What does this SGC card have in common with Bo Derek?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Unreal.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

She's either the same age as the card or the player on the card,right?

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh Adams

They both are 10s?
Or.... they both are 10s that don't deserve it?

Go Go White Sox
2005 World Series Champions!

[Archive]

Posted By: JudgeDred2

Holy crap, I thought someone was going to say that Bo Derek was also a man... whew... that would have been a tough one to accept because it would have taken one hell of a plastic surgeon to do that kind of work...

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

clearly the paperloss at each of the corners on the reverse accounts for the grade. I personall think the paperloss is fairly minor and that the card should have been a 20. It wont get a 30 unless the paperloss is the only major problem with the card (ie no creasing or wrinkling).

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

One is a perfect 10 and the other is a far from perfect 10.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Good from far, but far from good?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Both 10s. Hard to believe, especially when you consider some of the 10s and 20s we have seen here and on ebay which look throughly thrashed. As rare as these cards are, the front appearance looks dandy for this set, so it is definitely a keeper, low grade and all.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

I'll take the 10 over this 4: http://cgi.ebay.com/1914-CRACKER-JACK-AL-BRIDWELL-PSA-4-42_W0QQitemZ190033761253QQihZ009QQcategoryZ31718QQ rdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

it's a perfect example of why we're thinking about submitting our Zeenuts to PSA. You are overly brutal on these 100 year old cards. (OK, 95 year old cards)

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I don't get it - there's paper loss on the back of the card, in four places (it looks like). And although I'm not familiar with the card stock of Zeenuts, it appears that there's some kind of staining on the back as well.

It's a beautiful card, with great eye appeal. No doubt about it. But I'd rather have the grade be accurate and say "That's a great-looking 10" than have it be in a 40 holder and have to pay a 40 price for a card with paper loss on the back.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I believe the grade is consistent with the standards. The standards for blank backed cards should be changed. Until then paper loss on the back will get you no better than a 30 and most likely a 10 or 20. It's a shame..

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I know I'm in the minority as far as this board is concerned, but in my opinion, paper loss is paper loss, regardless of what's on the back of the card. There are pieces of the card missing.

I understand that many of these cards were mounted in albums and scrapbooks, but that's what makes it so tough to find a high-grade prewar card. They're not supposed to be easy, that's why people pay a premium for top condition cards. I can't see relaxing your standards because a card is old, or because the manufacturer didn't print anything on the back of it.

To me, where do you stop? If you relax your standards on blank-backed cards, what about the blank area on the back of a postcard? Or the blank area on the back of a regular card? If I have a T206 with paper loss, but the paper loss doesn't affect the ad on the back, should I get a mulligan on that, too? What about a MODERN card with a blank back? Why should there be a difference between a vintage card and a modern card?

No disrespect meant at all, because you guys are all deserving of respect, but to me, the onus shouldn't be on the grading companies to change their standards, it should be on the collector to understand that there are variances within every grade. In other words, just because there's a 10 on the holder doesn't mean you should consult the price guides and pay accordingly - you actually need to look at the card and see what you're buying. While this card is a technical 10, it should be worth much more because it presents so well. But in terms of assigning a number grade to the card based on its attributes, a 10 seems about right for this card.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

I'm generally happy with an "A" or better, but then again, I don't buy to sell, so I guess I understand the frustration in that regard.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

I'm at home now and have a better picture of Bob's 10. Each of the four corners on the back have paper loss. I couldn't see that on my office computer. This card has accurately been graded a 10.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

First, I agree that back damage is back damage, period.

Second, I disagree that "there are variances within every grade." In fact, grading is more like a pyramid -- all SGC 100's or PSA 10's should look identical. The lower down the scale you go, the more variance you will have in a card's appearance. At the bottom, there are countless ways for a card to receive an SGC 10 or a PSA 1. So, the important thing to remember when viewing an SGC 10 or a PSA 1 is that there could be any number of serious problems with the card.

The reason I prefer SGC is that I know what an SGC 30, 40, 50 or 60 T206 card looks like. I know what the permissible flaws are at each level. And SGC is remarkably consistent within those ranges.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Don't know about the card, but Bo Derek has had some professional
restoration. SCG would grade her no higher than AUTH.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Good point. There are not variances within every grade, the variances occur as you get lower on the scale. I agree that a 10 and a 100 should all look the same. The pyramid is a great analogy.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

There is no doubt that SGC is amazingly consistent. But I do not always agree with their standards. For example, I think they are overly harsh on chipping. The card below has a clean back and not the slightest wrinkle of any sort. The only flaw other than the nm / nm-mt corners is the chip in the white boarder on the left. T205s and T210s are granted tremendous leeway on chipping and chipping is much more offensive on those issues than on cards with white boarders like the E94 Young below. If condition does not reflect the appeal of the card, then what do we grade cards for anyway?

JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Rey

Well, I think that SGC is pretty close on the technical grade of that Cy Young card -- using their definitions.

It may squeak up into the realm of a 60 if you consider that chunk of missing border paper just "chipping." I think it's a tad bit beyond that, but a 50 or 60 seems reasonable and technically correct.

And I completely disagree with your statement that grades should reflect the appeal of the card. Grades should be appeal-blind and focus specifically on the technical definitions -- that's the only way the system has any meaning.

The "pyramid" -- as it's described in a post above -- only works if the grading is blind to make, model, age and desireability.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Dave,
It is not a "chunk". There is absolutely no paper loss. It is a chip of the surface enammel. As I said, I think the grade roughly follows their guidelines (though nobody would blink if it were graded a 60 or 70), but I think their guidelines are harsh on chipping.

Grades are supposed to reflect the appeal of the card. Sometimes I think the grading companies give disproportionate weight to certain characteristics, as in this example. If techinical grades are not about the appeal of the card, then tell me some technical flaws that do not affect the appeal. Corners? Creases? Stains? Centering? These all bring down grades because of their affect on the appeal of the card. People also complain about the disproportionate emphasis on minor back flaws on blank-backed cards like the Zeenut above or N172s because the back of a blank-backed card has little affect on the overall appeal of the card to the vast majority of subjective observers.

JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

for N300 Mayo. I've seen many SGC graded 40's 50's and 60's with what I consider to be "significant" chipping of the corners and borders.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Yes there is some paper loss in the backs on two (not four) of the corners of the blank back but to grade it a 10 is inaccurate IMHO when you see cards that look like they have been through someone's disgestive system and with pieces of the card missing, graded a 10. I also think that otherwise exmt blank backed cards which have a tiny bit of writing shouldn't automatically be graded 20s, but again they are consistent in their grading within this set. By the way the scanner makes it agree there is a crease lower left, it is only a very light paper wrinkle which appears only when the card is turned to the light.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Bob - it certainly looks like there is paperloss on all four corners - definitely three of the four. Is the scan doing that?

[Archive]

Posted By: quan

i also thought all 4 corners had paper loss, which the 10 grade is warranted. 2 bottom corners only? bleh depends on how deep it is i guess. i hope you didn't submit the card yourself bob. As for writing on blank backs, power eraser? I remember a prominent 19th cent card that went from a low sgc 30/40 in Mastro to an sgc 70/80 a few months later in Madec's or Mile High because an ink mark had disappeared?

Jim nice Young, I agree that should be a 60. That's a classic Charlie card, SGC50++++++++++++++

[Archive]

Posted By: judd hamlin

Someone go take a look at one of the early Beckett annual guides circa '84 or so and tell me how the old grading standards have developed so that cards with multiple creases still can be called "vg with creases" when multiple creases used to mean Fair or Good. SGC was right to call this a 10.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

Bob: I just got back 200 Zeenuts from SGC, yes they are hard on these cards, nevertheless I would much rather have the cards in SGC holders than PSA, in fact the half dozen or PSA graded cards all came back at lower grades and deservedly so. Not sure if that was a result of ratteling arround in floating holders or just over grading by PSA. The one Beckett card came back a higher grade - the rest of the cards were raw. Your 10 while not as alluring as Bo when she was a definate 10 is I my opinion not a 10 it does not pass the ratty-ass test. Your card is a nice looking card with technical difficults and should be a 20. 10 shold be for cards that are intact, but look ratty-ass. PSA has this problem with their grading system and I think SGC's 20 should be used to solve the problem at the low end of the scale, before final encapsilation someone should be checking the 10's to be sure that they are ratty-ass. Most of my 10,s seem to pass that test, but there are a few like yours that should be 20's. I did get a few 5's on some 11's and 12's that I bought raw in the $30 to $60 range.

Jim: I'd rather be looking at that Young than Bo, but I am getting old. That is a beautiful card.

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

SGC's standards are SGC's standards, and a 10/1 is the correct grade according to SGC's standards for that card.

Personally, I wouldn't have been happy if I bought that card graded a PSA 2, and saw the back damage only after I received it. This is why many people on this board (myself included) prefer SGC over PSA and GAI ...SGC is tough, but they are more often than not consistently within their own grading guidelines.

Still, it is a great looking 1.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

Please contact me. jacklitsch@comcast.net

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

The back damage is only on two corners, the scanner is not that great. If I were putting the card up for sale (which it won't ever be) I'd mention the back damage in the ad. I agree with Peter, a 10 should be saved for ratty-ass cards.