My SGC Submission - The Die Is Cast...
 

Do you have 18 minutes to waste on listening to someone whose raspy voice (according to his girlfriend) sounds like a forty year habit of smoking two packs a day? (I don't smoke.)

If that's a resounding YES, then check out part one of my SGC (what's eventually going to become a) Blind Reveal video. It's basically just me yammering on about the 20 vintage cards I mailed out to SGC on Wednesday afternoon. When I get them back in roughly a fortnight (always wanted to use that word), I'm going to continue the video to show what grades they all got.

Although it's pretty boring (and who knows if my grade guesses are even close to reality), it's always cool to see an array of vintage cards and I think there's a giggle or two to be had (plus some science, too), so please check it out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYiM_fy3h0M


Here are the cards in the submission...

Attachment 590063Attachment 590064

Attachment 590061Attachment 590062

Attachment 590059Attachment 590060

Attachment 590057Attachment 590058

Attachment 590055Attachment 590056


Side Note:
In the video, I refer to a denty area in the gloss on the 1966 Koufax card around the 'A' in "Koufax," here's a split second screenshot where the light/shadows sort of reveal the triangular anomaly I'm talking about...

Attachment 590067

Great video, love the commentary. As far as your 64 Mick, I would say you will receive Authentic, with Erased designaton. I recently had two cards come back with that, which I thought were actually print defects. I still do, but they are the professionals, right.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Enjoyed the video. Can't wait for part 2.

Mike

What an idiot I am! In the slip of paper referring to Net54, I forgot to write it as the proper "Net54BASEBALL.com." I frickin' forgot the word "baseball"???????? Eesh.

Pin the correction in the comments. I think most viewers can find net54 alright as you displayed it, besides, who would watch a baseball card video on youtube and NOT know about net54??

I recently had a submission return from SGC. You are correct they have great turnaround times. You most certainly will receive your disappointment and inconsistent grades much quicker with SGC than PSA. On the plus side they do communicate and return emails 100X better than PSA who doesn’t seem to make any effort to offer quality customer service. Nonetheless I wish you luck!

Jolly, thanks for posting this video...I found it to be utterly 'epic"
I can't wait for reveal day

Great stuff. I did not realize you were a YouTube celebrity! :D

Jolly...great video...I totally enjoyed it. Your very entertaining...:) I can't say I disagree with any of your grades, be fun to see how they turn out. I've had very mixed results lately...some have graded lower, a couple graded way higher than I though to be honest. The biggest bummer was a 54 Bowman Mantle I popped from a PSA 2.5 came back A, evidence of trimming. It's OC and sharp, no way it was trimmed. Anyway, is what it is...:)

BTW...I was cracking up about the fingernails at the end. I have some pretty harsh OCD issues myself and that is a huge pet peeve of mine. About half way through I actually thought...hey, thanks Jolly, your nails look great! hahaha...not kidding. Some folks just don't get it! :)

I mailed out the package on Wednesday and they received it in Boca (NY speak for "Boca Raton, FL") on Friday, so it should be under the loupe soon.

Some further full disclosure stuff...here are the notes I included with a trio of cards. The most important is the Bench RC note, because I also included a clipped-normative (is that how pathetic dipshi*ts say "NOT miscut" these days??) one to get a number grade, and wanted to avoid any confusion. The Kaline 'request' was obviously done a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it would be nice to see the variation on the slab...


Attachment 590736

Please Note: Enclosed in this card saver is a crisp $100 bill. Please return (this card) to me designated an SGC 7. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The plot, it does thicken...

Cards were graded today, 9/28/23, BUT they sent me a message stating, "You have been refunded $15.00 for 1 card that SGC cannot grade."
No explanation as to why they cannot grade it was included, and they did not say which card is being sent straight to bed without plastic. Argh.

On the submission form, every card had the 'slab if authentic' box checked, so this is even more confusing.

Since this is a blind reveal thingy, I'm not going to investigate and discover which card it is, so it'll be a surprise to me (right up until the moment I see the back of it still in the semi-rigid holder I put it in, and begin shouting obscenities).

Whichever one I guess is the culprit, I assume will be wrong. The obvious choice is the miscut Bench rookie card, because it's the only one that isn't 'normal,' but that's too easy. The 1967 Laughlins are tricky, but I have plenty of them graded by SGC, so they are low on the suspect list. Perhaps the very problematic 1954 Bowman Mantle?
Could it be a 'minimum size not met' thing, maybe with the 1971 Ryan? But I thought they give it an 'A' and note it on the flip when that's the case. This is going to be an anxious few days waiting for Mr. Postman to (now) darken my doorway.

ETA: I did mention the 1971 Rose is a tad bit wider than normal, could there be something afoul there?

SGC does the authentic/minimum size not met on the flip, so it wouldn't be that one. PSA would just not grade a card like that and refund you.

You mentioned in the video the 1971 Topps Rose was slightly oversized, but you did not say by how much. I have read accounts on PSA Forum of cards being returned N9 9 (not graded) and the submitter assumed/knew it was because the card was oversized.
So could the beautiful Rose turn out to be the thorn in your submission?
Seems like within 1/16th of an inch of the standard size can result in card being undersized or oversized. Those of course are PSA standards, not sure if the same rules apply at SGC.

The unknown is driving me bonkers, but the good news is the tuxedo box is due to arrive tomorrow, so an answer will be at hand.

Here's a non-scientific comparison of the 1971 Rose card's size. It's only a tad bit wider...

Attachment 591500

Can’t you find out under your submission # the results of the grading? Should state which one wasn’t grade-able. Would you rather be surprised? I have a hunch it isn’t the bench rc that should get an A but who knows..

Yes, I could, but since it's the first 'blind reveal' video I've done, I absolutely DON'T want to be, but must be, surprised.

I waited to do a true blind reveal with myself one time. It's overrated, lol. I always just look at the grades when they ship now. If I am going to be disappointed, I figure might as well get it out of the way and get it over with before I actually get the cards in hand.

I missed where you stated that a few posts up, my bad! Yeah my last submission surprised me. The one I thought was getting the “A” numerically graded and another got the “A” min size not met. It blew my mind but on the same token wasn’t disappointed.

Cue the ominous music...

Dum...dum...dum...


Attachment 591636

You're killing me...

Don't enjoy slow, Marketing 101 build-ups? :D

.....
 

Looks like they used the new "Flat Rate Accordion Box".

Good thing SGC boxes their graded cards inside that box!

Damn!

:eek:

Presented without comment, Part 2 (AKA Midnight in the Cardboard Garden of Good and Evil)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKOvbVEXOoU

Ha ha! No, inside was packed to the gills with that tan packing paper stuff. The 'Tuxedo' box itself was pristine. No worries there.

That was fun! I appreciate how entertaining you are, lots of personality...:) Please do that again! I won't comment so early on your results...but a great watch. Thanks Jolly!

Thanks for doing this Jolly. Entertaining for sure. And congrats on your grades--look like the came out as you predicted for the most part.

Good stuff Jolly, congrats. You should do more YT videos - very enjoyable!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Watched the video. That miscut Bench is neat. I'm not into the miscut stuff, but it's always interesting to see. Glad you got nearly all the grades you expected.

C'mon, guys, "Jolly" is only an adjective, not a name. :eek:

What I learned throughout this undertaking is that doing this stuff is tough, especially with it being a blind reveal. Once you jump in the pool, it's sink or swim time, no turning back. I was holding the printout of what my grade 'guesses' were right in my hand, yet every time I started talking about something, my train of thought temporarily disappeared as I tried to find what number I speculated each card would get, instead of just staying focused.

Note to self: despite the order of the cards in the pile, make sure your list of guesses is ordered chronologically, so you can quickly zero in of any card you want.

Good video Darren, I enjoyed it. Now why did they put a few cards in sleeves and the rest not? They did that to my last order.

If anyone watched the video, look at this 'revelation.' I did some research (well, 20 seconds of research), and according to the SGC POP report, my card is, in fact, the only one graded so far!!!


Attachment 591855


My "Please Note:" note worked!

Enjoyed your video very much! So nice that you got what you wanted with the labeling of the Kaline.

I wasn't so lucky when I submitted a ticket to a TPG with the description I wanted. Almost like they totally ignored my request, and it was similar to how other TPGs describe the ticket. I think I need to make a call to find out the reasoning. You've inspired me!

The route I took was peer pressure. In my note, I directly referred to how their competition (PSA, et al) puts it on the slab. That was a purposeful, "Hey, you better keep up with what your adversaries are doing." Wink wink.

When you talk to or e-mail them, send pics of how the other TPGs describe the ticket, as you said. That should spur them on to do the right thing next time. If it's a submission you're doing, definitely (new word) 'pleazenote' them.

Good advice! I remember though, that I had such little room on the submission form to write everything down that I forgot to say "please." That "P" word can and often does make a difference!

Cool you did so well with the writing on the back of the ‘64 Mantle. That gives me hope. I have a ‘55 Aaron with tape on the back, but it looks pretty good on the front. I’m probably going to send that in to SGC here in a few weeks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's weird that I'm doing cartwheels over a mere 2.5, but minus the penmanship, it is otherwise really nice...and what type of lunatic actually looks at the BACK of a card??? :D

Nice to see the fair grades ,
- I’m thinking the grader(s) appreciated your notes .

My idea for the notes started because there was no individual listing for the 1969 Topps #491 'White Letter' Variation in the drop down menu of the on-line submission form. After asking SGC about it, they told me their graders 'research' each card to determine what it is before the grading started. Rightly or wrongly, and not finding that response overly comforting, I wanted to make sure they had the proper info right from the get-go.

My SGC Submission - The Die Is Cast...
 

Exactly. And no, it's not weird. I think in theory I would say "Sure, I like the backs to be nice." But in reality, especially for a pricey or iconic card - if the front looks nice but the card is like half price or less because of writing or tape or paper loss on the back, it's to those that I'm quickest to say "Wow, I'll take it..." :D

Follow-Up...

Attachment 592574

It turns out the card that they would not grade was one of my 1967 Laughlin World Series #17 submissions. If you're familiar with the set, you may know that early in the run Mr. Laughlin pasted two print sheets of the cards together to 'thicken' them before cutting everything into individual cards. (He seemingly soon started using thicker stock.)

My guess is the card in question must have been stored in a screw-down holder or something for a long while, because it was so flattened down that there was nothing to indicate it was two separate cards adhered together when I submitted it. However, freed from whatever constraints held it, the last remnants of mucilage faltered and the two cards began to (now obviously) separate...perhaps coaxed a little by the graders?

Although still somewhat attached, the separation is now clear as day...

Attachment 592575

My SGC Submission - The Die Is Cast...
 

In my experience, if you have a stack of slabs being returned in a box - they will put the first and the last card in sleeves to kind of bookend them, I guess.

It seems random, and would be nice if they just put every card in a sleeve. One of my pet peeves, expecially when watching YouTube videos of vintage cards, is these people who slam and stack and scratch raw slabs almost as soon as they get them back. You see it way more often than you would think, including on slabs that house ridiculously expensive cards. Pony up for some sleeves, people…if you can afford to spend hundreds of dollars and more on grading, you can afford a $5-10 pack of sleeves from UltraPro or Perfect Fit…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk