SGC's Response

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I've been reading the recent threads on Net54 with great interest, and thought I would take some time to respond to some of your concerns. Clearly, these are important concerns for collectors, myself included.

In response to Doug Allen’s questions, we do not feel that it is the job of a grading company to tell any submitter what to do or not do to a card. We consider our role in the process to be simple: it is our job to review cards for authenticity and detectable alterations, assign a grade to the card, and encapsulate it into a holder. It is also our job to be the best grading company in the hobby, and to earn our customers’ trust with each and every submission. We understand that when a collector purchases a card in an SGC holder, they are placing their trust in our opinion as to the authenticity and grade of the card. That’s not a responsibility that we take lightly.

It is only natural that I feel that SGC boasts the most talented, experienced, and well-trained graders in the industry, and we make every conceivable effort to remain on the leading edge of our hobby, particularly when it comes to detecting card alterations. This is an area of constant education and training for us, and we feel that our team is the most skilled in the industry. At the same time, we also recognize that human errors occur – this is why we have a written guaranty.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that if you feel that you have a card in our holder that you may feel may be altered or overgraded, we want you to review it with us. It is important to us that we get it right every time – and if there is a problem with a card, we want to buy it back from you and get it off the market. That’s part of the commitment we make to our customers, every single day. It is our job to be the best grading company in the hobby in every respect – and our guaranty is a big piece of what makes SGC special.

To address some of the other issues we’ve seen this weekend:

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. Some of these telltale signs include but are not limited to a change in the cards texture, unusually flat surfaces, and at times there is a slight transfer of a foreign substance to a card.

There is, however, a second category of restoration that we feel is far more problematic, that we see far more frequently. This category involves slight trimming, adding tiny amounts of paper to corners, touching up corners and/or touching up minor areas in the background to hide surface wear. An astonishing percentage of high-grade cards that we see have undergone procedures that fall into this category. I have complete confidence that our graders have the knowledge and ability to detect these types of alterations and reject the cards. However, as mentioned above, in the unlikely event that such an alteration gets by our graders our written guaranty will protect you. SGC rejects these cards on a regular basis.

The third category involves extensive restoration, such as major corner rebuilding, pieces added to cards, rebacking, and creating variations. While these types of alterations are seen less frequently, we also feel completely confident in our ability to detect them. Obviously, we reject these cards.

Based on some of the feedback we have received over the weekend, we have decided to devote some space in SGC Collector magazine to a series of articles that will help collectors better understand how to detect certain types of alterations themselves. Part of our role as a grading company is not only to provide you with a trustworthy opinion on cards, but to be a resource for you to help increase your own knowledge as a collector. With card values skyrocketing, it is more important than ever that you purchase your cards from a trustworthy source, using a grading company that gives you confidence – but it is equally important that you consistently work to build your own base of knowledge. As such, you can look to the upcoming issues of the magazine to add to your reference materials. If there are any specific areas you would like these articles to address, feel free to email us and let us know.

As always, if you ever have any questions or concerns, my staff will be happy to help you with whatever we can. Feel free to contact us at any time – and we hope to see some of you at the upcoming Philly show in Reading.

Regards,
Dave Forman


edited 1 word for spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

That's a great response and thanks for your time.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

SGC, As always, a cut above.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Is that contrary to Doug Allen, he considers all the practices he ennumerated in the first category, including even erasure of pencil marks or glue removal, as alteration ("tampering" is the word he uses), and would reject a card if he could tell it had been subjected to it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

Great response - thank you!

Nice to read something positive and reassuring about the hobby!

[Archive]

Posted By: John S

This is why the few graded cards that I have in my collection are in SGC holders. Thanks Dave.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Did you inform Mastro that you consider wrinkle/crease removal to be alteration?
Doug Allen very simply stated that his company will perform such 'work' because he feels it falls outside of the category of alteration, and I would like to know if you will state directly whether or not your company will make statement to that.

If you make it clear that such activity is alteration, he will in all likelyhood stop the practice at his business place.
If you will not make that qualification, then we will all go off happily and start pressing out wrinkles/creases, have them slabbed by you and other companies, sell them for ridiculous prices, and help ruin the hobby as we know it.

Please let me know how we should proceed?


Sincerely
Daniel Enright

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Dave,

Thank you so much--you are one of the best people in the hobby.

Dave--"an astonishing percentage" have undergone these procedures? Amazing--can you quantify?

Do the cards come from a few sources?
Can you tell these people stop it--we know what you are doing?
How many people are doing this microtrimming/reworking the card?

Will have more later.

Thanks a million Dave.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill K@sel

This is exactly the reason why my cards all eventually get slabbed by SGC. 1) best grading standards in the industry, 2) they strive to exceed expectations and 3) by far they look the best in the holder (no baggie method used like PSA)

Thank you Dave, your response is appreciated.

Bill K@sel

My personal collection - http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f176/fkm_bky/

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Dave, thanks for the careful response.

After reading that, doesn't Doug have some explaining to do? Basically, Mastro has come out on a public forum and confessed to altering cards in order to increase its bottom line - even if it is against at least one grading company's policies, one of only 2 companies that Mastro primarily deals with. Doug, because you're so concerned about me having nice things to say, I'll say this: I really feel strongly about SGC and am happy that they will try to catch the altering you do on cards.

Look, I find that usually the greediest people are the ones more likely to cut corners. I have never had a problem with people trying to make as much money as possible. But I think what turned me off to Mastro were a) the ridiculous reasoning behind the catalogue fee which solely focused on "rising costs" and "the need to maintain a first class auction"; and b) the sneaky move in raising BP AFTER consignments were received and contracts signed. Not surprisingly, Mastro admits now that it does at least some form of SGC frowned-upon alteration to cards it receives for sale.

I suspect Doug will come back and probably swear off any more alterations in the future and I will respect that if he does such a thing. I also respect the fact that he had the balls to come out here and admit something that he had to know was unpopular. Frankly I'm amazed that he did such a thing. I wonder what Mastro's lawyers are saying to him now. Finally, I would ask that Mastro email all of its clients and indicate which lots in the upcoming auction have been touched in any way by their hands other than to take them out of the envelopes sent by consignors.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Leon,

Would you expect Mike Baker to respond publicly?

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Thanks Dave! Super response from SGC.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

As you may know, I am a HUUUUGE supporter of SGC and am thrilled not only by the post but also by the response. However, I cannot let Dave off the hook so easily:

[The first category includes things like erasing light pencil marks. . . . These are examples of procedures that, if done carefully and properly, are unfortunately undetectable. . . . Often these procedures are done improperly, they leave telltale signs that we consider to be evidence of tampering, and we reject the cards.]

The suggestion here is that light pencil erasures are acceptable only if they do not leave any tell-tale signs. I know that this is not SGC's standard, because I have plenty of T206 cards graded by SGC with poor quality pencil erasures on the back that have been reduced in grade as a result, but nevertheless encapsulated.

[Archive]

Posted By: GoSoxBoSox

Great response Dave. My biggest mistake in this hobby over the past few year has been not sending SGC all of my business sooner. That's gonna change.

Tom Papa

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Dave, that was a straightforward, intelligible statement of policy that is consistent with the views of the vintage collectors I know.

T206, dude, you have it wrong. All Dave said is that if they cannot detect an alteration, they cannot stop it. He did not say it was OK, just that his company has an (obvious) practical limit on what they can do.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

They can see the attempted pencil erasure -- and they grade it anyway. For the record, it is a choice I happen to agree with.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

but I thought SGC was contacted specifically to answer the question, as I have mentioned already, of whether or not wrinkle/crease removal is regarded as alteration. That very specific word, alteration.
Mastro fixes cards in this way because they believe the wider community and SGC would not regard wrinkle removal as altertion, and Doug Allen specifically stated in his post that he would ask SGC for their opinion on this definition.
Have we answered anything at all if we cannot get SGC to detail their stance on this simple question?

daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Actually Adam is correct and you aren't. Please explain how you can tell if a pencil mark is erased and there is no trace or indention left? From a logical stance you can not take off for something you can't detect. That's all Dave was saying...and it's common sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: sagard

There is no condemnation of the "preparation" work mentioned extensively previously, it's not SGC's role. If (big if) an alteration is detectible SGC will catch it, if they don't and you do catch it they will refund.

This is VERY close to me to an acknowledgement that the "prep" work is acceptable.

Soren

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

I have a T206 Chance Yellow portrait with a pencil erasure on the back. It used to read a word, then someone rubbed the crap out of it and it is a scuff mark on the back with a faint word that can't be read. It is very light, but is most certainly obvious evidence of an erasure. Indeed, when I submitted it to SGC for grading it came encapsulated in a "PSA 4 (MK)" holder. The SGC people popped it out and graded it an SGC 40 with no qualifier of course.

My only point was that Dave's post suggested that if you can detect a pencil erasure then that would not pass muster with SGC. Well, I have this fine example which shows otherwise. I also have an SGC 40 southern leaguer with a pencil mark on the back that was poorly erased, too.

I happen to agree with encapsulating such cards. I also happen to agree with SGC's policy not to reject cards based on undetectable alterations -- of course.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Whether you call it a procedure or an alteration, the result is the same: If SGC can spot that something has been done, they won't grade the card. If they cannot detect it, the card is going to grade.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

It's simple.
Doug Allen suggested he would STOP committing the practice if SGC were to determine such practice/prep/fixing/working/ALTERATION as....ALTERATIONS.

He was prepared to lay it all out on the line for the very semantics you are dismissing.
I would be happy just getting ONE dealer/auctioneer to stop the practice.
Wouldn't you be?

Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

[If SGC can spot that something has been done, they won't grade the card. If they cannot detect it, the card is going to grade.]

Not true. They can detect poor pencil erasure attempts and will still grade the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I agree with you on that last comment (I think). My experience is that if SGC can detect an erasure they will grade the card as if it was marked....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...and it is a philosophy that I agree with entirely. PSA does it too, and sometimes they put an MK qualifier.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

I also commend SGC for their post and, as many know, I am and will continue to be a huge fan of sgc.

I will also agree with T206 that sgc does grade cards with detectable pencil erasures (and hope that that does not change). Specifically, I have a card with indentations on the reverse that clearly were made by a pencil though no mark (other than the indentation) remain. Elsewhere on the card you can see pencil, though its light. It was clearly erased and graded as I think it should have been. Whoever erased the marks altered the card no more than the person who made the marks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)

Do you consider removing a light pencil mark (if nobody can tell that it was done) alteration?

Thanks.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Harry,

I think that question/topic has been addressed numerous other times on the board if you want to use the search function. I also think a number of people commented on it in the original thread that started this stuff (questions to doug allen). If Im not mistaken, Jim believes it is all an alteration, Jeff doesnt believe the removal of pencil marks by non-chemical means is an alteration (of course, Jeff can speak for himself and correct me if I am misstating his position). My personal belief, even though not requested, is that the erasure of a pencil mark is not an alteration. The alteration was the placing of the original mark.

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)

JK,

Thanks for your response. I am sure that my questions have been answered before, but I do not always get to check the board on a regular basis and did not want to go back and wad through hundreds of posts.

The reason why I am curious is that I have always felt that taking out a light wrinkle should be put in the same camp as erasing a light pencil mark. SGC's comments seem to agree.

"The first category includes things like erasing light pencil marks, wax/gum removal, corner flattening, album/glue removal, and wrinkle removal."

If this is the case, why is such a big deal made about one and not the other. To me, I would rather have a tiny wrinkle taken out than to have my cards removed from an album, which I assume requires the use of water and some sort of chemical to break down the glue or adhesive.

[Archive]

Posted By: bigfish

SGC is the best!!

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Harry,

I agree that Im not too concerned if a wrinkle is taken out of one of my cards as long as I can be sure it wont ever come back - I have no experience with this one way or another, so I have no idea if wrinkles come back or not. As to the removal from a scrap book - if its done with chemicals and any residue or smell is left behind, I doubt that the card would grade - I think most removal is done with water only and that most collectors have no problem with this (I personally dont).

[Archive]

Posted By: Saul

I probably have one of the most extensive SGC collections, definitely not one of the highest graded, but I collect sets for the fun of putting them together. About 2 years ago I purchased a 1952 #2 Pete Runnels in an SGC 84. I think I paid a pretty nice price for it. Dave saw the card and asked if he could have it back. I said no problem. It is now in an SGC 60 holder and I received a bunch of free grades. I love people who have the ability and integrity to admit their mistakes and correct them. PLEASE CHECK THE SET REGISTRY I AM ALWAYS LOOKING TO FILL MY SETS, BUY AND TRADE!