My SGC Submission - The Die Is Cast...

[JollyElm]

Do you have 18 minutes to waste on listening to someone whose raspy voice (according to his girlfriend) sounds like a forty year habit of smoking two packs a day? (I don't smoke.)

If that's a resounding YES, then check out part one of my SGC (what's eventually going to become a) Blind Reveal video. It's basically just me yammering on about the 20 vintage cards I mailed out to SGC on Wednesday afternoon. When I get them back in roughly a fortnight (always wanted to use that word), I'm going to continue the video to show what grades they all got.

Although it's pretty boring (and who knows if my grade guesses are even close to reality), it's always cool to see an array of vintage cards and I think there's a giggle or two to be had (plus some science, too), so please check it out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYiM_fy3h0M


Here are the cards in the submission...

Scan 9.jpgScan 10.jpg

Scan 7.jpgScan 8.jpg

Scan 5.jpgScan 6.jpg

Scan 3.jpgScan 4.jpg

Scan 1.jpgScan 2.jpg


Side Note:
In the video, I refer to a denty area in the gloss on the 1966 Koufax card around the 'A' in "Koufax," here's a split second screenshot where the light/shadows sort of reveal the triangular anomaly I'm talking about...

koufaxdentscreenshot.jpg

[bkspoilers]

Great video, love the commentary. As far as your 64 Mick, I would say you will receive Authentic, with Erased designaton. I recently had two cards come back with that, which I thought were actually print defects. I still do, but they are the professionals, right.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[mikemb]

Enjoyed the video. Can't wait for part 2.

Mike

[JollyElm]

What an idiot I am! In the slip of paper referring to Net54, I forgot to write it as the proper "Net54BASEBALL.com." I frickin' forgot the word "baseball"???????? Eesh.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

What an idiot I am! In the slip of paper referring to Net54, I forgot to write it as the proper "Net54BASEBALL.com." I frickin' forgot the word "baseball"???????? Eesh.

Pin the correction in the comments. I think most viewers can find net54 alright as you displayed it, besides, who would watch a baseball card video on youtube and NOT know about net54??

[71buc]

I recently had a submission return from SGC. You are correct they have great turnaround times. You most certainly will receive your disappointment and inconsistent grades much quicker with SGC than PSA. On the plus side they do communicate and return emails 100X better than PSA who doesn’t seem to make any effort to offer quality customer service. Nonetheless I wish you luck!

[jchcollins]

Good stuff Jolly, congrats. You should do more YT videos - very enjoyable!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[todeen]

Watched the video. That miscut Bench is neat. I'm not into the miscut stuff, but it's always interesting to see. Glad you got nearly all the grades you expected.

[JollyElm]

C'mon, guys, "Jolly" is only an adjective, not a name.

What I learned throughout this undertaking is that doing this stuff is tough, especially with it being a blind reveal. Once you jump in the pool, it's sink or swim time, no turning back. I was holding the printout of what my grade 'guesses' were right in my hand, yet every time I started talking about something, my train of thought temporarily disappeared as I tried to find what number I speculated each card would get, instead of just staying focused.

Note to self: despite the order of the cards in the pile, make sure your list of guesses is ordered chronologically, so you can quickly zero in of any card you want.

[refz]

Good video Darren, I enjoyed it. Now why did they put a few cards in sleeves and the rest not? They did that to my last order.

[JollyElm]

If anyone watched the video, look at this 'revelation.' I did some research (well, 20 seconds of research), and according to the SGC POP report, my card is, in fact, the only one graded so far!!!


1973AlKalinewithbandagePOPreport.jpg


My "Please Note:" note worked!

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by refz

Good video Darren, I enjoyed it. Now why did they put a few cards in sleeves and the rest not? They did that to my last order.

In my experience, if you have a stack of slabs being returned in a box - they will put the first and the last card in sleeves to kind of bookend them, I guess.

It seems random, and would be nice if they just put every card in a sleeve. One of my pet peeves, expecially when watching YouTube videos of vintage cards, is these people who slam and stack and scratch raw slabs almost as soon as they get them back. You see it way more often than you would think, including on slabs that house ridiculously expensive cards. Pony up for some sleeves, people…if you can afford to spend hundreds of dollars and more on grading, you can afford a $5-10 pack of sleeves from UltraPro or Perfect Fit…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Cool you did so well with the writing on the back of the ‘64 Mantle. That gives me hope. I have a ‘55 Aaron with tape on the back, but it looks pretty good on the front. I’m probably going to send that in to SGC here in a few weeks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Cool you did so well with the writing on the back of the ‘64 Mantle. That gives me hope. I have a ‘55 Aaron with tape on the back, but it looks pretty good on the front. I’m probably going to send that in to SGC here in a few weeks.

It's weird that I'm doing cartwheels over a mere 2.5, but minus the penmanship, it is otherwise really nice...and what type of lunatic actually looks at the BACK of a card???

[Beercan collector]

Nice to see the fair grades ,
- I’m thinking the grader(s) appreciated your notes .

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Nice to see the fair grades ,
- I’m thinking the grader(s) appreciated your notes .

My idea for the notes started because there was no individual listing for the 1969 Topps #491 'White Letter' Variation in the drop down menu of the on-line submission form. After asking SGC about it, they told me their graders 'research' each card to determine what it is before the grading started. Rightly or wrongly, and not finding that response overly comforting, I wanted to make sure they had the proper info right from the get-go.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It's weird that I'm doing cartwheels over a mere 2.5, but minus the penmanship it is otherwise really nice...and what type of lunatic actually looks at the BACK of a card???

Exactly. And no, it's not weird. I think in theory I would say "Sure, I like the backs to be nice." But in reality, especially for a pricey or iconic card - if the front looks nice but the card is like half price or less because of writing or tape or paper loss on the back, it's to those that I'm quickest to say "Wow, I'll take it..."

[JollyElm]

Follow-Up...

1967laughlin#17NOGRADE2.jpg

It turns out the card that they would not grade was one of my 1967 Laughlin World Series #17 submissions. If you're familiar with the set, you may know that early in the run Mr. Laughlin pasted two print sheets of the cards together to 'thicken' them before cutting everything into individual cards. (He seemingly soon started using thicker stock.)

My guess is the card in question must have been stored in a screw-down holder or something for a long while, because it was so flattened down that there was nothing to indicate it was two separate cards adhered together when I submitted it. However, freed from whatever constraints held it, the last remnants of mucilage faltered and the two cards began to (now obviously) separate...perhaps coaxed a little by the graders?

Although still somewhat attached, the separation is now clear as day...

1967laughlin#17separated2.jpg