Why Do TPGs Perpetuate This Falsehood?

[Leon]

I still don't, after many years, understand why PSA and SGC both continually put "hand cut' on the flips of W575-1s? They were not, and never were, distributed as strips or hand cut. And if they are hand cut then they are trimmed. Just a peeve....
Maybe they put that with all W cards. And if that is the case then they are just stupid.

[Frankish]

That is really annoying. Once these companies get a bit of institutional knowledge it is really hard to change, even if that bit can be proven wrong.

[rjackson44]

Unreal

[Leon]

I have mentioned this before but to see it still going on just irritates me.
When I sent the complete pack of 20 in to be graded, with the pack they came in, I felt for sure they wouldn't put hand cut on them as they definitely aren't. When I put these all together they were cut almost 100% the same size.
I wasn't happy at all with their mistake..

[kmac32]

Or how about calling all Koester Bread cards w571-1 cards?

[Frankish]

Wow. That is really crazy.

I wonder (and this doesn't excuse the decision, just trying to figure out what's going on) if they are suggesting that the issue was hand-cut at the factory (as opposed to machine cut). That seems awfully thin, though.

It reminds me of an issue I often have with the TPGs regarding Japanese tobacco-style menko cards. For many series, the cards were generally issued precut from the factory. But then in each pack were certain "prize cards" with a stamp on the back that entitled the bearer to also get an uncut sheet (ranging from four to sixteen or more cards). Of course, many kids cut up their sheets to have all of the individual cards. But the TPGs insist (willy-nilly? randomly?) some days on simply marking all of the cards as hand-cut, not just those from the prize sheets. Some days they don't. I can find no rhyme nor reason. Anyway, it is different than the W575-1s, which seems cut and dry to me. But it is still annoying....


PS: They also grade all of the prize cards (which contain a stamp from the issuer on the back) as MK. In a sense, they are marked and that makes sense, although it seems there should be some distinction between these factory issued stamps and generally marking like doodling in pen on the back of the card....

[drcy]

Get with the times. Hand cut is modern young people's slang for not hand cut.

[obcmac]

At least yours got the 80...if somebody wants to explain the 2 to me, I'll listen.

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by obcmac

At least yours got the 80...if somebody wants to explain the 2 to me, I'll listen.

There's a stamp on the back. At least it wasn't 2(MK)....

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by obcmac

At least yours got the 80...if somebody wants to explain the 2 to me, I'll listen.

it's the mark on the back, silly!

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by drcy

Get with the times. Hand cut is modern young people's slang for not hand cut.

Sort of like inflammable and flammable.

[Al C.risafulli]

This aggravates me beyond belief.

And Mac, your Henry Johnson also aggravates me, for two reasons:

1) It seems like that card was submitted and graded as a W575-1 without respect to the back stamp, and the back stamp reduced the technical grade of the card. Nowhere on the card does it say "Henry Johnson Confectioners." This card is its own unique issue, and should be graded as such - it seems as if the card should be a higher-grade card, with the back stamp identifying the issue.

2) With all respect to Jefferson Burdick, Henry Johnson Confectioners cards are not W575-1s. The checklist does not match the W575-1 checklist. They are blank-backed cards from the E121 Series of 80 set, and as such, the "W575-1" designation should be dropped altogether. They should be catalogued as "Henry Johnson Confectioners," and nothing more.

Sorry. The way grading companies treat this entire issue is a sore spot with me.

-Al

[Peter_Spaeth]

OT slightly, but there are countless cards of actors and musicians issued by Dutch Gum, they came out of packs, I've opened packs, but they are always labeled H/C.

[Leon]

I am not aware that Burdick said the Henry Johnson's are W575-1 nor did he distinguish -1s from -2s. In his latest revision in 1967 he said "W575" and named different similar sets including the -2s, but not Henry Johnson's.
Had he had the internet his job would have been easier.

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

This aggravates me beyond belief.

And Mac, your Henry Johnson also aggravates me, for two reasons:

1) It seems like that card was submitted and graded as a W575-1 without respect to the back stamp, and the back stamp reduced the technical grade of the card. Nowhere on the card does it say "Henry Johnson Confectioners." This card is its own unique issue, and should be graded as such - it seems as if the card should be a higher-grade card, with the back stamp identifying the issue.

2) With all respect to Jefferson Burdick, Henry Johnson Confectioners cards are not W575-1s. The checklist does not match the W575-1 checklist. They are blank-backed cards from the E121 Series of 80 set, and as such, the "W575-1" designation should be dropped altogether. They should be catalogued as "Henry Johnson Confectioners," and nothing more.

Sorry. The way grading companies treat this entire issue is a sore spot with me.

-Al

[Al C.risafulli]

Ah! I always thought Burdick was the reason you disagreed with me on this one, Leon. So we can just call them Henry Johnson Confectioners?

I feel a modicum of relief.

-Al

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Leon

I still don't, after many years, understand why PSA and SGC both continually put "hand cut' on the flips of W575-1s? They were not, and never were, distributed as strips or hand cut. And if they are hand cut then they are trimmed. Just a peeve....
Maybe they put that with all W cards. And if that is the case then they are just stupid.

Leon has a valid point with his card examples, but I would also point out that there are 'W575-1' cards out there that have been hand cut. I believe that the cards were issued in strip form as well, and have provided some examples that definitely point to that conclusion. The Danforth and Gowdy appear similar to the quality and look of W501 cards. Unfortunately TPG companies like to lump everything into a bucket and cling onto old designations.

Brian

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Leon

I still don't, after many years, understand why PSA and SGC both continually put "hand cut' on the flips of W575-1s?...

And if that is the case then they are just stupid.

I think it's a combination of stupid and the fact that after they get your money, they don't really care.

Doug

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

Ah! I always thought Burdick was the reason you disagreed with me on this one, Leon. So we can just call them Henry Johnson Confectioners?

I feel a modicum of relief.

-Al

I believe I have wrongly lumped them into w575 before but Burdick didn't

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by obcmac

At least yours got the 80...if somebody wants to explain the 2 to me, I'll listen.

The stamp on back is crooked :-)

[frankbmd]

Accusing TPGs of perpetuating anything is risky.

Perpetuating is a big word.

Perhaps they are virtually perpetuating falsehoods, but I doubt that they can affirm or deny it.

[Snowman]

I wonder if enough people make enough noise about this issue if they wouldn't correct it going forward?

I'm reminded of the 1921 Churchman Babe Ruth card. In the past, both PSA and SGC used to only put "Sports & Games" on the flip, omitting Babe Ruth's name. But enough people (or at least the right people) apparently made enough noise with SGC to coerce them to start putting his name on the flip. Now, both BVG and SGC put "Babe Ruth" on their flips for this card, but PSA still omits it.

Here's a couple pics one with and one without his name on it.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Leon has a valid point with his card examples, but I would also point out that there are 'W575-1' cards out there that have been hand cut. I believe that the cards were issued in strip form as well, and have provided some examples that definitely point to that conclusion. The Danforth and Gowdy appear similar to the quality and look of W501 cards. Unfortunately TPG companies like to lump everything into a bucket and cling onto old designations.

Brian

Brian, I believe that your Danforth and Gowdy cards ARE in fact W501 cards - that is, W501-Type 2 cards in that they don't have "G-4-22" in the upper left corner and a card # in the upper right corner. Below is the portion of Rhett Yeakley's fantastic 2011 Old Cardboard article that describes the two types of W501 cards plus pics of my W501-Type 1 and W501-Type 2 cards of WaJo and Sam Rice.