The Superiority of SGC

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think the OP was looking for a bump. Or he is misstating his reasoning for taking the card out of the PSA holder If someone thinks a card looks too sharp for the assigned grade, that sounds like he thinks that it's undergraded and has nothing to do with a concern whether it's altered or not. Unless there's some practice of undergrading altered cards that I am unaware of.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think the OP was looking for a bump. Or he is misstating his reasoning for taking the card out of the PSA holder If someone thinks a card looks too sharp for the assigned grade, that sounds like he thinks that it's undergraded and has nothing to do with a concern whether it's altered or not. Unless there's some practice of undergrading altered cards that I am unaware of.

Peter, I never said that I thought the card was altered, and still can't tell even now, looking at the blown-up scans. If it has been trimmed, it's a pretty good job, I think. My sole reason for taking the card out of the holder was to get a better grade from SGC without causing them to be biased in any way due to the PSA grade. I still don't know how this could have been deemed a "3" by them. I fully expected at least a 5 or 6 from SGC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Peter, I never said that I thought the card was altered, and still can't tell even now, looking at the blown-up scans. If it has been trimmed, it's a pretty good job, I think. My sole reason for taking the card out of the holder was to get a better grade from SGC without causing them to be biased in any way due to the PSA grade. I still don't know how this could have been deemed a "3" by them. I fully expected at least a 5 or 6 from SGC.

OK I misread your post then, my mistake, and sorry about that.

[calvindog]

For what it's worth, PSA graded it and SGC caught the trim.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

For what it's worth, PSA graded it and SGC caught the trim.

It may not be worth much given the CJ Jackson and the Leaf Jackie and others that are coming out of the woodwork. At the end of the day, I don't think anyone is going to look great among the TPGs.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It may not be worth much given the CJ Jackson and the Leaf Jackie and others that are coming out of the woodwork. At the end of the day, I don't think anyone is going to look great among the TPGs.

None of Moser's cards got by GAI.

[Griffins]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

None of Moser's cards got by GAI.

You aren’t looking at his ‘55 Bowman’s

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

None of Moser's cards got by GAI.

Actually he was a huge submitter to gai. I suggest you research 1955 Bowman’s GAi and moser for one example. Oh I see Anthony beat me to it. Lol.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

None of Moser's cards got by GAI.

Wait until Monday...

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It may not be worth much given the CJ Jackson and the Leaf Jackie and others that are coming out of the woodwork. At the end of the day, I don't think anyone is going to look great among the TPGs.

I don't believe either of those were trimmed. I think it's a lot tougher for a grader to spot cards which were cleaned than cards which were hacked to pieces, like all the cards that got past PSA and Beckett.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I don't believe either of those were trimmed. I think it's a lot tougher for a grader to spot cards which were cleaned than cards which were hacked to pieces, like all the cards that got past PSA and Beckett.

Perhaps so as a general matter, and maybe the scans/pics weren't true reflections of the cards, but the color on the Jackson looked quite off and the Jackie was too white, even without the before photos. The Jackson also had a crease taken out, or are we now excusing failure to catch those too?