My Latest submit to SGC - Results - Tell me what u think

[toledo_mudhen]

Not happy at all with results on these - I was thinking all 4 cards had a very strong shot at EXMT 6. Never dreamed that I would be seeing 3s-4s

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1742506234

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1742506749

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1742506842

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1742506996

Sent Brent at SGC an email asking for some kind of explanation on what they were seeing and the response was :

"sorry - don't release any grader notes - we can take another look at them BUT it will cost you another fee for each one"

WTF - So Done with SGC

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

"sorry - don't release any grader notes - we can take another look at them BUT it will cost you another fee for each one"

It’s all about the all-mighty dollar 🤑🤑🤑

[Tomi]

Looks like a red mark on the back by the S.O. category that will lower a grade in a big way. Usually it lowers the grade by 2 full grades. Easily a mid grade card but the mark hurts it.

[ClementeFanOh]

Lonnie-

For better or worse, stray foreign marks result in a big ding as mentioned
above. I've also found that great looking cards are getting hit for faint
creasing. My more recent experience with SGC is that they crawled out of
the grading pit they dug for themselves during Covid, and have been good
(on my submission, that is). If you are done with SGC, I can't imagine how
you feel about PSA...

Trent King

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

If you are done with SGC, I can't imagine how you feel about PSA...

Hahahahaah

[toledo_mudhen]

If you are done with SGC, I can't imagine how
you feel about PSA...

Yes - there is that...................

Might be relegated to only adding "already slabbed"?????

[sb1]

Skinner was the only one close to a 6, the others appear as 3-4 prior to grading.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by sb1

Skinner was the only one close to a 6, the others appear as 3-4 prior to grading.

They look good to me. What am I missing?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[sb1]

Little things that matter, the ink mark and very light corner wear. They are nice cards but not quite up to the scrutiny of the TPG's. I start with a stack and review it several times before submitting, under various lighting, etc. before paring it down to only the strongest candidates and even then I miss some, everyone does. I got a blazing 1952 Topps Look n' See Roosevelt back with a 2, upon further review it had a surface wrinkle right across the middle of it.

[perezfan]

The most aggravating part is that if you look at cards they themselves graded 5-10 years ago, you'll see their criteria was vastly different. Yesterday's "5" is quite often inferior to today's "3". I've seen it hundreds of times with both SGC and PSA.

They've both moved the goalposts at least 2 full points over the past decade. And they punish severely for off-centering, but not at all for poor focus/registration. Both traits are original to the card, yet they only penalize for centering.... DUMB! To me, a blurry, dizzying image is far more detrimental to the card than its centering. A crisp image is central to the card's actual subject matter, whereas the centering is not.

Unfortunately there is no viable alternative, unless you take a chance with CGC. Their slabs are nice but the marketplace has not yet embraced them. IMHO, Collectors' monopolistic acquisition of SGC was the worst thing to happen to the hobby since the FBI decided to bow out of the Card Alteration scandal. Tons of altered cards still reside in PSA Numbered slabs. It all makes for a strong temptation to stick with just raw cards.

[The Detroit Collector]

I think you should care less about what the number says and more about how the card presents itself.

[gregndodgers]

They would have been either 6s or 5s in the old days.

[jchcollins]

All grading is a subjective crapshoot. FWIW, the grades look fair (in the modern grading game for vintage...) to me.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by The Detroit Collector

I think you should care less about what the number says and more about how the card presents itself.

Most people who pay for opinions frequently feel the opposite.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by Tomi

Looks like a red mark on the back by the S.O. category that will lower a grade in a big way. Usually it lowers the grade by 2 full grades. Easily a mid grade card but the mark hurts it.

Exactly correct. The 3.5 is as high as it is due to the overall nice condition, but the red mark can’t be overlooked.

[Leon]

Great looking cards, but as mentioned, some minute things caused the downgrades. The registry is powerful but I collect on eye appeal, so grades are a bit less of a concern.
The cards will get you top end values of their respective grades anyway.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Leon

Great looking cards, but as mentioned, some minute things caused the downgrades. The registry is powerful but I collect on eye appeal, so grades are a bit less of a concern.
The cards will get you top end values of their respective grades anyway.

In my world a grade should be based on some objective standard of eye appeal. The fact it does not IMO makes the current grading criteria worthless to a true collector.

[Lorewalker]

Great eye appeal on the cards. Not meant to be critical but if you missed the pen on the back of the one card I am guessing there are more subtle "flaws" that were missed prior to grading. The images are far too small to even make a wild guess at what the flaws are on each one but sure it is a minor wrinkle, light corner bend or some surface impressions.

No matter what it always sucks when you get cards back at grades lower than what you had expected or wanted. I think we have all been there.

[toledo_mudhen]

Yes totally missed the pen mark on the back of the 1 card - not sure how that happened but my bad -

It's been a while since my last grading submission (several years anyway)

So I'm thinking that going forward - I'm just going to let someone else go thru the brain damage of getting the cards graded & slabbed and I'm just gonna be a buyer on already graded cards in the grade that I am looking for.

[Beercan collector]

Of course we’re just going by photos so can’t be 100% accurate but if it was me I would like to see the Skinner at a 5 and would be happy with the rest of the grades , Kiely Has plenty of corner wear - Wright, Hofman have quite a bit of toning on reverse . Thanks for posting and putting them out here For us to comment

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Of course we’re just going by photos so can’t be 100% accurate but if it was me I would like to see the Skinner at a 5 and would be happy with the rest of the grades , Kiely Has plenty of corner wear - Wright, Hofman have quite a bit of toning on reverse . Thanks for posting and putting them out here For us to comment

Yes - I agree the Skinner is probably the MOST egregious of the bunch - There is absolutely NO REASON, that I can see for that one to come back as a 3.

Like I mentioned earlier - Have been out of the "grading game" for several years. Think I'll probably just crawl back into my hole now and wait for already graded cards to impress me going forward.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

Yes - I agree the Skinner is probably the MOST egregious of the bunch - There is absolutely NO REASON, that I can see for that one to come back as a 3.

Get a bright handheld light and turn off the lights in the room and shine the light parallel to the surface of the card in each direction, front and back. I bet you'll discover why it's a 3.

[Bill77]

Not to beat a dead horse, but the problem with the Skinner is that it is mis-cut. Just measure the boarder under the 1st B in Bob and compare it to the boarder under the s in Pirates. my guess is PSA would have graded it a 5 MC.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by Bill77

Not to beat a dead horse, but the problem with the Skinner is that it is mis-cut. Just measure the boarder under the 1st B in Bob and compare it to the boarder under the s in Pirates. my guess is PSA would have graded it a 5 MC.

- OK if could just get someone else to weigh in regarding the "Water Damage" and "Staining" issue on the Skinner then I would be much more comfortable with just tossing it into the crap can.

[hammertime]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

Sent Brent at SGC an email asking for some kind of explanation on what they were seeing and the response was :

"sorry - don't release any grader notes - we can take another look at them BUT it will cost you another fee for each one"

WTF - So Done with SGC

I mean, I understand why you're disappointed but at the same time they probably get 500 "why didn't I get higher grades" emails per day.

[tiger8mush]

The Skinner is a beautiful card. They all are. Don't let the number on the flip deter you from enjoying them in your collection!

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by hammertime

I mean, I understand why you're disappointed but at the same time they probably get 500 "why didn't I get higher grades" emails per day.

Yep totally get that - I do, however, remember a time when SGC went more than the "extra mile" in terms of Customer Service.

So they have opted to go this route - and I will opt for a different route the next time i have some raw cards that need to be graded.

Thinking that might work out better for me and also for them as there will be one less guy bitchin about something they did or didn't do.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Bill77

Not to beat a dead horse, but the problem with the Skinner is that it is mis-cut. Just measure the boarder under the 1st B in Bob and compare it to the boarder under the s in Pirates. my guess is PSA would have graded it a 5 MC.

Oh come on.... there is no way that Skinner gets designated as "miscut". And as for that being the reason for the "3"... I highly doubt it. More likely, there's a faint wrinkle or crease that doesn't show up in the scan.

There an infinite number of cards with far more severe "tilting" and diamond cuts that grade 6 and even 7. Just peruse eBay for 5 minutes, and you'll see how far TPGs have recently moved the goalposts.

If there is no hidden crease, that card would have been at least a "5" (probably better) if graded five or more years ago.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

In my world a grade should be based on some objective standard of eye appeal. The fact it does not IMO makes the current grading criteria worthless to a true collector.

Eye appeal is a subjective term since everyone has a different standard. I’d rather see a strict criteria based on condition.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Oh come on.... there is no way that Skinner gets designated as "miscut".

If there is no hidden crease, that card would have been at least a "5" (probably better) if graded five or more years ago.

Agreed - TY

Just to be clear - This card has caused me to go online and purchase a "digital" microscope just because the issue was making me a bit "nutty"

This would be the one -
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08G43G8ZV...fed_asin_title

This is a 100X digital scope used for looking close at larger objects.

NO Creases, wrinkles or indents present themselves on either side of the Skinner at 100X magnification.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by Bill77

Not to beat a dead horse, but the problem with the Skinner is that it is mis-cut. Just measure the boarder under the 1st B in Bob and compare it to the boarder under the s in Pirates. my guess is PSA would have graded it a 5 MC.

Agreed. The Skinner is most definitely miscut. Although slight, it is observable to the naked eye.

I’ve got to believe that the miscut caused the grade.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

Tell me what u think.

The Skinner(3) card is nicer than the Wright(4). And SGC is richer now.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by The Detroit Collector

I think you should care less about what the number says and more about how the card presents itself.

I agree. And submitters' complaints about their cards being undergraded are tiresome. What I'd like to see is more threads on cards that PSA/SGC have ridiculously overgraded because the companies ignore toning.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

Agreed. The Skinner is most definitely miscut. Although slight, it is observable to the naked eye.

I’ve got to believe that the miscut caused the grade.

Then what about the multi-thousands of equally or more severely miscut cards that currently reside in slabs graded 5-7? Why would they turn a blind eye towards all of those, but not this Skinner?

Please post just one image of a card with a "Miscut" qualifier that resembles the Skinner in question. Very eager to see it.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Bill77

...but the problem with the Skinner is that it is mis-cut. Just measure the boarder under the 1st B in Bob and compare it to the boarder under the s in Pirates.

No. Miscut doesn't mean slightly uneven borders. Miscut means NO border or part of the adjacent card is showing front or back.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Then what about the multi-thousands of equally or more severely miscut cards that currently reside in slabs graded 5-7? Why would they turn a blind eye towards all of those, but not this Skinner?

Can’t answer that. Probably a question better posed to SGC

Please post just one image of a card with a "Miscut" qualifier that resembles the Skinner in question. Very eager to see it.

I only look at cards graded by SGC, which doesn’t use qualifiers. Qualifiers are stupid. I don’t know of any PSA miscut examples, but I’m sure others can offer examples.

[campyfan39]

I understand your frustration.

I got my first-ever submission back today, and I thought in general it was ok but not what I thought.

Two cards were so low I will keep them, They graded a 3. I have cracked them out, and there are no creases, stains etc. I'm baffled.

I also have a 58 Maris, that is the nicest one I have ever seen, and it got a 5. I'm posting on BST. I just don't understand it. I know it's subjective, but dang, some consistency in the same submission would be nice!

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

I understand your frustration.

I got my first-ever submission back today, and I thought in general it was ok but not what I thought.

Two cards were so low I will keep them, They graded a 3. I have cracked them out, and there are no creases, stains etc. I'm baffled.

I also have a 58 Maris, that is the nicest one I have ever seen, and it got a 5. I'm posting on BST. I just don't understand it. I know it's subjective, but dang, some consistency in the same submission would be nice!

Let me know when you post the Maris. VERY interested!

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

No. Miscut doesn't mean slightly uneven borders. Miscut means NO border or part of the adjacent card is showing front or back.

Yep - My thoughts on the MC designation exactly (and also PSA's per their Grading Standards page)

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

No. Miscut doesn't mean slightly uneven borders. Miscut means NO border or part of the adjacent card is showing front or back.

Understand however that the miscut qualifier from PSA and the N8 (“Do not grade”) miscut rejection code are two very different things. Under the latter, they can decide that the cut just looks wonky, and call it miscut even if there is not something obvious like part of another card showing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

I understand your frustration.

I just don't understand it. I know it's subjective, but dang, some consistency in the same submission would be nice!

At the end of the day, technical grading has nothing to do with eye appeal. Agreed that the perception of consistency would be nice, but when it’s not there - usually a mismatch between those two things is to blame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Understand however that the miscut qualifier from PSA and the N8 (“Do not grade”) miscut rejection code are two very different things. Under the latter, they can decide that the cut just looks wonky, and call it miscut even if there is not something obvious like part of another card showing.

To illustrate J-Coll's point, here's my otherwise wonderfully-centered 1968 Mantle that has the 'miscut' designation due to its wonky cut (non-straight and true) down the left side (PSA wouldn't holder it due to the same factor).
Even though it came out of the pack this way, it will forever carry the shameful scarlet letters of MC, and it saddens me...

1968mantleSGCauth01.jpg

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

To illustrate J-Coll's point, here's my otherwise wonderfully-centered 1968 Mantle that has the 'miscut' designation due to its wonky cut (non-straight and true) down the left side (PSA wouldn't holder it due to the same factor).
Even though it came out of the pack this way, it will forever carry the shameful scarlet letters of MC, and it saddens me...

Attachment 656775

Jolly, I think SGC is getting worse about this than they used to be. I have a beautiful 1956 Topps Ernie Banks, which has a weird angular and wide left top border. It was an old SGC 6, that I foolishly busted out of the slab some years ago because of something I didn’t like about the slab. Upon reflection, however, I shouldn’t have done that because the card clearly has some attributes of a PSA N8 miscut, in that the upper left corner isn’t precisely square.




It is a part of my set, and a beautiful card but if I ever try to grade it again, I don’t know that it will pass muster. Oh well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Exhibitman]

Just collect beaters and you'll be happy when they grade at all.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

though it came out of the pack this way, it will forever carry the shameful scarlet letters of MC, and it saddens me....

The "forever" wouldn't last a day were it in my possession. The card would swiftly be free to breathe again.

[homerunhitter]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

Might be relegated to only adding "already slabbed"?????

as the old saying goes…it’s wise to let another fool spend his money on grading fees!…aka…lots of great deals on eBay from people that spent the money to grade cards but now are selling their “misses” for less than the processing fee! Meaning… lots of cheap already graded cards are on eBay!

[Jay Wolt]

Originally Posted by homerunhitter

as the old saying goes…it’s wise to let another fool spend his money on grading fees!…aka…lots of great deals on eBay from people that spent the money to grade cards but now are selling their “misses” for less than the processing fee! Meaning… lots of cheap already graded cards are on eBay!

Amen!
I love picking up clean cards at pennies on the dollar
for TPG's undergraded or slightly altered cards

Got this for less then the grading fee & a HOF'er to boot