How do you feel when you see this in an auction

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

I would characterize a perfectly-done erasure of a pencil mark not as an alteration but instead as a removal of an alteration, thus returning the card to its original state (and by original state I mean the state it was in upon manufacture without anything being permanently added (e.g., touchup, bleaching, paper restoration)). I think the semantics here are important because if upon the removal of the pencil mark the card is characterized as having had the original (temporary) alteration removed and being returned to its unaltered state, then no one should take issue with the card receving a numerical grade. If on the other hand the removal of the pencil mark is regarded as a subsequent alteration, some might regard the card as having undergone two alterations and thus not suitable for a numerical grade.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

As I understand it, and I could very well be wrong:

* A marked card (a card with ink or pencil) is not treated as an "alteration". The word "alteration" is a word that's reserved for a modification of the card with intent to deceive, or, in the case of "in period" trimming (or whatever you call it), a modification of the card in general. A marked card is treated the same as a card with an extreme blemish, like a heavy crease or a pinhole. Therefore, a marked card can be graded. PSA treats the mark by grading the card and then assigning a qualifier. SGC treats the mark as part of the overall condition of the card, and drops the grade accordingly.

* A card with a visible erasure, like an eraser line from the eraser on the back of a pencil, is usually treated the same as a marked card. The eraser left a visible mark, and may not have been done with intent to deceive. For example - I have a card that someone had drawn an offensive symbol on. I liked the card, but didn't like the symbol, so I erased it with a pencil eraser. You can plainly see that I did it. It's a marked card.

* If someone attempts to remove a mark from a card with intent to deceive, but the alteration is detectable, the card will be rejected. For example, if someone tries to rub off a mark by soaking the card and rubbing it with a Q-tip, but in the process removes some gloss or paper, the alteration can be detected by the graders. In this case, the card is rejected as having been altered. Someone tried to conceal a defect in the card, and in the process, wrecked the card.

* If someone expertly removes a mark from a card with intent to deceive, and the alteration cannot be detected, then there's no way for the grader to tell that the alteration took place. So the card is assigned a grade.

Seems to make a lot of sense to me. I think it's possible to debate the philosophy, and some of the debate might have merit, but I also think it's pretty easy to understand.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

Oh, the irony. I really hesitate to bring this up, but I've noticed something very strange about this card just by looking at it. I used to spot Yum Yum's in larger groups of Old Judges because they were always a little larger than Old Judges. I've not seen a Yum Yum with a border so small as this one. Trimmed?

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...that SGC called Leon to discuss this card and this thread. Their customer support and 100% backing of their graded cards are huge reasons to rely on them.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

The borders don't look that small to me as far as Yum Yums are concerned...

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

That O'Rourke sure looks familiar. Got to admit, Leon, very hard to tell. Yum Yum's were always pretty obscure. Thanks for the look.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Right up there with Tinker's bat wings in T206

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

I wish I could have seen the card's back in the Mile High auction. I do believe whoever bought the card purposley broke it out of the holder... made improvements to it and did it just for a financial gain. They could not even wait a year or so to put it back on the block... It sorda saddens me to see them get rewarded with where the price is now on it...

That's great that SGC is made of aware of this deal. However, it seems like nothing can or will be done.. I mean.. Are they going to re-grade it down to a 60 where it probally belongs????Everything is going to work out this time. Maybe the consignor of the Mile High card is a little miffed by watching what happend to the card. I will be watching to see if they change the population report on it.

Here are other Yum Yums to compare borders on... When I get mine graded at SGC.. WHo should I ask for? JC

[Archive]

Posted By: FYS

"That's great that SGC is made of aware of this deal. However, it seems like nothing can or will be done."

Although none of us know what the exact final outcome will be, it is 100% clear that SGC backs the cards that they grade. Simply put, SGC will/would do more than any other grading company that exists to fix an error. Nuff said!

They make mistakes, but they make them less frequently. When they do make mistakes, they do not stick their head in the sand, but to the contrary are rather proactive.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

It seems inconsistent on the one hand for people to say they don't have a problem with erasing pencil marks, removing ink, etc. (as distinct from trimming rebuilding corners etc. etc.), but on the other hand for people to complain about someone doing this on a crackout and then resubmitting the card to SGC. If the "restoration" or whatever neutral term we use is permissible, then SGC graded two different cards, in effect. Why does it make any difference that the card came out of a slab? Analytically isn't it exactly the same as if the card had never been graded and the same "restorations" performed?

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

There have been several comments to the effect that the grading companies differentiate between power erasing and mere erasing by hand with an eraser. I don't think this is true. I once submitted an E94 Cobb which "acquired" a tiny mark in the white border. I carefully erased the mark with an expensive art eraser and the card came back from SGC as "altered" although what was removed was not something on the card when it was made. The mark could not be seen but apparently under the microscope or loupe or whatever, it showed signs of an erasure. Again, this was in the border and very small.

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry

SGC...Best Holders, Very intelligent and personable, hard working owner..one of the hobby's trend setters, deservant of the utmost respect...however....
I recently graded a RARE N172 Old Judge HOFer, card had excellent front, great corners, clarity, image etc...at Phila...7 high end dealers and Bill Mastro himself all felt card was at least a 3, up to a 5... knowing that the pencil erased name was there at one time...
Was told by grader that card would only 1.5(SGC 20) due to an erase residual marking on a blank reverse that could only be seen under light,was not obvious and had no tears, no paper loss or glue...absolutely ridiculous when SGC 20 cards could have tears on fronts, stains etc..that really pissed me off.

I have seen SGC cards graded with paper loss and or glue, miscuts and heavy rounding grade 2 to 4 consistantly...My card should have been a 3 or 4(looked like a 6)

I fault the entire grading industry including GAI, SGC and PSA( and I support them!) for the stupidity of lumping blank backed cards that have a minor eraser from a pencil that should never been there anyway and down graded to a 1.5 or 2 regardless of the front which could be near mint..Why should a creased and rounded card with pencil on back and an ex/mt card be lumped into same category..it makes no sense..
Blanked Backed cards with no print should not be given the same scale as cards with full reverses, fronts should be considered and although there is so many things SGC does right, their head grader should be realistic not simplistic, tech grading is really getting impractical when dealing with blank reverses.

[Archive]

Posted By: Colt McClelland

I totally agree with Larry's post. Check out these cards I had graded at the National this year:



They both appear EX or EXMT from the front, but have paper loss on the back from being glued in a scrapbook. Both were graded SGC 10. In my book, they should be SGC 30's for sure. At the least, they should be SGC 20's. I had a long discussion with them about this, and they absolutely would not budge. Ridiculous. As much as I like SGC, I think they sometimes go way overboard and grade cards unfairly.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Larry's point is well taken.

It's my understanding that SGC is giving serious consideration to changing their grading standards for blank-backed cards. Under the contemplated change, the card's grade would be based on the card's front with notations on the grading label as to defects in the back. Perhaps SGC would consider coming on the board and themselves describe this contemplated change.

On a similar note, perhaps for photographic cards such as N172s grading companies should take into account the contrast of the photo in assigning a grade. It seems crazy to me to give a N172 with a very light photo but an otherwise great front a higher grade than a N172 with a great photo but with an otherwise soso front.

[Archive]

Posted By: zach

Corey-very good point. You see this all the time, a very faded N172 but is in otherwise nice condition graded high. I dont understand this. Does the quality of the photo mean nothing ? I would much rather an SGC 10 N172 Anson with a great photo and maybe some writing on the back than an SGC 80 Anson that was sharp with no writing but faded.

[Archive]

Posted By: Colt McClelland

I totally agree with Corey's point as well. This card received a grade of SGC 50:



How can this be a 50, and the two cards above are 10's just because of back damage? Something is not right about that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Peter,

I dont think there is any inconsistency - I think the people who have no problem with hand erasing are the same ones who have no problem with the fact that this card now resides in an sgc 80 slab.


Tbob,

I think SGC just doesnt like you very much - they seem to always want to reject your cards for things that the rest of us get graded (i.e. trimmed but authentic slabs; erased markes, etc). For example, I just sold this card, but its the most obvious erase job in the world (not done by me though) and yet it graded no problem (though it did get an appropriately low grade):

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

I feel like I want it.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think grading is still an evolving art and not yet a science and the grading services that want to stay on the cutting edge will recognize that changes need to be made. Every serious collector of Old Judges and similar photographic cards prizes the quality and contrast of the photo over some corner rounding or a little back damage. SGC, among others, will eventually take this into consideration, and whoever is first to recognize this will get the most submissions from collectors, and justifiably so.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

To add to my last post- when a card such as an Old Judge is auctioned and it has a deep rich photo, it always sells for a premium above others of the same grade; and when a card with a light photo is auctioned it typically underperforms. This suggests that buyers are ignoring and disagreeing with the grade assigned to it. That alone should tell the grading companies that they need to reevaluate the process.

[Archive]

Posted By: Colt McClelland

Barry, I couldn't agree with you more - or, as we say at my daughter's Indian Princess meeting, "How How."

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Josh- I have no clue why the Cobb was rejected as altered for the tiny erasure in the white border. They circled the spot on the holder to make sure (I guess) that I knew what was altered. This was idiocy to me. The card now rests in a GAI holder and the card (otherwise beautiful) had its grade lowered because of the erasure, but still had a decent grade and looks nice in the slab.