SGC question

[steve B]

I got my latest submission back, and I'm generally happy, even though most came in a bit lower than I'd thought. 50's and 60's instead of 60's and 70's. I had one correct, 3 with tiny flaws I'd missed that look ok, 4 that were just a bit lower than I'd thought, one that didn't grade- a separate question I need to think about some. And this one. I had some pretty high hopes for this one, as it compared favorably to a couple from my first batch.



And the ones from the first group.





So what did I miss? Or did I just get really lucky on my first group?
Would you think I'd do much better if I sent it back for review? I'd figured it was at least as nice as the Rucker, but has better corners and centering, and the back is more white. It's for sure better than the Spencer, better corners, and no slight stain on the back.

Steve B

[bobbyw8469]

I would resub the card (the 4) from the 2nd group. You probably got the new grader who is a little unsure how T206's are supposed to look.....

[Robextend]

I agree that you should resubmit, although I was under the impression that at least 2 graders check out each card so the issue might not just be a new grader.

[Doug]

Unless there's a really faint paper wrinkle that's not showing up in the scan the Bescher looks as good as the other two IMO.

[Bosox Blair]

I'm sure you have looked closely at that 4 card, but I'd look again and look real hard. IMO there is no way that someone at SGC assigned a card with that eye appeal a 4 unless they spotted a serious defect (wrinkle, etc.)

Also since SGC has no qualifiers, it is possible that a card which might have drawn a 6 or 7 showing minor erased pencil on the reverse could get a 4, I think.

Might be worth calling Michael there to see what he says...maybe the grader can provide some insight.

Cheers,
Blair

[Leon]

This might or might not be the case but sometimes there is residue on the backs of cards that can barely be seen. On more than a few occasions I have wondered why a card got a low grade, then I feel of the back, and there are "bumps" of residue that I couldn't see. Otherwise, I would think it would have received a higher grade. (also, unless there is an unseen wrinkle as already mentioned)

[spacktrack]

Generally on a card that grades a 50 but otherwise looks NM, there is a faint crease that may only be visible under a halogen light. There also may be some residue or staining as Leon mentioned. I'd try and replicate the grading environment as best as possible by using a halogen light in a completely dark room and see if that brings out a flaw. There are no new graders at SGC that don't know what a T206 is supposed to look like.

[teetwoohsix]

steve B- those are some beautiful cards, congrats on those!!!!

Sincerely,Clayton

[steve B]

Thanks everyone. And especially Brian. I finally found the flaw. There's a very slight bend, running roughly along a line from the bottom of the C to the lowest uniform button.

It's only visible under certain lighting conditions, especially in the holder.
Bright natural light and Halogen didn't make it visible, only muted natural light at a very shallow angle. It shows as a difference in gloss from one section to the next. If I had to guess, the difference from the cardboard being flat is probably less than a degree, probably much less.

I'm pretty impressed they were able to find that. I did a very close examination before sending it in. And obviously a few after to try to figure out the grade. Plus I've had the card for over 20 years. It makes me feel much more confident in the other grades too.

I know it's probably mostly trade secrets, but I'd love to know what the overall process of grading is. In other words, what gets looked at in what order. And maybe take some of the training, maybe some sort of seminar? I think that would be very interesting. Lots to learn beyond the familiar system.

I'll be adding scans to the registry, mine is STB206. Not many graded yet, as many of mine would only be 10s (And I'm very confident about those )

Steve B

[tbob]

Steve- I'd say you did well. Those are really nice looking cards. I think you got a higher grade than I would have expected on the Spencer because of the stain on the back and what appears to be a tiny "tick" on the right border below his left shoulder. I would have thought a 50 on that one so that's great you got an 80. The Bescher is a very pretty card for a 50, you don't see many of that portrait Bescher in such nice shape.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Nice card! You can always crack and send to psa and get an 8.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHarmonica

Nice card! You can always crack and send to psa and get an 8.

...or a 3. Or anything in between!

[steve B]

Nah, Now that I've found the flaw I'm happy with it as is. It's a 50, and should remain a 50.

And I was also expecting a bit less on the Spencer mostly because of the stain. The white spot next to the shoulder on the right isn't damage, just a tiny spot that didn't print. Both the Spencer and the Rucker were pleasant surprises. A Konetchy came back as a 50 from the first batch probably because of a tiny flake missing from the surface of one corner.

I'm pretty happy with the others too, a few were recent pickups, some others I've had for years. I'm having fun with the whole grading thing. Waiting to find out the grades is like buying the cards all over again. I'm only sending the nice ones, and so far the worst has been a very nice looking 40 Both 40's have had stuff I didn't notice. One I should have seen, a gouge on the back. The other was probably because of a paper inclusion that's pretty obvious once you're looking for problems.

Steve B

[Doug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHarmonica

Nice card! You can always crack and send to psa and get an 8.

Or an 8.5!