T206 Red Cobb SGC 60/Altered? on eBay

[botn]

Here is a 1200 dpi scan of the front and back of the corner of the T206 Cobb SGC 60. SGC calls this a "corner pull" deeming it a legitimate and natural flaw. From the scan of the front you can clearly see a VG-EX naturally aged and worn corner with a donor piece behind it that is EXMT+ to NM. This is the corner which Derek Grady, so I have been told, has examined, not once but twice, and states is "fine."

I don't know about any of you but I have never seen this type of flaw on a card and not sure how such a flaw could occur naturally. Would love to know what Kevin Saucier thinks. Kevin????


Greg

[slidekellyslide]

How do the other corners look? It'd be hard to believe a card could get that much wear only on one corner.

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by botn

Here is a 1200 dpi scan of the front and back of the corner of the T206 Cobb SGC 60. SGC calls this a "corner pull" deeming it a legitimate and natural flaw. From the scan of the front you can clearly see a VG-EX naturally aged and worn corner with a donor piece behind it that is EXMT+ to NM. This is the corner which Derek Grady, so I have been told, has examined, not once but twice, and states is "fine."

I don't know about any of you but I have never seen this type of flaw on a card and not sure how such a flaw could occur naturally. Would love to know what Kevin Saucier thinks. Kevin????


Greg

How does someone create a corner like that? Take a piece from a different T206 and use some kind of adhesive to secure onto the Cobb?

[botn]

Well not according to head grader Derek Grady, Wes, but it suffices to say that on the floor of someone's lab is an otherwise NM T206 common with corner envy. Hope they used a Piedmont 350.

Derek and SGC have really outdone themselves this time. To dig in their heels over an alteration which is so obvious shows how unethical and corrupt they really are. On the flip side, without any obligation to do so, Leon and Scott (B-L Auctions) have forced me to take some compensation. SGC should be ashamed but they may too great for that.

[Wesley]

Sorry to hear about this Greg.

I am surprised that SGC will not honor their buy back policy on this one.

[botn]

Well it should be an eye opener for everyone on here. I am sure they have bought back cards however I am not sure under what conditions this would happen. I suppose a card with 5 corners is not obvious enough though.

I am sorry as well that this happened. Not the error of holdering the card but their rigid stance and unwillingness to admit to making the mistake.

[M's_Fan]

In my opinion, there is not any clear evidence that the card was altered, there are many ways that the corner could have been damaged in that way naturally. Simply getting stuck under something could cause a pull in that fashion.

People often think that if a card has been graded, it has been guaranteed or certified that it has not to ever have been altered. That is simply not the case. SGC or PSA can't guarantee any card has not been altered in some way.

They can only refuse to grade a card if there is evidence, in their eyes, that it has been altered. There is a difference.

[canjond]

Originally Posted by M's_Fan

In my opinion, there is not any clear evidence that the card was altered, there are many ways that the corner could have been damaged in that way naturally. Simply getting stuck under something could cause a pull in that fashion.

People often think that if a card has been graded, it has been guaranteed or certified that it has not to ever have been altered. That is simply not the case. SGC or PSA can't guarantee any card has not been altered in some way.

They can only refuse to grade a card if there is evidence, in their eyes, that it has been altered. There is a difference.

From the back of the card, I agree it is hard to tell if the card was altered. However, from the front end, it seems pretty clear to me. You can absolutely make out the original rounded corner with the sharp corner behind it.