Seeking perspectives on an SGC grade

[p1ayba11]

Fellow Collectors, I'd welcome your perspectives on the 1.5 grade SGC recently assigned to this T206 Walter Johnson I submitted. While having super front-side eye-appeal, the card does have some issues -- most notable is some ink on the back. The lower left front corner also has some wear but still a good corner for a 115 year old card. Excellent centering, no creases, and no major staining.

I knew the ink and corner would be detractions so considered a 2 to be the upper-end for a grade. SGC defines a 2 as: Centered 90/10 or better. This card usually exhibits one or more of these characteristics: heavy print spots, heavy crease(s), pinhole(s), color or focus imperfections or discoloration, surface scuffing or tear, rounded and/or fraying corners, ink or pencil marking(s), and lack of all or some original gloss.

I also felt good about it grading a 2 as I had seen a similar WaJo with distracting ink on the back, well-rounded corners, significant staining, and a crease that had previously been graded a 1.5 by SGC.

As you can see from the pic, my submission was graded a 1.5 defined as: Centered 90/10 or better. This card usually exhibits several of these characteristics: heavy print spots, heavy crease(s), pinhole(s), color or focus imperfections or discoloration, surface scuffing or tears, rounded and/or fraying corners, ink or pencil marking(s), and lack of all or some original gloss, a small portion of the card may be missing.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether SGC got it right? Or whether it really even matters with front-side eye-appeal outweighing the ink on the reverse?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[jpittman765]

If you want the opinion of a non-expert, your Johnson card is very attractive and deserves a better grade. I do think SGC is an excellent company, and I have generally been happy with their work. On occasion, I feel they under grade cards for me, as I feel they have under graded your Walter Johnson card. If I was looking at your card for sale, in my mind I would value it around a 2.5 and I would be willing to pay accordingly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BobbyStrawberry]

IMO it is undergraded. For comparison:

[Peter_Spaeth]

It has to be the writing. If your concern is that it's a half grade too low, that's pretty close really.

[ClementeFanOh]

playball-

I will begin by saying your card is a beauty, I'd be proud to own it. As some
on these boards know, I have consistently expressed a preference for SGC
over PSA for prewar, and I continue to hold that belief.

I am astounded your card didn't receive the 2 grade. Per the standard, it is
a 2. I own 2 prewar cards that are lesser value than yours, yet still desirable,
and in the same grade neighborhood. One is an E98 Bill Dahlen SGC 1.5 due
to reverse paper loss that is minor. The other is a 1915 CJ Nap Rucker
graded SGC 30 due to paper loss that is truly negligible; in fact, you have
to look hard to find it. Your WaJo appears better than both of mine.

I wish there was some way to factor the size/surface area of these
apparently "devastating" flaws (not what I'd call them, but how the major
TPGs seem to view them). Hard to tell from your photo of course, but it
looks like the written "8" covers no more than 1% of the card's back. I'd
rather own a card with the "8" defect than one bisected by a horizontal
crease that fully penetrates one side, yet which bears a 2.5 grade. The
hypothetical crease would be easily more distracting than the "8", yet still
will often pull a higher grade. Although it's an unscientific phrase, these
discrepancies don't "feel right".

The good news- if you wish to call it that- is that PSA would have further
wrecked your WaJo with an obnoxious "MK" qualifier that would have
fouled up the card's value even more.

Trent King

[bigfish]

Originally Posted by p1ayba11

Fellow Collectors, I'd welcome your perspectives on the 1.5 grade SGC recently assigned to this T206 Walter Johnson I submitted. While having super front-side eye-appeal, the card does have some issues -- most notable is some ink on the back. The lower left front corner also has some wear but still a good corner for a 115 year old card. Excellent centering, no creases, and no major staining.

I knew the ink and corner would be detractions so considered a 2 to be the upper-end for a grade. SGC defines a 2 as: Centered 90/10 or better. This card usually exhibits one or more of these characteristics: heavy print spots, heavy crease(s), pinhole(s), color or focus imperfections or discoloration, surface scuffing or tear, rounded and/or fraying corners, ink or pencil marking(s), and lack of all or some original gloss.

I also felt good about it grading a 2 as I had seen a similar WaJo with distracting ink on the back, well-rounded corners, significant staining, and a crease that had previously been graded a 1.5 by SGC.

As you can see from the pic, my submission was graded a 1.5 defined as: Centered 90/10 or better. This card usually exhibits several of these characteristics: heavy print spots, heavy crease(s), pinhole(s), color or focus imperfections or discoloration, surface scuffing or tears, rounded and/or fraying corners, ink or pencil marking(s), and lack of all or some original gloss, a small portion of the card may be missing.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether SGC got it right? Or whether it really even matters with front-side eye-appeal outweighing the ink on the reverse?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

I think they got it right. Pen on back stock loss on corner. Regardless it’s a nice card for the grade and if sold would bring a premium. If not sold, you have a very nice card. Enjoy the Johnson!

Happy collecting

[Vintagedeputy]

I tend to view “writing ink” differently than stray printer’s ink, for example. It might’ve gone either way, but I tend to think the 1.5 is correct.

[calvindog]

Paper loss on the front and writing on the back is a 1.5. But it’s a really nice 1.5.

[3-2-count]

It's a gorgeous example with a flawless image no matter if it's a 1.5 or 2.

Enjoy the card, not the flip.

[gregndodgers]

In the early days of grading, this card receives a 3 or a 4.

I was at a card show this weekend with a VERY prominent dealer that everyone knows and asked him for his opinion as to why the grading companies are severely undergrading vintage cards. He said that it a “political issue” that he does not like commenting on, so I pressed him and he finally gave an answer. He said that the grading companies have too many graders, so there is a lack of consistency. I pressed him more and asked if there are financial reasons. He said probably. Then he said that if there is a small population of high demand vintage cards with good grades like 5 and above, their value will stay extremely high as long as the number of them stay low. Once you increase the size of the population of these cards, the pool gets watered down and values go down. Hence, he said there is likely some manipulation going on to keep prices high and motivate people to keep grading their cards.

Another dealer I asked said that some of the higher ups in these companies own many high value cards, and they intentionally depress grades in order to keep the value of their own cards high.

I’ve been collecting since 1975, and my own “eye test” supports the conclusion that grades are being intentionally depressed.

If subgrades were required, it would help identify the problem. For this card, I would give it an 8 for centering (a little off left to right), a 7 for edges, 4 for the for corners (due to the rounding and the yellow on bottom left corner) and a 1 for surface (for the mark on back). So the strength of this card including the strong centering, excellent edges, and vivid color would counter balance the weak areas of this card. However, because I don’t have the actual card in hand and am unable to put it under a scope, I would assume my 5 grade is too high, and I would lower to a 4. Hence, IMO of seeing cards for almost 50 years, the 1.5 is an injustice to this card. It would make me want to crack it and resubmit or just leave it raw. That 1.5 on the top right spoils the cards appeal severely and is just plain wrong!

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

It's a gorgeous example with a flawless image no matter if it's a 1.5 or 2.

Enjoy the card, not the flip.

The grade is fair based on the writing on the reverse but it is likely the nicest 1.5 visually you will ever find. I

looked at the 1.5's on VCP and your card kills the few examples that have been sold.

Maybe it gets a 2 on a good day but the 1.5 is reasonable.

[Gorditadogg]

That's a great 1.5. I'd buy it at a premium.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Yoda]

Free Wojo!!

[vthobby]

Beautiful card but fairly graded by SGC.

In this case unfortunately an "8" = "1.5"

[Snowman]

This is a 3.5 less a 2 point deduction for the writing on back. That's how SGC grades these. You could try PSA, but they'll almost certainly put a qualifier on the grade. And they will either call it a 2 MK or a 3 MK depending on which grader you get on which day.

[Lorewalker]

Agree with what everyone has posted. Great looking card for the grade. The 8 on the back prevents SGC from grading it higher. PSA would likely give you a 3MK. I think it looks great in the SGC holder and were you to sell it, it would sell for a premium above what 1.5s sell for.

[p1ayba11]

I very much appreciate all the feedback. I’ll be holding the card in my PC, I like how it looks in the holder, and am not hung up over the ink on the back. It shows superbly! Just wish it had a 2 on it rather than the 1.5!

My take is that SGC’s grading scale for a 2 allows for one or more defects, including ink, so I felt a 2 was in the cards. Also, when I put my 1.5 next to the WaJo below I can’t help but feel SGC played hardball with the grading.

Thanks again to all that shared their views.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It has to be the writing. If your concern is that it's a half grade too low, that's pretty close really.

I think Peter got it right. I think its pretty close. Glad you decided to keep it, it's a nice looking card

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Paper loss on the front and writing on the back is a 1.5. But it’s a really nice 1.5.

Jeffrey hit all points.

W/o the writing, probably 2.5 even with the slight paper loss based on SGC's published grading scale. Great looking card. Wish mine looked this good

[RayBShotz]

The grade on yours should be "Wow!"
What a great card.
RayB

[Rhotchkiss]

I believe a card with writing will never get higher than a 1.5 with SGC. Look at all the postally-used post cards with 1.5 grades. I am almost certain this is the case

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I believe a card with writing will never get higher than a 1.5 with SGC. Look at all the postally-used post cards with 1.5 grades. I am almost certain this is the case

I agree. It could have been a 2 but SGC's policy is not to go that high with any writing. It's happened to most of us. That WAJO sells for a 3-4 price if it sells again, imo.
.

This one could have been a grade lower. Sometimes, you never know what they will grade something.

[Fred]

In a word "OUCH"


Just my opinion, that small mark on the back, to me, doesn't warrant a grade like that. Wow...

[Touch'EmAll]

Perhaps consider sending back to SGC for "review". Include note describing other positive attributes, and how the back writing appears to be relatively minimal (they might laugh at note, but it couldn't hurt). Would be worth the expense to try to get it in a 2 holder. If not, keep it, be happy the eye appeal is superior, and know you will get very high for the grade sales price if ever sold.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I believe a card with writing will never get higher than a 1.5 with SGC. Look at all the postally-used post cards with 1.5 grades. I am almost certain this is the case

Are any of the Backstamp cards getting grades above a 1.5? Looking at the t206 backstamp website, they only seem to show the backs.

[Bigdaddy]

Delete, double post