[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.

Not at all JP. Very appreciative and as I stated several times but you were too busy bickering on 27 other threads to notice, Leon refused to take no for an answer and when he offered me the credit. That is why I wrote "forced". I did not want Leon or Scott coming out of pocket since they were not the ones who placed the card in a graded SGC holder.

I'm just glad it didn't get shredded. Nice to hear you still have it.

Big deal about nothing...

I see extremely close up pics of a 100 year old card that was made of very brittle multi-layered card stock. The corner got bumped slightly at some time, the top layer (back) of the fragile brittle card stock cracked and dislodged at corner a bit but did not separate from the rest of card completely (yet).

Card looks OK too me. even if that piece fell off its a 60 IMO, and no that corner does NOT have VG wear its EX+ wear

Remember these are high quality extremely close up pics, which actually show single paper fibers floating in slab too.

Nevermind, you've made your mountain and it's impossible for you to be impartial...I won't even bother...

May I suggest that you go to the National or a Philly show where they are grading on sight. Give them the card, let them open it and both SGC and you inspect it out of the slab. If the piece in question is attached to the card, then it is part of the card and you should pay them their on site grading fee. If it is an extra piece from a different card, then the piece could be removed and the card graded as is. Sell the card at an independant auction and SGC could owe you the difference what you paid and what the card sold for.

Not placing any blame but IMO I think this may have been where things started to go south. If true, perhaps Scott should have been a little more informative. Based on his skill, knowledge and expertise, if he indeed said there was only some wear, it would have been encouraging news...enough to make a confident and comfortable bid.
.
.

Hey Kevin!

That is certainly one point at which this may have been averted however if the card had been assessed properly by SGC then it never would never been holdered so Scott would not have a card to examine. And whether or not he should have recognized something which looked odd, how far does an auction house have to go on authenticating an authenticated item? I don't know the answer myself. Just asking...

interesting
 

if you look the seller's other ebay listings, it seems to me that this person has a grudge against SGC and claimed many of his SGC cards are trimmed or altered.

http://shop.ebay.com/grays/m.html?_n...&_trksid=p4340

Wow.So SGC missed this many trimmed/altered cards,that are residing with just one person?:confused:

I don't know what to make of this..........

Clayton

Sgc
 

Greg, I noticed on your ebay listings that you submitted some of these broken out cards to PSA 6 times. Did you try to resubmit any of them in their raw state back to SGC? I wonder if they would have come back as trimmed?

Just curious,

Rick

I wish I kept all my "PSA 6" trimmed cards in case I wanted to start a crusade against them.

:D hmmm.......