![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jay behrens
All I can say about these 2 cards I just got back from SGC is, WTF?!?!?! Elliot and number of other people saw these cards at the National. They are much nicer looking than the scans indicate, and certainly far better than the grades indicate. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Kevin Cummings
I can see how the centering might have hurt the Clark, but what am I missing on the Manion? The image viewer on my work PC isn't worth a darn, but that still looks a heck of a lot nicer than FAIR. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: david
i would guess there is a wrinkle that is not showing up. sgc has become very strick and hesitant to grade cards vg that have creasing or wrinkles, no matter how subtle |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Josh K.
I agree that centering is the culprit with the clark - that is the downside of not having qualifiers such as OC (which, by the way, I cant stand). That looks no better than 80/20 centering, if that. Though the card looks great otherwise, if the centering doesnt justify the higher grade, it wont get it. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jay behrens
If you read SGC standards, you can get an 84 with the centering that card has. So why the 50? These cards were scrutinized under a loupe by several people before I submitted them. I had about a dozen cards I planning on submitting and ended up only submitting 4 because the other cards had minute flaws that missed on my original inspection. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
No comment |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Brent Butcher
It might be my computer or just the scan but it looks like the Manion use to have a piece of tape on the front over LEAGUE. If that's the case then that would explain the low grade. The centering and corners on the Clark appear to be the reason for the vg/ex grade although I could see it pulling an ex grade as well but not much higher. Stll nice cards for the grades escpecially the Manion. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: T206Collector
...the grade that came back on the Manion is a perfect example of why we need responsible third party grading. If you had listed that card raw on ebay advertised in EX-MT or higher condition, you might have a very disappointed buyer (with better eyes, or at least higher standards, than you). While you may have looked at that card through a 10x loupe, you're missing something, be it creasing, wrinkles, paper loss, glue/paper stuck on it, a pinhole.... something. If you think it was a mistake, resubmit it for a reevaluation -- either by cracking it out, or in holder. SGC will give you an explanation, I am sure, one way or another. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Howie
I agree with the tape/stain/removal on the Manion. With that centering on Clark the net grade is reflects the card's grade/value. Generally speaking when you show cards to your friends they will tell you what they think you want to hear. When you send them off for grading you get the grader's honest opinion of the cards. Your opinion of the grades shows why professional grading can be helpful in the marketplace. I wouldn't want to buy the Clark advertised as NM and I wouldn't want to buy the Manion advertised at a higher grade and find out later it had tape removed. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: John
Jay, |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: John
Paul; |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jay behrens
I seriously doubt anyone told me what I wanted to hear about these cards. As I mentioned, I had about a dozen cards with me, and I decided not to submit 8 of them for various reason. So it's not like everyone was feeding me pie int he sky observations. I knew both of these cards had a problem, i.e. centering and the glue on the front. But there is no way these cards should be carrying the grades they got. With the Clark, you could practically shave yourself, the corner are so sharp and the Manion isn't much worse in the corner department. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
Grading should drop the numbers and just grade authentic/unaltered. This would solve alot of problems, still protect the online buyer from scams, and have true collectors stay in the hobby. Anyone paying $3K for a common T206, I don't care if it is in an 11 holder, needs their head examined. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: T206Collector
<<I hope you’re not comparing the advent of the automobile, airplane or personal computer to the advent of grading companies.>>> |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
if you are collecting to fill a hole and not investing, who cares if there is a hidden stain or minute hole that you can only see with the hubble telescope? Yes I think grading is a joke but I do see the protection value for the online buyer as I have stated. I don't like the fact that the grading companies haven't tried to hire or consult with experts who have been in the field much longer than their graders. Case and point, the 3 1910 notebook cards I had returned as counterfeits from SGC. If you don't know, consult with an expert or hire one even if only parttime. Sorry, but I have a huge problem with this part of grading. Yes the young graders can see corners and creases and alterations much better than I, but they should also know the issues they are dealing with. Dan. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Scott Elkins
The centering is about the same as the Rhoades T206 I sent them back. I thought (and told SGC) the grade should be a 30 b/c of 90/10 centering. They sent it back as a 40 (for those who don't know, it was in a 60 holder). So, I think an SGC 50 is very generous for the centering on that particular card. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: T206Collector
The more expensive the expert will be to hire. And, since the issue is rare, there will be very few submissions, so it becomes cost prohibitive. You could keep someone on staff as an independent contractor for piecemeal work, I suppose. And, I guess I thought that grading companies did that sort of thing. At least, I think I've read that they do. And if they don't, I agree that they should. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: DJ
I agree whole heartedly with what many of you have said and your concerns. Being "old school", I at first rejected the idea of grading my cards but I lightened up over the years as my personal views wouldn't matter and the hobby would live on. There are still a lot of people who know nothing of eBay and would rather utilize the want ads. I don't want to be like that. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
I submitted the notebook cards for the simple reason that people are paying more for slabbed cards. My keeper collection has 1 slabbed card in it and my for sale stuff is about 50% slabbed. As hypo as it may seem, since people will pay more for slabbed, heck, I slab crap I am selling. And just an authentic/unaltered would be fine for me for everything I submit. Dan. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
I would like to add that I do not care what is on front of that Goudey on the left, that card is much better than fair. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Josh K.
Old school, yes that Manion is much better than fair. However, the grading companies have established what are intended to be objective standards. If their standards significanly lower a grade for tape stain and you submit to them, you have to be prepared to accept a grade based on those standards. Its not much different than a nice front with paperloss on the back - the paperloss is a killer even though the card looks great. Here is the perfect example (this is also posted in the Johnson thread by the way). I have absolutely no argument with the technical grade this rec'd - even though its a much nicer looking card than the grade would indicate. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
Sorry, call me whatever you like, that grade on your Johnson is ridiculous. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: T206Collector
...is a good analogy, indeed. I would like to state that it is very easy to keep a card crease free and with sharp corners for 100 years if you glue it into a scrap book. In a sense, it's cheating. So, while it maintains the beauty of a card's front, some of us like to have the whole card's condition be maintained. That is what truly makes a rare vintage card. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: MW
Jay, |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
really? A rare vintage card is a card that there isn't many of in ANY condition. A true collector wouldn't care in my opinion. Do you want the card or only the card in perfect condition? I guess I am just not catching on with the current idea. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: MW
T206collector, |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: T206Collector
Are you serious? Or are you just being argumentative. This is not ground-breaking news here. Condition drives value because of scarcity. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: DeanH3
All 3 grading companies hammer cards with glue or paper loss. GAI hammered my Cobb that has glue/paste residue on the back that is virtually invisible unless you tilt the card against a light. Still then almost impossible to see. BTW I paid alot for this card and I have no regrets. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: T206Collector
...I am not just entering this hobby. I purchased my first Goudey card when I was 16 in 1989 and have been a regular purchaser of T206 cards since 1997. When my friends and I were trading 1987 Topps cards of Pete Incaviglia for 1987 Topps cards of Kal Daniels, we understood that cards with bubble gum stains on the reverse were not worth as much as ones with clean backs. It was pretty basic stuff and, in my opinion, continues to be. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Josh K.
Dean, |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: John
Since were cutting and pasting… |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: MW
I was thinking of posting something on this topic previously but I no longer thought it was relevant once the thread died. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: T206Collector
Absolutely. But the idea is that the grading company doesn't (or at least shouldn't) have a vested interest in the ultimate sale of the card. Dealers who grade the cards they sell have an inherent conflict of interest. Third party grading is much more reliable. And of course we'll have to find graders that are trustworthy. Heck, I started with PSA, and then listened to the horror stories and bought some PSA graded cards with obvious flaws that did not factor into the grade. I don't buy PSA cards any more if I can help it. And if I do, they get crossed over to SGC so fast it would make your head spin. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: John
Interesting take MW. But a lot of grading companies grade or authenticate items that aren’t collected in the traditional way that baseball cards were. What would be your take on Scrapps, Silks, Stamps, Cabinets, Premiums or Autographs? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: John
Paul; |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
Yes I am serious. And that is my point. You started in the late 80s when the hobby was booming. You are a newbe to me. In the late 60s and 70s, we collected to fill sets. The value didn't come in to play near as much. You are driven by value, I collected to fill in the number I was missing. You are not wrong, just different. Yes, I am very serious Mr. T206collector. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: MW
John, |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
Holy sh$t Mike, I think you gave me a headache. You know Mike, your point would make more sense if that was why they said they were counterfeit. But when I referenced them in the standard catalog, they apologized and gave me a $24 credit. Dave are you reading this again?? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: MW
"Counterfeit means fake, reprinted, bogus to most people I know." |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
Mike, I have no problem with them not grading them, my problem is with the why they didn't grade them. I was the first to state that the items shouldn't have been cataloged. But they are and no matter how you say it, they are not counterfeits which means fakes of an original item to me. Dan. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Anonymous
Dan, |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
Sean who? I spoke to Dave Forman and Scott. Dan |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: MW
"You know Mike, your point would make more sense if that was why they said they were counterfeit. But when I referenced them in the standard catalog, they apologized and gave me a $24 credit." |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
I spoke directly with Scott and they didn't think it was period Mike. Sorry, you won't sell me on this one. Plus they are cataloged in the Standard Catalog. A professional grader of vintage cards should know that book in my opinion. I am by no means upset by how SGC handles my items and problems. They are wonderful people to deal with and I have known Dave forever. I am just making a point, a weak part of professional grading in my opinion. The pro's should know what they are looking at. Dan. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: MW
Dan, |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
The individual players are cataloged and I personally do not agree with that. I have always told people they were from a notebook but who listens to me? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth
Hate to get in the middle of the battle over symantics but here is a link from SGC's page on Explantion of Rejections. SGC could have rejected Dan's items coded as NO, which means Cannot/Do Not Grade. Based on that option available to SGC, it would appear they felt the items were not legit at the time of submission. http://www.sgccard.com/default.asp?PageID=2 Clearly SGC, as does GAI and PSA, distinguish between "questionable authenticity" and an "inability to grade." |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: MW
Dan, |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
Bob? Scott the grader told me they looked like the laser fakes that scammers are doing. I told him I think I would have known better. They do favor those laser copies but I still must make my points here. Dan. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: MW
Dan, |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
O/T Don't give up, don't ever give up! | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 12-09-2008 07:33 PM |
Give Thanks | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 11-23-2007 05:52 PM |
I give up... | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 10-14-2007 07:39 PM |
This Should Give You Confidence in SCD Grading | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 12-18-2003 07:56 PM |
Give Thanks........ | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 11-28-2003 10:45 PM |