...

[4815162342]

For the sake of TPG fairness, I present these without comment.

From "SGC's Response" 11/30/2006: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=83096

... When it comes to restoration of cards, we break the issue down into three categories. The first category includes things like erasing light pencil marks, wax/gum removal, corner flattening, album/glue removal, and wrinkle removal. These are examples of procedures that, if done carefully and properly, are unfortunately undetectable. When done properly, cards that have undergone these procedures can find there way into SGC holders, because as I mentioned, there is no way to detect that it has been done. Often these procedures are done improperly, they leave telltale signs that we consider to be evidence of tampering, and we reject the cards. ...

From "June Pickups" 6/3/2012: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1000251

My June pickup was my May pickup but with a better grade. Got this in the REA auction & took it to SGC Fri. They popped it out for me & I removed the slight pencil on the back with a Mars eraser(thanks Leon!). They then regraded it and it went from a SGC 20 to a SGC 40!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Daryl,

What do you mean by "For the sake of TPG fairness"? You seem to infer that SGC looks the other way on cetain alterations. That's not how I interrpreted their statement at all. They're simply saying that some alterations are undetectable. In that case, what can they (or PSA for that matter) do?

The first card with the erased pencil mark is very easily detectible and no doubt would be rejected by SGC (at least for a number grade). Likewise, PSA shouldn't have given it a number grade either.

If that's not what you meant, please explain the "For the sake of TPG fairness..." part of your comment. I don't get the fairness part.

[glchen]

David,

What I believe Daryl is saying is that for the second situation, a card was brought to SGC with a mark on it, cracked open at their site, and then it was re-graded by SGC when they confirmed that the mark was now undetectable. SGC knew that the card once had a pencil mark on it. For PSA's case, you can argue that PSA would've been blind to not have seen that mark, but it is still possible that they could have missed it. However, SGC knew that a mark was once there on a card.

BTW, I'm not trying to fault SGC on this (especially because I currently have a submission with them right now) as I believe there is some debate in the community whether it is okay to erase light pencil marks. Some say it's no big deal to erase them. Others disagree. There are similar disagreements on whether it's okay to soak a card although I believe most people say it's okay.

BTW, for that second card that the OP pointed out, again I'm no expert in rebuilding corners, but is it possible that person simply soaked the card and then pressed it? It may even have just been pressing with a stack of books. However, this situation may be dicier since over time, those creases may slowly come back.

I also just wanted to add that I don't it was the OP's intention to have another SGC vs PSA argument (although it's possible, I guess). It's really great that he pointed out these cards so that in the future, people can watch for them, and make the decision for themselves on whether they would still want them based on their history.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by glchen

What I believe Daryl is saying is that for the second situation, a card was brought to SGC with a mark on it, cracked open at their site, and then it was re-graded by SGC when they confirmed that the mark was now undetectable. SGC knew that the card once had a pencil mark on it. For PSA's case, you can argue that PSA would've been blind to not have seen that mark, but it is still possible that they could have missed it. However, SGC knew that a mark was once there on a card.

I missed that part. If it's true, shame on SGC.

[Leon]

If any company can't see an erased mark, or indention left, whether they knew it was there (before) or not, I don't think they should count off for it. If there was a little piece of dirt on the card, and it got wiped off, they wouldn't ding for that either. As long as there is no mark or indention leftover, it was never there....but then again, I am not as technical (anal) as some.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

If any company can't see an erased mark, or indention left, whether they knew it was there (before) or not, I don't think they should count off for it. If there was a little piece of dirt on the card, and it got wiped off, they wouldn't ding for that either. As long as there is no mark or indention leftover, it was never there....but then again, I am not as technical (anal) as some.

My opinion differs, but I think we're getting off point. We're now talking about pencil mark erasures that can't be detected. The pencil mark erasure on the card the OP posted can be detected (pretty obvious) and there is no way PSA should have graded it a 3. Agreed?

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by glchen

David,

What I believe Daryl is saying is that for the second situation, a card was brought to SGC with a mark on it, cracked open at their site, and then it was re-graded by SGC when they confirmed that the mark was now undetectable. SGC knew that the card once had a pencil mark on it. For PSA's case, you can argue that PSA would've been blind to not have seen that mark, but it is still possible that they could have missed it. However, SGC knew that a mark was once there on a card.

BTW, I'm not trying to fault SGC on this (especially because I currently have a submission with them right now) as I believe there is some debate in the community whether it is okay to erase light pencil marks. Some say it's no big deal to erase them. Others disagree. There are similar disagreements on whether it's okay to soak a card although I believe most people say it's okay.

BTW, for that second card that the OP pointed out, again I'm no expert in rebuilding corners, but is it possible that person simply soaked the card and then pressed it? It may even have just been pressing with a stack of books. However, this situation may be dicier since over time, those creases may slowly come back.

I also just wanted to add that I don't it was the OP's intention to have another SGC vs PSA argument (although it's possible, I guess). It's really great that he pointed out these cards so that in the future, people can watch for them, and make the decision for themselves on whether they would still want them based on their history.

Im trying to follow and probably missing something...But if the card was originally graded at SGC with pencil mark, then " cracked open at their site" and regraded...how did the mark get erased if it was encapsulated? Or, if it resubmitted raw, after erased...how could they know it was a card they had previously graded? Sure I missed something, but thanks

[teetwoohsix]

The problem with erasing pencil marks becomes a problem when a TPG doesn't grade the card appropriately. Here is a PSA 4 with the the number 134, once written in pencil, craftily erased from the upper right back. My scan is crap to begin with, but even on a better scan I did not see it. I only noticed it when it was in hand, and I bought it from a very legit seller who I trust and I don't even think he saw it. I didn't make it an issue to the seller, I just kept the card. But, if I were to ever sell the card, knowing it is there, I have to disclose this and take a loss because technically it should not be graded a 4.

So, I paid the price for a PSA 4 HOF'er. In my opinion, the TPG should have caught this and not slabbed it as a 4. Had I (or the seller) known it had pencil erased from the back, I would not have paid the price of a 4; and I doubt the seller wouldn't have asked 4 money for the card.

It only becomes a problem in situations like the one I presented above...it's no big deal if you erase pencil marks on cards you plan to keep in your collection-but it's an issue if a TPG gives it a higher grade than it deserves,it makes it's way into the buying/selling/trading market, and some unsuspecting buyer pays for something that is deceiving (unintentional or intentional).

If I could see it in hand, what is the graders excuse?

Sincerely, Clayton

~edit to add, the "134" is next to the last "s" of the "150 Subjects".

[conor912]

How many times have you been to a postcard show or a used bookstore where the seller has written the price in pencil right on the item? It's a non-issue for most all other paper collectibles and somehow with baseball cards it became this massive felony and subsequent witch hunt for those erasing them. Not only do I buy cards with pencil on them, I seek them out then erase them. Sure I do so with the intention of keeping and not selling, but that's the worst double standard I've ever heard. Even if I keep everything until I die, at some point my collection will be on the market again, including....gasp....cards with erased pencil. If that makes me a card doctor, then whatever.

The second card is way dicier, IMO. I often look at the edge wear:corner wear ratio and those edges are way too clean to have beat up corners like those. A couple corners even look rebuilt to me. That said, there are plenty of collectors out there, on this board included, who believe a card is worthless until its graded and then once it is, TPGs can do no wrong.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by conor912

Even if I keep everything until I die, at some point my collection will be on the market again, including....gasp....cards with erased pencil. If that makes me a card doctor, then whatever.

You miss the point. It's all about intent. In your situation, you're not trying to deceive anyone, while the person that altered these cards is/was. If you still don't understand, I don't know how to explain it any other way.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You miss the point. It's all about intent. In your situation, you're not trying to deceive anyone, while the person that altered these cards is/was. If you still don't understand, I don't know how to explain it any other way.

So if i die and my wife (who knows nothing about cards) sells my collection to, say, you....and you detect the erased pencil on a card, you're going to say to yourself "Oh, it's ok. It wasn't erased with the intention of deceiving me so I'm fine with it?" No, you're going to (hopefully gently) explain to my wife that you believe the card is altered and that you'd like a refund.

Believe me, I understand perfectly, but I respectfully disagree with you, which is fine. We all have a stance and I'm just stating mine.