What the Hell SGC I am out
I don't have much time to post here lately, but I feel this is important to post for various reasons.
I sent a 3 card submission to SGC last week, which arrived on the 14th 1917 Zeenut Bill Burns T225 Abe Attell Blank Back possibly printer scrap T203 Winner Cut A Fowl Bawl I don't use SGC a ton anymore mostly because they don't have a registry and I am just not buying a ton of raw cards anymore. A day after they received the cards I got a refund for two of the cards. I sent an email asking what the refund was for and Brent told me it was for the T225 and T203. I had sent in the T225 years ago but figured I would give it a go again. I have the full T203 Mayo set and have been working on the Winner set for years, they are ALL in SGC holders (30 or so cards) so I wanted to keep the new addition in the same holder. I had graded other T-203 in June of 2021. After being told what the refund was for I asked why T-206 blank backs are graded which are likely scrap as well but more importantly why the hell a basic tobacco card is no longer being graded by SGC. Amazing I got NO response and my cards shipped today. The fact that they wont grade a basic tobacco card just blows my mind. Blowing off my questions just seems to be pair for the course with grading companies these days anyway. For every one good thing they have 2-3 times as many issues and this is the last call for me. So I guess if you intend to send SGC basic cards you better ask if they still grade them because who knows what the hell they will refuse these days. James Gallo |
1 Attachment(s)
So they didn't really give a reason? Surely they, and all TPGs, should grade them?
Here are some raw Winner's below... I never thought about sending them in. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
After I sent a email saying thanks for the lack of response I quickly got a "we are looking into it" response but they already sent the cards back. The inconsistencies are out of control, they are more worried about turn around and building up the modern card market instead of the people who helped build up the company years ago and still give a damn. Leon I don't have 4 of those if you want to sell them LMK. Thanks James G |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Brian |
Is the T225 one of the poster cuts? 99% of the blank backs are those.
|
What the Hell SGC I am out
I hear Sgc is no longer Grading Blank Backs of any cards that have a standard back available.
Breakout cards on YouTube had this same issue with a I believe it was a ‘62 topps blank back. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
My only response to that is you don't have the knowledgeable staff anymore which goes back to them caring more about new crap then vintage but who knows really. James G |
They have become a band of idiots.
They told me the only back variations of 1952 topps are red and black, there are no gray backs, even after being a choice in their drop down menu. They subsequently graded gray backs for REA a week later. I fought the charges on my credit card and won. I suggest you try the same. |
What is going on over there? It seems like they are trying to run the business into the ground.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I’m building the master set of all 10 backs. |
I cannot rest from travel: I will drink
Life to the lees: All times I have enjoy’d Greatly, have suffer’d greatly, both with those That loved me, and alone, on shore, and when Thro’ scudding drifts the rainy Hyades Vext the dim sea: I am become a name … |
Quote:
At one point I have all or nearly all the backs for Attell, but they refuse to note the backs and it became a pain some are far rarer then others. Good luck with the hunt. James G |
Quote:
As far as them not grading your T203 card, and giving you no reason why, I'm assuming the "Fowl Bawl" card you sent them is the same card/image as the very one Leon posted an image of, am I right? Assuming so, I'm going to go out on a limb here and pose a thought/question. Is it possible they declined to grade and encapsulate your T203 card because of the very politically incorrect, by today's standards, image on that card, and the idea(s) it portrays? There's another current thread here elsewhere on the forum about possible players that some refuse to collect due to their not so nice actions and deeds. Is it possible one of the TPG's has gained a conscience and decided to no longer grade certain cards that may show what are nowadays unacceptable images and/or portray questionable ideas or topics? Once a TPG encapsulates such a card, the image/ideals portrayed on that card are now linked to that TPG, as long as the card remains in their holder. The TPG then may have just declined to give you the actual reason for not grading it so as to not publicly broadcast a possible change in their thinking, and maybe spark folks to go looking for other "not so nice" cards they had previously graded in the past, and then call them out on those. Would be interesting to see what the TPG would have done had you sent them a different T203 card to grade, without the quite obvious racial bias and imagery on the card you did send them. |
Quote:
But perhaps such minimalist censorship is maybe not that possible to do in this case. |
Quote:
Brian |
Quote:
Thanks for trying to give them an out but yea no I dont' think that's it. James G |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Some of the backs are a lot tougher than people realize. Gorgeous little set that gets not much love. Here's one of the complete posters: |
Maybe their have been layoffs....no longer have the resources to look into this to see what it is. Idk
|
Quote:
Or did you mean by your statement that in this case the TPG cannot just gloss over and more or less ignore the card's negative image and connotation, and really has no choice but to either refuse to grade such a card, thereby condemning the card's image and connotation, or go ahead and accept it for grading and apparently have no issue with the card's image and connotation? The TPG obviously can't go putting a proverbial "fig leaf" over parts of the card that may be seen negatively, and so they must make an "all or nothing" type decision in this case. Is that more like what you're trying to say? As I asked in my last post, I wonder if the TPG's response to grading the OP's T203 card would have been different had he sent in a different T203 card without such a possibly negative image and connotation? |
Quote:
I suspect this is another case where you're deep into the weeds here, focused on important details and serious thinking, and I'm mostly just popping in with a random moment of ludicrous hilarity intended more to amuse than to enlighten. Although my wife will also be the first to remind us both that the only thing worse than an accountant with a sense of humor is one who *thinks* they have a sense of humor. But as long as I'm at it, here's another hot take: I understand the good folks at Disney have taken to adding warning labels to the beginning of their classic movies, so that discerning audiences will be forewarned about the sorts of terrible subjects, images, and historical anachronisms that they will be subjected to if they continue on to actually watch the movie. Perhaps the TPGs could add some sort of a cover to objectionable cards that can be rolled back a little at a time, but is permanently affixed so as to be incapable of being removed from the case. The cover could have a lengthy disclaimer about the card in question portraying historical themes and images that are not suitable for modern audiences, at which point a would-be viewer of the card could choose to proceed, or could choose to move on and spare themselves from such indecent exposure. In this fashion, the TPG could demonstrate that they have properly managed to both provide the submitter with an opinion about the card's grade, while also transmitting their lack of support for the messages and themes conveyed by the card. And with any luck, it's only a matter of time before most every historical baseball player is subject to being cancelled or censored. Heaven knows that there is no shortage of valid reasons for going there. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And what I was suggesting was by no means saying they're looking to draw some crazy line in the sand. Cards of players like Cobb generally just show him posing or playing ball, nothing wrong with that. But maybe show an image of Cobb, or any other player, hitting or otherwise abusing or demeaning a minority person, now that is an entirely different story and issue for just that particular card/image, not for any other cards/images that player may appear on/in that don't have such potentially troubling images or connotations. Is it likely that is the main reason they didn't grade your T203 card, I agree with you it is probably not. But it doesn't mean that refusing to grade it because of its potentially offensive nature to many is not a completely illogical and implausible reason for someone to not want to grade it as well. Just throwing it out there as part of the conversation that many people may never have considered or thought off. Just look at our culture today. Say/do/show something that gets taken even the slightest bit the wrong way, and the next thing you know you're being attacked online and over social media and being treated like a pariah, which no business I've ever heard of would ever voluntarily want. |
Part of the issue is that if the blank back is a one-off, the company may be thinking that it is really a misprint rather than a variation. I've got all sorts of blank backs from all sorts of companies. It happens. As I recall, the last one I sent to SGC (a 1970 Topps Hank Aaron AS) got an "A".
|
Quote:
And as I responded to Jim, the OP, in my last post, I do not think that given the way things are today that businesses are still all totally ignorant or oblivious to potential issues that can arise in regard to being associated with things that aren't accepted like they once were. The rise of online presences and social media have taken care of that. Again, look at the other current thread here on the forum asking about certain players you may not collect due to things they've said or done. There were several posters so far admitting they have issues with, and therefore don't want, cards of certain players as a result. So why would it seem to people that the idea of a grading company maybe not wanting to be associated with a potentially offensive card to many is somehow crazy and farfetched? As a CPA yourself, who's probably worked with and advised a number of businesses over the years, what would you say if someone from a TPG had come to you as their client and said they had someone submit a potentially racially offensive card to them to grade, and they were concerned that by grading it, their company name would now be right alongside of and forever linked to that potentially racially offensive image. Would you just simply tell/advise them to go ahead and grade it, make the couple extra bucks off this one customer, and don't look back or ever worry about it because it couldn't possibly ever negatively affect their business going forward, or would you say something else like, holy crap, maybe we should talk and think about this some more? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I come from a long line of jocular signori who are always looking for an angle to sneak in a joke. Safe to assume that I'm never being serious. |
Quote:
So, does that "Yep" mean that you would advise a TPG client to maybe sit down and talk some more about them grading a potentially offensive card then? You are so correct though that things are definitely not the same, even from such a short time ago. And that is exactly why what is possibly crazy and farfetched today is a TPG/business NOT at least looking at and thinking through the potential issues and impact of becoming involved with grading potentially offensive material/items. Doesn't mean they won't still end up doing it though. |
Quote:
Good to know, I'll keep that in mind. :D |
I'll posit that SGC can't get out of their own way on how to be successful. So many missed opportunities during Covid to take market share with proper management. The black apron is the only thing keeping them relevant.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. |
Quote:
But if we ignore all that, for any business that changes their policies around delivery of their services, it seems like they should be willing to publish that change in policy to their customers and potential customers, to avoid having those customers feeling abused when stuff like this happens. I mean, when my local Taco Bell runs out of Nacho Fries and/or Mexican Pizzas, they at least have the good sense to post a sign so that I am alerted to it, and can instead direct my business to another fine dining establishment. A similar courtesy from our local friendly TPG would be a good way to go, if it is indeed the situation that their policies have changed. |
Quote:
I don't know why they would decline a T203, but this seems far fetched. |
Quote:
|
Greg Poster
Not to change the subject but cool poster Greg...Jerry
|
Some guy on FB recently posted a freshly graded SGC 5 ‘63 Mantle that had a pube on the Mick’s chin. It was hilarious — the pube was shaped similarly to the Family Guy’s chin that seems to resemble a ballsack.
I think the owner is a net54 guy. Maybe he will share it here. It’s pretty hilarious although probably not for him. |
Quote:
|
Inside. At least that was the claim of the post. No reason to think the guy was making it up as I believe him to be a reputable sort.
|
Quote:
As absolutely ridiculous as i think it would be to pick and choose what cards you all of a sudden grade because the PC climate of the world we are i , i would not be so upset if they just said that from the start. That being said the lack of a reason gets me thinking how clueless they are atm. James Gallo |
Quote:
LOL, why does everybody always assume it's a pube. I'll never understand that. :confused: :D |
Wasn't there a boxing card from the 50's where the guy stood in front of a swastika? Do they not grade that one anymore?? How about the horrors of war card?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
What is so offensive to some of you guys? Is it the white guy stealing a base or the white lady showing her underwear?
|
Quote:
|
Re: Sgc
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why a formerly good company like SGC decided to give up phone service and customer service, must have taken a short sighted executive decision maker to do that. Well 18 months later and thousands of sold cards later, I have decided not to use them anymore until its finally resolved, no matter how fast they grade, the new card market is on the verge of collapse and is a bloated, manipulated market and as a poster just stated, SGC forgot who was their base.
|
What the Hell SGC I am out
This was my gift from SGC in yesterday's mail. The ultra rare, 1963 Topps #200 SP Mickey Mantle "Clubhouse Pube" card!
Really, WTF. How does this get through QC? Brent was of course apologetic, and offered shipping and a reholder and quick turn around, but instead I just had him refund me and popped it. Mickey is now resting in a shiny new One Touch, where I managed to get the job done without encapsulating errant short and curlies from my nether regions. I'm done, have no stomach to send those guys my cards anymore. This was after last year dealing with defective slab inserts that had misshapen plastic shards sticking into the edges of other Mantle cards. I do love a properly graded card in an attractive slab, but from now on will seek out 3rd party sellers where I can inspect the slabs first over sending my own raw vintage in. The disgust factor / "these guys know more about grading than me, really?" aspect of this was just too much for me. I'm an (apparently emotional) Cubs fan, if that makes a difference. That was a line too humorous to pass up on other social media yesterday... For your viewing pleasure, The Mick - Peter Griffin style. A shame they don't have dual grading on relics, as I'm pretty sure the pube itself would have been at least a 7. Strong texture and curl: https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...d8ab4f476d.jpg https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e703703d5f.jpg |
Quote:
Thanks for reaching out to me, Jason. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
They offered you more than me and I wasn't seeking anything except for them taking responsibility for putting a crease in a card that I subbed that wasn't previously creased. Brent blew me off, so I emailed Peter and 2 weeks later no response. I just ask that they let the grader know to be more careful and acknowledge that a mistake was made. So after 20+ years, I may finally be done with SGC...or until somebody more mature than Peter is steering the ship
|
Quote:
This was uncalled for. A simple quality control would have caught that. You are right, the people grading and handling these cards know less about them that you and I. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm a blasphemer though, I use to keep my cards mostly in binder sheets but had to move on from that (I collect print defects and variants alongside my base sets, and it's a pain to move all the cards 1 slot every time I discover a new one...) to penny sleeves and top loaders. That took up too much space, so now 95% of my vintage cards are completely unsleeved and actually handled. All of my Topps/Bowman are pocket free and lined up in 1,600 count shoeboxes. Most of my T cards are naked too. I mostly worry about N cards preservation wise, they have not aged so well as the T cards and post-war vintage and fade. |
What the Hell SGC I am out
Quote:
SGC’s jagged edge inserts - they used to be a lot more common than you see now - to me seem more problematic. SGC cards don’t move in the slab nearly as often as you see with PSA, but the potential for something really bad to happen there to me seemed a lot worse. All of this in the name of grading. Sometimes it’s silly. A card in a toploader and penny sleeve generally won’t move. A card in a card saver won’t move. But oh, get your collection “preserved” with grading… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Quote:
SGC I had a T card get a nasty gouge from. It was one of those cards that slipped behind the black gasket, but in so doing, only part of the left edge slid under the gasket. About half way down, the card got smushed in and indented by the black gasket. And I don’t even keep graded cards, I crack ‘em. These may not be issues with the newest slabs, but I’ve never had a card get damaged in a top loader and penny sleeve. A penny sleeve allows some movement but it’s a soft cushion, unlike the SGC gasket. |
Quote:
Yeah, when I say cards that “move” are generally ok, I’m talking about ones slabbed in proper holders with the proper recessed dimensions on the rails. All of that goes out the window when they run out of the correct size, and that lazy streak kicks in and they just use whatever they have. Oddball and small sizes of course are always at more risk of having this happen. I’d chew PSA up one side and down the other, and make sure I got paid out if they ever damaged a card due to using the wrong slab. SGC and the issue from awhile back of cards slipping behind the gasket was scary. Though they have worked to improve the gasket over the last 20+ years, I’m still just not a huge fan of the design. SGC slabs seem to work more like a picture frame with a mat, with the card sandwiched in there. If they do it right it works most of the time, but just doesn’t seem like the best design to me. PSA’s slab has more of a real enclosure, but the cards generally seem to move more within them. I guess everything is a trade off. Beckett had a good idea with the internal sleeve, but it seems to be poorly implemented in most cases because of the shoddy grade of plastic they use. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Quote:
Beckett slabs, in my completely arbitrary opinion, are the least good looking. They are so thick and the card seems to be buried in the slab, losing something in the presentation. I think PSA and SGC at least look nicely presented. Beckett is annoying to crack open too. |
Quote:
As for fit, I've always thought it was tight. I don't do too much prewar, but even for like oversized pre-'57 vintage - in many cases you can't see much of a gap at all between the gasket and the card, and I wondered for some how they get them in there consistently. For all that I have busted however, even if tight - the cards have come out no worse for the wear. Beckett is blah / yuck. Some laud their slab as the "most secure" but in reality that thicker plastic is brittle, and will crack / shard up easily if you set to work cracking one. I will agree they are the most difficult to bust, but not because of the strength of the plastic - it's because of the "shoebox lid" design (one half of the slab basically fits into the other like a shoebox) and figuring that out that most people have a hard time with it. The Beckett sleeve in the slab, assuming you get that far - is the worst. It's reminiscent of a mid-80's album page in thickness. I've never understood why they don't just use a regular, thin UP penny sleeve in those slabs, it would do the same job and look a hell of a lot better. |
Read my thread about the SGC group sub. I labeled the Ryan a Milton Bradley variation. The original submitter did as well. Whoever entered it in, missed it. Sometimes they simply have to realize that the submitters know more than the employee there does.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:53 PM. |