...

[glchen]

David,

What I believe Daryl is saying is that for the second situation, a card was brought to SGC with a mark on it, cracked open at their site, and then it was re-graded by SGC when they confirmed that the mark was now undetectable. SGC knew that the card once had a pencil mark on it. For PSA's case, you can argue that PSA would've been blind to not have seen that mark, but it is still possible that they could have missed it. However, SGC knew that a mark was once there on a card.

BTW, I'm not trying to fault SGC on this (especially because I currently have a submission with them right now) as I believe there is some debate in the community whether it is okay to erase light pencil marks. Some say it's no big deal to erase them. Others disagree. There are similar disagreements on whether it's okay to soak a card although I believe most people say it's okay.

BTW, for that second card that the OP pointed out, again I'm no expert in rebuilding corners, but is it possible that person simply soaked the card and then pressed it? It may even have just been pressing with a stack of books. However, this situation may be dicier since over time, those creases may slowly come back.

I also just wanted to add that I don't it was the OP's intention to have another SGC vs PSA argument (although it's possible, I guess). It's really great that he pointed out these cards so that in the future, people can watch for them, and make the decision for themselves on whether they would still want them based on their history.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by glchen

What I believe Daryl is saying is that for the second situation, a card was brought to SGC with a mark on it, cracked open at their site, and then it was re-graded by SGC when they confirmed that the mark was now undetectable. SGC knew that the card once had a pencil mark on it. For PSA's case, you can argue that PSA would've been blind to not have seen that mark, but it is still possible that they could have missed it. However, SGC knew that a mark was once there on a card.

I missed that part. If it's true, shame on SGC.

[Leon]

If any company can't see an erased mark, or indention left, whether they knew it was there (before) or not, I don't think they should count off for it. If there was a little piece of dirt on the card, and it got wiped off, they wouldn't ding for that either. As long as there is no mark or indention leftover, it was never there....but then again, I am not as technical (anal) as some.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

If any company can't see an erased mark, or indention left, whether they knew it was there (before) or not, I don't think they should count off for it. If there was a little piece of dirt on the card, and it got wiped off, they wouldn't ding for that either. As long as there is no mark or indention leftover, it was never there....but then again, I am not as technical (anal) as some.

My opinion differs, but I think we're getting off point. We're now talking about pencil mark erasures that can't be detected. The pencil mark erasure on the card the OP posted can be detected (pretty obvious) and there is no way PSA should have graded it a 3. Agreed?

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by glchen

David,

What I believe Daryl is saying is that for the second situation, a card was brought to SGC with a mark on it, cracked open at their site, and then it was re-graded by SGC when they confirmed that the mark was now undetectable. SGC knew that the card once had a pencil mark on it. For PSA's case, you can argue that PSA would've been blind to not have seen that mark, but it is still possible that they could have missed it. However, SGC knew that a mark was once there on a card.

BTW, I'm not trying to fault SGC on this (especially because I currently have a submission with them right now) as I believe there is some debate in the community whether it is okay to erase light pencil marks. Some say it's no big deal to erase them. Others disagree. There are similar disagreements on whether it's okay to soak a card although I believe most people say it's okay.

BTW, for that second card that the OP pointed out, again I'm no expert in rebuilding corners, but is it possible that person simply soaked the card and then pressed it? It may even have just been pressing with a stack of books. However, this situation may be dicier since over time, those creases may slowly come back.

I also just wanted to add that I don't it was the OP's intention to have another SGC vs PSA argument (although it's possible, I guess). It's really great that he pointed out these cards so that in the future, people can watch for them, and make the decision for themselves on whether they would still want them based on their history.

Im trying to follow and probably missing something...But if the card was originally graded at SGC with pencil mark, then " cracked open at their site" and regraded...how did the mark get erased if it was encapsulated? Or, if it resubmitted raw, after erased...how could they know it was a card they had previously graded? Sure I missed something, but thanks

[teetwoohsix]

The problem with erasing pencil marks becomes a problem when a TPG doesn't grade the card appropriately. Here is a PSA 4 with the the number 134, once written in pencil, craftily erased from the upper right back. My scan is crap to begin with, but even on a better scan I did not see it. I only noticed it when it was in hand, and I bought it from a very legit seller who I trust and I don't even think he saw it. I didn't make it an issue to the seller, I just kept the card. But, if I were to ever sell the card, knowing it is there, I have to disclose this and take a loss because technically it should not be graded a 4.

So, I paid the price for a PSA 4 HOF'er. In my opinion, the TPG should have caught this and not slabbed it as a 4. Had I (or the seller) known it had pencil erased from the back, I would not have paid the price of a 4; and I doubt the seller wouldn't have asked 4 money for the card.

It only becomes a problem in situations like the one I presented above...it's no big deal if you erase pencil marks on cards you plan to keep in your collection-but it's an issue if a TPG gives it a higher grade than it deserves,it makes it's way into the buying/selling/trading market, and some unsuspecting buyer pays for something that is deceiving (unintentional or intentional).

If I could see it in hand, what is the graders excuse?

Sincerely, Clayton

~edit to add, the "134" is next to the last "s" of the "150 Subjects".