SGC - say it aint so

[Fred]

Originally Posted by swarmee

I think it's because it was trimmed 140 years ago and the remaining corners show consistent rounding on all four sides.
That, and they failed to measure it against a spec.

Good point - consistent rounding of corners gives the appearance of an aged card, however the TPGs should be aware that the bottom of the card should have the Goodwin information (and more in some cases) and that without it, the card is most likely trimmed. I don't know for a fact if the following is true, but it seems believable that the bottom portions of OJs were trimmed off to remove indications that the card had anything to do with tobacco products.

Sizing of OJs is all over the map. Most seem to fall within a certain range but there are many that are taller, narrower, shorter or wider than the "average" card. It's definitely an interesting "set" of cards. If you handle enough of them, you get a good idea on figuring out if the OJ is altered. I don't know how TPGs operate so I don't know if certain graders are designated for grading certain older issues of cards. It'd be wise if the TPGs didn't arbitrarily give any card to any grader to determine the condition of the card.

[Steve D]

deleted

[Steve D]

Here's the trimmed card, with a full-sized one:



Steve

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Fred

Good point - consistent rounding of corners gives the appearance of an aged card, however the TPGs should be aware that the bottom of the card should have the Goodwin information (and more in some cases) and that without it, the card is most likely trimmed. I don't know for a fact if the following is true, but it seems believable that the bottom portions of OJs were trimmed off to remove indications that the card had anything to do with tobacco products.

Sizing of OJs is all over the map. Most seem to fall within a certain range but there are many that are taller, narrower, shorter or wider than the "average" card. It's definitely an interesting "set" of cards. If you handle enough of them, you get a good idea on figuring out if the OJ is altered. I don't know how TPGs operate so I don't know if certain graders are designated for grading certain older issues of cards. It'd be wise if the TPGs didn't arbitrarily give any card to any grader to determine the condition of the card.

I agree John has a good point as well, but I'm with you Fred that a TPG with any reasonable knowledge and experience should know and realize that a significant bottom part of that card is missing. Obviously, some type of human error on the part of the grader, maybe due to inexperience, but you would think there should be some type or form of quality control review till they weren't so inexperienced then, right?

If I was working quality control and had that card, with that grade, going past me, it would have taken about 1 second or less for me to recognize the error and send it back to be corrected. I imagine that when it comes to vintage, especially pre-war cards, there are many members on here that could do just as well, and some likely better, at grading such cards than the employed graders these TPGs actually have doing it now.

[Leon]

A PSA one I own. Not mislabeled....
.

[boneheadandrube]

So this is what, a $100-$125 mistake?

[Fred]

For a common card like this, the $100-$125 difference wouldn't be too far off at today's valuations, but it could be more.

The seller has a (IMHO) very high asking price ($524.95) for a common OJ graded "2". I wouldn't pay $100 for it if it were in a correctly labeled "A") slab.

If that card was in the condition (same corner rounding and wear) it is in without the cut off portion and graded a "2" (like the card in post #26), then I'd guess someone might buy it for a couple hundred bucks (maybe more if they're a Chicago fan).

It would be interesting to see how SGC would handle it if was returned to them for being incorrectly labeled/graded.

Perhaps that'll be the next thread I start - "grading errors". I don't mean errors in one persons subjectivity compared to another. It would be labeling errors that could lead to people taking a loss on the card if they bought it and couldn't resell it. If I start that thread then I'll be sure to black out the cert numbers because I'd hate to see the TPG de-cert the card without the person possessing it knowing about the de-cert. Now that wouldn't happen, now would it?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Now that I see the larger image I would say it's rebacked (a long time ago) as well. Look at how high the back paper sticks up over the top of the photo.

My guess is trimmed first, and later rebacked.

It may even be rebacked on original stock, as it looks good, but I don't have any other explanation for the mounting stock sticking up over the photo. Makes me wonder if it was done on purpose, but not to deceive? someone who had something against smoking stripping the card, cutting the ad and then remounting it?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Fred

For a common card like this, the $100-$125 difference wouldn't be too far off at today's valuations, but it could be more.

The seller has a (IMHO) very high asking price ($524.95) for a common OJ graded "2". I wouldn't pay $100 for it if it were in a correctly labeled "A") slab.

If that card was in the condition (same corner rounding and wear) it is in without the cut off portion and graded a "2" (like the card in post #26), then I'd guess someone might buy it for a couple hundred bucks (maybe more if they're a Chicago fan).

It would be interesting to see how SGC would handle it if was returned to them for being incorrectly labeled/graded.

Perhaps that'll be the next thread I start - "grading errors". I don't mean errors in one persons subjectivity compared to another. It would be labeling errors that could lead to people taking a loss on the card if they bought it and couldn't resell it. If I start that thread then I'll be sure to black out the cert numbers because I'd hate to see the TPG de-cert the card without the person possessing it knowing about the de-cert. Now that wouldn't happen, now would it?

Interesting question Fred. My understanding has always been that a TPG with a grade guarantee doesn't do anything for the person that actually submitted the card. So if you took a card you originally had graded back to be re-holdered by the same TPG that originally graded it, and they now said it was incorrectly over graded the first time, they aren't paying you anything. The grading guarantee is supposedly only available to a subsequent owner as I've always been led to understand it, right?

So do you, or anyone else, know exactly how that works then. Say you bought this graded OJ card that says it is a 2, but you know it is only Authentic. Can you go back to the TPG and demand the difference in value between the correct and incorrect grades, or have them buy the card from you at the improperly higher graded current value? And maybe even more importantly, do any TPGs then ever ask for proof that you actually bought the incorrectly graded card first, and maybe want further proof of what you paid for it? And if so, then possibly factor all into what they may or may not then decide to pay someone if they do honor their grading guarantee?

Reason for my asking is that if the TPGs don't require actual proof of purchase, and what you paid for the incorrectly graded card, say you got an incorrectly graded card years ago, one for which the value has skyrocketed since you got it. If the TPG that incorrectly graded it did honor their grading guarantee and pay you the value difference, or buy the card outright, based on the card's then current value, they are basically paying you for the appreciated difference over the years. So why wouldn't they do the same thing then for the original submitter of the card for grading if they didn't find out/realize the card had been mis-graded till years later, and after the price had skyrocketed? Seems like this idea to not give the original submitter anything is an intentional BS clause, probably thought up by some attorneys who helped the TPG write their agreements and contracts. If the original owner/submitter wants to have any chance of getting any of the appreciated value he may now be cheated out of by the TPG who incorrectly graded the card to begin with, he basically can only do so by finding an unknowing buyer to cheat by having them pay him for the card based on the incorrect grade. Which now puts the original owner/submitter at risk for getting in trouble as a fraudulent seller. I can see a TPG counting on many people not wanting to do this to someone else, and thus keep the TPG from having to now pay anyone for their earlier mistake.

But then there are the original owners/submitters that don't give a rat's ass, and find a mark.....errrr, buyer. And then, what really happens if down the road the new owner goes back to the TPG after discovering the grading error, I've heard the TPGs will often initially refuse to honor their grading guarantee and tell the owner to simply go back to the party they bought the card from first. In such cases, it seems the TPGs may end up paying nothing and having no seeming liability at all for their grading screw-up, by effectively putting forth a grading guarantee, which helped to lure in the customers in the first place by easing their worries as to the TPG's work, honesty, integrity, and ability to accurately grade their card and then stand behind what they've done, that in some cases ends up being nothing more than pure, worthless BS!!!

So, what would happen to someone if they had originally submitted a card for grading, and the TPG screwed up and way over graded it, and instead of trying to go back to the TPG themself, found a friend or relative to buy the mis-graded card from them for say $1, and then have the friend/relative go back to the TPG regarding their grading error, and seeking the damage in the value difference? How long can the TPGs just keep telling people to go back to the seller, or maybe refuse to acknowledge they originally mis-graded the card, while at the same time pointing to the "in our sole discretion" terminology they may have sprinkled in and throughout their contracts and agreements they had their customer sign off on?

If such a grading guarantee does not effectively pass on to each and every subsequent owner, and the TPGs cannot be counted on to live up to these guarantees, then the grading service and holders themselves are truly just meaningless, and shouldn't be counted on by anyone, ever! Because they sure as hell don't seem to always be able to be counted on and/or backed up by all the TPGs, like they're supposed to be.

[swarmee]

BobC, a couple of corrections for you.

1) PSA is the only company I'm aware of that still has a guarantee in force. So SGC would do nothing for you, or at least is not obligated to by any current policy. BGS does not have one either, and I haven't heard of any of the newer companies (CSG, FCG, TAG, etc) having one. Edited to add: There have been a couple of lawsuits against both companies anyways, because they don't have any type of guarantee, but people have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars due to their incompetence. I believe SGC was shamed into refunding their auto authentications on the T-206s because of backlash against the company, then folded their autograph authentication arm for a while. They are now certifying autos, but not sure if that is just pack-inserted cards that have been pre-certified by the card companies.

2) PSA telling buyers to go back to the submitters referred specifically to trimmed cards, not ones they misgraded accidentally (not seeing a pinhole, writing, crease, etc), because their TOS for submitters originally was to sign a form stating that the cards in the submission were all unaltered, to their own knowledge. So PSA was trusting that submitters be honest, because they know they're incompetent to generally detect alterations. But I was also the one (or at least one of them) to point this clause out to them, and recommended that they force PWCC to take all the returns rather than pay out on all the guarantees directly.