One question and one comment...

Q. Did they upcharge you (after the fact) on any of the 30 shitty grades?

C. It appears that they've already gone the way of PSA. Merger is in full swing now, and they don't want any variance between the two divisions.

Nobody ignored it. You feel the entire sub was undergraded. That's not the same as the entire sub being 5 grades undergraded. We are not talking about your whole sub. We are talking about this card. And to get a 4, there was a flaw you and PSA missed. The rest of the sub being a couple grades off for vintage is within the range of SGC just being tougher on certain things, or a particularly tough grader. No reason to assume incompetence is the sole reason for the grades. But you believe what you want.

Does anyone know how or grader submits their findings when they’re done ..
Prior to encapsulation ?
Do they press a “9” or a “4” on a keyboard ?
Do they write “9” or “4” on paper ?
With all the stories about TPGs mislabeling cards and putting cards in the wrong slab - Maybe it was just a big fat user error

You know best, I'm sure. Again, the problem is they think something is a flaw when it's a normal part of the card, because they don't know vintage. This really isn't hard but be the contrarian and know it all, that's cool.

No upcharges. But this was pre merger.

We all see things differently. It always confuses me when just because of age people think cards should be graded differently. To me it is a card and no matter the printing date they should all be treated the same or it just adds more confusion to the process.

Peter, I don’t deny the possibility of a hose job but was just looking for more info. I know nothing about the set and chuckled at the thought that it is considered “vintage’, which makes me paleozoic. Was your entire submission all cards from this set? You say there must be some minor, insignificant trait that caused the grader to downgrade. Assuming that’s true, do you have even a guess as to what that could be, and do you think the same “flaw” was observed in all of your submitted cards?
Way back in 1989 I bought boxes of Score baseball cards, which were then considered all the rage. Dozens upon dozens of them in many boxes bought at different times and places had one or more corners somewhat pressed down slightly, as if they had been packed too tight. These were noticeable only if you held them up and looked at an angle, and were resolved at least to my satisfaction with thumb and forefinger or just having them laid flat for awhile with something on top. To this day I do not know if this is discernible to a TPG since I have no intention of submitting any of them for grading. Is there any known characteristic for this Panini set that collectors disregard because it is apparent in many or even most all of them?

Wide range of mostly nonsports from the 30s on. I will look at Senna again I don't have it back in hand yet. The grading on European issues tends to be very inconsistent by both SGC and PSA because they don't know the difference between natural and trivial imperfections in the paper stockor the printing, and wear. And it's because, I infer, many of the new graders are used to seeing mostly perfect new shiny cards and are not trained how to grade older cards.

If you take any high grade card that isn't ultramodern, put it under high power magnification and under a powerful light at an angle, you are going to see "stuff." The question is when should it matter.

Ironically, it is you who thinks he knows best, and has even profiled a completely unknown grader along with an evaluation of the validity of the flaw he may or may not have noticed as beinig a completely normal part of the card, and assume he is a young kid who only knows modern cards. All the while you have literally zero facts to support all those assumptions.

But sure. I'm the contrarian know-it-all. Just because I assume the simplest answer (and one I've seen in countless message board complaint threads like this one: the submitter missed something) :rolleyes:

I don't think I know best, I own the card and have examined it closely, and you in your arrogance think you're in a position to tell me I missed something. In terms you will understand (presumably anyhow), lack of foundation for your opinion.

Yet all you give us is a crappy scan of the front of the card, eliminating any possibility we can look at the surface for ourselves and forcing us to take your word that the card is mint. Hmm.

Face it, you were deceptive from the first post, trying to hide the fact that they were the same card, and have concealed the actual condition of the card intentionally. Someone who truly wanted us to look at the card and give informed feedback would have taken high quality photos in good light at various angles. But that was never your intent. This whole thread was an SGC bash thread, created in hopes we would just take your word for it and join in on making fun of this neophyte grader. I'll pass. I'd rather trust my experience that when one grader grades a card and 9 and one grades it a 4, there is something the grader who gave it a 9 missed.

But hey, you know best (because you guaranteed you were the only one with the information in this thread). :rolleyes:

Now you're accusing me of deception. Seriously? How dare you? Do you come to this Board just to fight with people? It's the official PSA scan and the other is the official SGC scan. Yeah, I'm really trying to deceive by scans. And I knew that within 10 posts someone would put two and two together and expose the irony in my post, hiding something indeed. Lighten up, dude. Anyhow, carry on, I am sure there are plenty of fights to be had here and on Blowout, I'm done with you and your ad hominem bullshit.

PS The other day you admitted you needed to work on not pushing people's buttons. Keep trying.

Perhaps the young grader didn’t realize it was a sticker and got confused by the flimsiness 🙂
(I am half kidding)

There is no question that at some point both companies dramatically increased the size of their grading force and inevitably, given the nature of submissions, many of the new hires (who in fact were relatively young) were not real familiar with vintage or European issues.

In the context of a message board that caps uploaded images at 2005 file sizes, I'm not sure what more than a clear scan one could reasonably produce for examination.

Yes, how dare anyone challenge your assertions? If anyone disagrees with you, they are "contrarian" or attacking you. :rollseyes: It couldn't possibly be that you missed something, or don't know everything. It's definitely being contrarian. It's truly pathetic that no one can question you without you claiming they're picking a fight. The solution to this false claim is simple. I'll just put you on ignore and problem solved. Enjoy your card with surface issues. Goodbye.

I explained what I was suggesting. Scans are terrible for showing surface issues. Photos in good light, from various angles, provide useful information. You can absolutely provide useful photos on this site. The fact that we didn't even get back scans in a thread designed to bash a grading company for incompetence tells me all I need to know about the intent of the thread.

Nice distortion of what I said, counselor. Weak. The "dare" comment was only when you suggested I had a deceptive intent, and you know that. And that comment was completely out of line. Every post you make suggests you just want to attack people and fight. I think you fit in better on Blowout, perhaps you can continue the discussion you're having there about garbage and rats?

Yeah, I'm hiding those publicly-available back scans. That's right. Of course, you're contradicting yourself, because according to you they wouldn't show surface issues anyway.

I didn't peg you for a Sports Card Radio fan. I can't say I'm surprised.

I maybe watched a part of one of his videos once years ago which I don't recall the details of, and if it's who I am thinking of, corrected him when he posted on Blowout misinformation about the PSA guarantee. Other than that, no opinion at all. I suspect from things I have heard I would not be a fan, if I had any basis for an opinion.

Wait, is he the one who came up with the nicknames for some of the card doctors? I did find those funny.

Garbage and rats, why the heck do they get all the good threads?:D:D:D

Membership is open. Join the fray. :D

I wasn't having a discussion about garbage and rats. Just another misrepresentation of my posts by Peter. That's his M.O. It was a discussion about Sports Card Radio. I simply referred to them as rats feasting on garbage as a metaphor for their trash content. No other discussion of garbage and rats. For someone who plays the victim of misrepresentation so often, he sure likes to do it to others :rollseyes:

SMH. You used both terms, did you not, to describe someone? That's the point, I did not mean to suggest you were literally having a discussion on the TOPIC of garbage or the TOPIC of rats. Do you take everything literally? And yeah, I play the victim a lot. Ridiculous. There is only one other person on this forum who engages in personal attacks against me. Everyone else here seems capable of sometimes spirited, but always polite discussion. Blowout is definitely more suited to your style.

This thread is a good example of what happens when two very knowledgeable, highly intelligent, apparently nice guys — even fellow “brothers of the bar” — go down the rabbit hole of electronic media. I suspect you would never talk to each other this way if you were face-to-face. Such is the Internet. So here’s an unsolicited suggestion: apologize, shake hands, and walk away (electronically). Or you could just tell me to mind my own business (while pointing out that I’m ugly and stupid). -Jack Richards