1956 Topps Jackie Robinson Grading question

[drapala]

Hello everyone, I'm relatively new to grading cards myself and was hoping for your opinions. I sent an order to SGC which included a 1956 Topps Jackie Robinson, which I included a scan of below. I was expecting a grade a bit higher than a 2 (3-4 range), but don't know if that was a reasonable expectation.

There are edge issues, the corners are obviously not perfect, and there is a faint red mark on the lower border white. There are no visible creases on the card. The white mark under his nose was debris and not paper loss or a mark on the card. Is a 2 what I should have expected? Thanks for your insights

Mike

[CardPadre]

That's a good enough looking card where it was reasonable to expect or hope for a better grade. If that red mark in the border is added, then a 2 is the most a card could probably expect to get with them. According to their published standards, for a card with "ink or pencil markings" a 2 or below are the only grades that those cards could get.

[ALR-bishop]

Very nice looking card

[gonefishin]

In todays grading world, probably a 2. 5 years ago a 4/5.

[71buc]

I got this one back last month. I too thought it would grade higher. I have seen lesser examples with higher grades. For whatever reason it seems SGC and PSA graded have become moving targets. I won’t be submitting to either until I see some consistency. I also received an SGC 2.5 on a T206 Mathewson which was surprising. It is better than SGC 4s in older slabs. That one hurt much more than this Jackie.

[refz]

Here’s mine, had it graded years ago. Very presentable 3.

[drapala]

Thank you CardPadre and everyone for your insights!

[G1911]

You probably actually did well. Sure looks to me like there is evidence of glue or adhesion damage on the back, the stats section from 2B to PO. The smearing, the tonal changes, the lighter coloring. I suspect this is your culprit.

[savedfrommyspokes]

In the scan, there appears to be erased marks in the stat boxes (and possibly, as already noted, on the bottom front border). Lucky it wasn't graded Authentic/Altered for these erasures.

[drapala]

I hadn't even noticed that there may be eraser marks. I have to work on picking up these things. Thank you again.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by drapala

I hadn't even noticed that there may be eraser marks. I have to work on picking up these things. Thank you again.

You're welcome, no matter what is on the back, still a great looking card.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

That's a good enough looking card where it was reasonable to expect or hope for a better grade. If that red mark in the border is added, then a 2 is the most a card could probably expect to get with them. According to their published standards, for a card with "ink or pencil markings" a 2 or below are the only grades that those cards could get.

Agreed, If indeed that is a pen mark and not a print flaw then a 2 was a good grade. Without the mark I would have thought 3 or 4 on a good day. If there were indeed any erasure marks then I am also surprised it received a number grade, that would be a very big stroke of luck.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Agreed, If indeed that is a pen mark and not a print flaw then a 2 was a good grade. Without the mark I would have thought 3 or 4 on a good day. If there were indeed any erasure marks then I am also surprised it received a number grade, that would be a very big stroke of luck.

Wow, you are a tough grader.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

That's a nice card. Are you sure there are no hidden bends or wrinkles? Not all 2's are created equal, obviously.

Consistency improvement I think is possible with SGC, a pipe dream for PSA right now. All TPG's have gone through periods in their history when they were perceived as tough graders, and also as easy graders. The whole speaks to inconsistency - which honestly it's is tough to maintain over decades when human eyes are working with subjective standards.