying on the card and why is it on an angle?

Can anyone provide scans of a corner which has similar characteristics? I have never seen anything like this on a card. I have submitted tens of thousands of cards over the years.

Thanks,

Greg

Greg
 

I haven't handled or submitted quite as many cards as you have. I was only giving others' theories that I have heard. I didn't say they were mine. I do think a piece could be broken all the way around it and still be hanging on though. Personally, I would call that more of a paper pinch (see Red T206 Cobb for definition) but this is more semantics than anything. It's still a great looking card......I am sorry there is such controversy with it. regards

You are right Leon we can dance all around what we call this thing but a paper pinch would show a crease at least that is what I have always viewed paper pinches to mean. Regardless of what we term it the images clearly show something which I have never seen in my more than 20 years as a dealer and collector. And I have seen a lot.

I know just how much you all appreciate my bringing this thread back up to the top but after making several pleas for someone to provide me a scan of a card which has a “corner pull” one person finally came through. Herewith is a scan of the card and I will admit it looks very much like the corner on my T206 Cobb SGC 60 (if you can overlook the Cobb corner is on an angle).
http://www.botn.com/horseshoe2.jpg

Unfortunately this card, like the T206 Cobb SGC 60, is no longer in its original state. The example of above is another example of a card which has had modifications or alterations to the corners making them appear nicer than they really are. Below please see a scan of the card prior to it undergoing a very basic alteration.
http://www.botn.com/horseshoe1.jpg

Sean had described the T206 Cobb SGC 60 as having a “corner pull” and it took until now for me to figure out what he meant. A “corner pull” is a corner which has been pulled from a donor card to be attached to the card which you are attempting to enhance. Don’t know why Sean couldn’t just come out and say that directly rather than beating around the bush.

I know some of you are still in doubt despite the overwhelming evidence I have provided. SGC has merely provided a statement that they have reviewed the card and they feel it is graded accurately. Is that really enough? Anyone who knows anything about cards knows the T206 Cobb SGC 60 is altered. If not, then I should have been flooded with scans of examples of this anomaly. But not a single person could provide one. I understand why SGC is burying their heads but what about you? I lost $2,350 on this card. How much do you think you are losing when a grading company can make an error and then arbitrarily not honor their guaranty?

that sucks Greg
 

I feel for you Greg...I agree the card is/has been altered. It seems pretty clear to me. I guess one way to avoid this...which I practice...is to buy med/low grade cards.

This is a bad situation all the way around SGC should do the right thing here...I don't understand there apparent stubborness. I think the card has been altered also just based on the scans that have been provided and from what I've seen preservationists do to supposedly ruined documents. Sometimes I think the grading companies are just flipping us all the bird. I realize you have a business to run, but without collectors there is no need for grading DUH !!! :eek:

I have glanced through this thread. I have seen other cards with simular corners as the Cobb. I was sorting some 1960 Topps cards last night and found this one. Here are a couple of scans. The Cobb card looks like my Topps card. If the Cobb was not in a holder, it would probably look the same. When I put the corner back in place on my card it looks like the Cobb. I do not want to spend the time to try and have it stay in place.

http://www.oldvintagebaseballcards.c...ges/net542.jpg

http://www.oldvintagebaseballcards.c...ges/net541.jpg

http://www.oldvintagebaseballcards.c...ages/net54.jpg

http://www.oldvintagebaseballcards.c...ges/net543.jpg http://www.oldvintagebaseballcards.c...ges/net544.jpg


I do not have experience with corners that have been rebuilt, so I can not speak to that issue.

For starters the hanging piece on the corner of the 60 Topps card is still attached at one area, almost making a hinge at that one point. The corner on the Cobb card is severed circumferentially. I have seen plenty of cards with corner lifts like the one on your example.

Further if you were to lay the Cobb corner back into position you still have two distinct wear patterns on the tip of the front piece compared to the hanging piece on the back. Your example shows equal wear pattern on the two pieces. Thanks for showing it, though.

How did you lose $2350 on this card, I thought that's what you paid for it?
It certainly has some value.

Well Mike to anyone who does not drink the SGC made Kool Aid it is an altered card. What does an altered and trimmed Red Cobb sell for outside of a holder, even one as famous as this one? $500? Leon and Scott have been kind enough to force a $250 credit on me against my next B-L invoice so I am out $1600 not $2,350. However the good news is that there are enough SGC supporters out there who are convinced they can do no wrong AND SGC's graders do stand behind the grade, so I still have a chance to get back my $2,350.

Nice attitude...they forced a credit on you? Not exactly the most appreciative tone in your post.