Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   SGC Grade of "0 - C" (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=126783)

t206hound 08-19-2010 12:51 PM

SGC Grade of "0 - C"
 
Just checked my submission status, and one of my T206 cards has a grade listed as: "0 - C"

What is this?

glchen 08-19-2010 12:54 PM

If you look at:

http://www.sgccard.com/grading_scale.htm

It seems to say:

0 = back surface
C = color added

t206hound 08-19-2010 12:54 PM

Never mind
 
I see that it indicates "color added" on the back... didn't think that the crayon would result in a rejection since ink, pencil and stamps don't.

Rob D. 08-19-2010 12:54 PM

C = Color Added

0 = Back-Back Surface

http://www.sgccard.com/grading_scale.htm

Robextend 08-19-2010 12:56 PM

I believe that indicates Color Added.

When you submit you have the option of having the card being slabbed as an "A" if it is deemed altered.

Matt 08-19-2010 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t206hound (Post 830438)
I see that it indicates "color added" on the back... didn't think that the crayon would result in a rejection since ink, pencil and stamps don't.

Conjecturing here, but a distinction could be made between that which is done to alter/enhance the card like coloring in borders and that which is done with no such intent.

Exhibitman 08-19-2010 04:36 PM

Since intent is so hard to figure I'd simply prefer an "A" with an explanation note on the flip, like "color added to back" or "trimmed left edge".

Matt 08-19-2010 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 830501)
Since intent is so hard to figure...

I think in most cases with cards it's pretty easy to figure - when someone writes a players name or position on a card it's not done with intent to make the card appear as if it's in better condition then it was; when they take a black marker and color in the border on an N300 then it is. Of course your point is well taken in those cases where there is some ambiguity (I'm actually curious which way the TPGs would go with those) would , but IMO most cases are pretty clear.

t206hound 08-19-2010 09:00 PM

Here's the card
 
I was wrong about which card was rejected. I assumed that it was the one with crayon, but it wasn't. The one with crayon graded a 10 as expected. The rejected card was the Stovall from this ebay listing... reference the back scan on the right:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=370392708814

Leon 08-20-2010 01:14 PM

agree and....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt (Post 830520)
I think in most cases with cards it's pretty easy to figure - when someone writes a players name or position on a card it's not done with intent to make the card appear as if it's in better condition then it was; when they take a black marker and color in the border on an N300 then it is. Of course your point is well taken in those cases where there is some ambiguity (I'm actually curious which way the TPGs would go with those) would , but IMO most cases are pretty clear.

I absolutely agree with this statement. I also believe SGC will look at "intent" on the "marks" too. I am surprised that a crayola on the back of a card would get an A. I would guess there is something else wrong. If not, then they must have felt the crayola was meant to enhance the card in some way. best regards

woops, I missed reading that last post....my assumption was correct :)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:13 AM.