Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2285913)

If their guarantee is worthless/deleted, not sure why they wouldn't grade bad cards. They have no liability anymore except bad press, which seems to fall under "all news is good news."

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 2286027)

Are upcharges a blessing or a curse?? Look, I get it. Everyone would rather pay $18 to grade a card instead of $85. But look at the bright side. If you are hit with an upcharge, that means that your card was deemed worth more than $1,500 in the eyes of SGC. For some, maybe they got the card for less than $1,500? That would be like winning a nice scratch off ticket.

Originally Posted by todeen (Post 2285965)

I sent it in the cardsaver with their sticker attached to it. I just wanted the card slabbed and protected. If they changed their opinion after seeing their previous opinion I would be surprised.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...759c0c0b59.jpg

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb (Post 2286086)

I remember this card. The seller guaranteed a numerical grade, and it came back authentic. The seller then refused any refund (partial or full) and Leon banned him. Funny how things come back around.

I'm confused why you wouldn't put it in a different card saver - you had nothing to lose and everything to gain. There is no way SGC would give it a numerical grade after seeing that it previously gave it an A.

However, if you had removed the prior label, there is a chance SGC would grade it a 1. What was your logic in simply resubmitting it with the SGC A label still attached?

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 2285892)

One is mine and one is Teza11. They both have skinned backs. They told me they don't grade blank back cards. I was like, these aren't blank backs....they are SKINNED backs.....and I pointed out that they graded those in the past. So we will see.

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 2286092)

I took it out of that card saver. I put it in a fresh blank one. I wanted him to have a fresh chance at a number grade. I may slip up from time to time, but for the most part, I know what I am doing.

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb (Post 2286099)

Bobby to the rescue!

If it comes back a numerical grade, and not just Authentic, the submitter owes you a nice Christmas gift as you will have significantly increased his card's value.

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 2286102)

It didn't. It came back AUHENTIC only. At least they are consistent.

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb (Post 2286116)

Are the cards current in transit back to you?

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 2286196)

Who is here has Spreadsheet experience and can help post grades in the group????

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 2286092)

I took it out of that card saver. I put it in a fresh blank one. I wanted him to have a fresh chance at a number grade. I may slip up from time to time, but for the most part, I know what I am doing.

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 2286215)

This is obviously the Milton Bradley variation. The submitter has noted it as such, and I wholeheartedly agree. I have looked at a ton of this version. Someone at SGC removed the Milton Bradley tag and called it the regular version. The white line is super hard to miss......

https://imgsrv.sellersourcebook.com/...jpg?1669150535

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb (Post 2286224)

Wow. Although the card's back is not posted, I'm confident that is a MB. The white line is impossible to miss.

I believe the MB's have a different tone of yellow, too.

Oh, well. Great look card still.

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb (Post 2286224)

Wow. Although the card's back is not posted, I'm confident that is a MB. The white line is impossible to miss.

I believe the MB's have a different tone of yellow, too.

Oh, well. Great look card still.

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 2286227)

It is...but what do you do now?? Sell it as a Milton Bradley and just say that SGC labeled it wrong???

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry (Post 2286266)

Hey all,

Grade update: Bobby sent me the garbled info from SGC and I am in the process of organizing it into a clean document. Will post when ready.

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 2286267)

Thank you. I know it looked a mess.

Originally Posted by jollyelm (Post 2286271)

sure, no rush at all... :cool:

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry (Post 2286275)

lol

Originally Posted by Casey2296 (Post 2286307)

Thank you Bobby

Originally Posted by chaddurbin (Post 2286318)

Thank you to both Bobby's....these are not grouped according to the submitters correct? I see my t206 lajoie portrait is away from the other 4 candy cards.

Originally Posted by chaddurbin (Post 2286318)

Thank you to both Bobby's....these are not grouped according to the submitters correct? I see my t206 lajoie portrait is away from the other 4 candy cards.

Originally Posted by JollyElm (Post 2286325)

Attachment 543714

"Now it's time for the airing of grievances..."

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb (Post 2286224)

Wow. Although the card's back is not posted, I'm confident that is a MB. The white line is impossible to miss.

I believe the MB's have a different tone of yellow, too.

Oh, well. Great look card still.

Originally Posted by JollyElm (Post 2286386)

I rightfully have grievances about the top pair here, and I don't know what's going on with the 1968 Mantle.



• The Winfield rookie is a wrong back card, so after talking with them about it, here was the reply:

"The Winfield would be labeled as wrong back and get an A."



But they graded it a 6.5, even though they told me directly it would only get an 'authentic,' as I wanted it to. WTF??



• The Brett rookie is just a cool, wildly miscut card that I was under the impression would also only get the 'authentic' grade. The card itself is pretty sweet, but they number-graded it an SGC 1, presumably because of how miscut it is. Argh!!! What's the point of that? Everyone can see it's crazy cut, so I wanted nothing more than an 'A.' Were I ever to sell it, how would I explain it? All anyone is going to see is an SGC 1 grade PLUS it's terribly cut, making it fall into the negative number grade category for anyone looking at it. Geez.



• And the 1968 Mantle got an 'A?' grade. What in high heck is that? Questionable authenticity?? Do they think it's a fake? Hopefully, the slab will have an explanatory word present.



Attachment 543751

Originally Posted by Lucas00 (Post 2286408)

Sounds like the mantle and winfield grades got swapped.

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 2286412)

No. The Mantle is Authentic with a description of miscut. The winfield is not miscut. Some errors were made. And they don't really have a good customer service number.

Originally Posted by big-six (Post 2286437)

There are two duplicates- 1953 Berra and Rizzuto.

Originally Posted by JollyElm (Post 2286386)

I rightfully have grievances about the top pair here, and I don't know what's going on with the 1968 Mantle.

• The Winfield rookie is a wrong back card, so after talking with them about it, here was the reply:
"The Winfield would be labeled as wrong back and get an A."

But they graded it a 6.5, even though they told me directly it would only get an 'authentic,' as I wanted it to. WTF??

• The Brett rookie is just a cool, wildly miscut card that I was under the impression would also only get the 'authentic' grade. The card itself is pretty sweet, but they number-graded it an SGC 1, presumably because of how miscut it is. Argh!!! What's the point of that? Everyone can see it's crazy cut, so I wanted nothing more than an 'A.' Were I ever to sell it, how would I explain it? All anyone is going to see is an SGC 1 grade PLUS it's terribly cut, making it fall into the negative number grade category for anyone looking at it. Geez.

• And the 1968 Mantle got an 'A?' grade. What in high heck is that? Questionable authenticity?? Do they think it's a fake? Hopefully, the slab will have an explanatory word present.

Attachment 543751

Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 2286460)

As long as they are not hand cut from a sheet SGC has always given wrong back cards number grades. My favorite 2 cards in the hobby a Wade Boggs/Roger Clemens wrong back pair are sitting in 8.5 and 9 slabs.

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 2286466)

Ben, I think he was looking at the Ebay listing. There is a seller on there, selling the exact same card for $3k. He claimed the card could only get an authentic grades. Now, Darren's card proves that not to be true. And I with you. Why would it NOT receive a numeric grade?? It is a legitimate card....albeit with the wrong back.