SGC will now slab Rebacked N172 Old Judge Cards.

[DixieBaseball]

I have a pretty scarce OJ that is rebacked and holdered Authentic "Rebacked" It took a conversation, but due to scarcity, they went ahead and holdered it. (This was a few years ago) They told me that they typically don't holder rebacked OJ's, but if it is scarce, rare, etc. they will consider it.

I doubt they will holder a bunch of them.

Edited to add if they re-holder and it is re-backed they will have to mark it "re-backed" "authentic" on the label. (That is the case with my card) Again, it was with rare exception they do this for a re-backed OJ as they agreed it was scarce enough and made sure it was labeled properly. Also, this was done for the uniformity of my Nashville collection of N172 players.

[bn2cardz]

From Bob Luce today:

"Andy,

We hadn’t changed our policy recently. I can’t comment about the two cards you mentioned without having them in front of me. However, the Net54 thread and your email gave us the opportunity to revisit our policy. We have decided to start encapsulating rebacked N172 Old Judges as SGC Authentic with a “rebacked” notation on the third line. In rare cases, we will reserve the right to reject cards if the new backing does not even faintly resemble a real Old Judge backing. For now, we will restrict the new policy to N172’s and similar issues with blank cardboard backs. Feel free to post on Net54 about our policy change, which will take place immediately.

Regards,
Bob Luce"

This is exciting news.

[GoldenAge50s]

I have recently acquired an OJ that I THINK has been skinned, like maybe one thin layer. I haven't handled any OJ's in several yrs, but it just seems the one's I had back then were a bit thicker.

Is there a way to tell w/out having another OJ to compare it to?

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s

I have recently acquired an OJ that I THINK has been skinned, like maybe one thin layer. I haven't handled any OJ's in several yrs, but it just seems the one's I had back then were a bit thicker.

Is there a way to tell w/out having another OJ to compare it to?

Hello Fred, if your OJ is paper thin it has been skinned. You are essentially left with the thin and very fragile albumen photo paper. Cheaper cards from the same timeframe, often actress cards, are sometimes donated to the cause of providing a good cardboard backing to a cherished baseball subject resulting in a "rebacked" card. I myself have never done this.

[h2oya311]

I have an Old Hoss Radbourn OJ (rebacked) that is on its way back from NJ w/ an Authentic (Rebacked) designation.

I did not ask for any special treatment, but I guess my timing was perfect, since it looks like the policy only recently changed. I assumed they were already doing this...silly (and lucky) me!

[GoldenAge50s]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Hello Fred, if your OJ is paper thin it has been skinned. You are essentially left with the thin and very fragile albumen photo paper. Cheaper cards from the same timeframe, often actress cards, are sometimes donated to the cause of providing a good cardboard backing to a cherished baseball subject resulting in a "rebacked" card. I myself have never done this.

Hi Joe--

No, it is not paper thin (there is more than just the photo itself)--it has SOME of the cardboard backing--I just don't think it's as thick as the OJ's I owned a few yrs ago. I sold them all & hence have nothing to compare it to.

Were some OJ's actually thinner than others straight from production? (Kinda' like some T206's vary in length w/out being altered in any way)

Thank you for your reply!

[Jeffrompa]

Authentic for a re-backed card is fine as long as there is full disclosure .

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Jeffrompa

Authentic for a re-backed card is fine as long as there is full disclosure .

There will be full disclosure on the slip as noted from the email from Bob Luce at SGC:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

...We have decided to start encapsulating rebacked N172 Old Judges as SGC Authentic with a “rebacked” notation on the third line.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s

Hi Joe--

No, it is not paper thin (there is more than just the photo itself)--it has SOME of the cardboard backing--I just don't think it's as thick as the OJ's I owned a few yrs ago. I sold them all & hence have nothing to compare it to.

Were some OJ's actually thinner than others straight from production? (Kinda' like some T206's vary in length w/out being altered in any way)

Thank you for your reply!

I am in no way a expert in OJ's but have a few (including a single Gypsy Queen) and the only noticeable difference I have seen in thickness has been on the rebacked ones I have (I have not owned or touched a single skinned card so don't know the thickness on one of those).

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I am in no way a expert in OJ's but have a few (including a single Gypsy Queen) and the only noticeable difference I have seen in thickness has been on the rebacked ones I have (I have not owned or touched a single skinned card so don't know the thickness on one of those).

In my somewhat limited experience rebacked cards come in a variety of mediums and thickness. Some are done poorly and others are barely able to be discerned. I have owned several, some were good, some not so good. I have owned a few skinned ones too. OF course they are thinner...

[bcbgcbrcb]

As a follow-up to this thread, I am wondering if representatives from the three grading companies will come forward on the board here with their company's current position on holdering re-backed cards, specifically Old Judges, as "Authentic"? It seems that there is a lot in perceived value at stake here so I would like to hear it straight from the TPG's representatives. If the answer is "Yes", does it depend on the degree of re-backing, etc.?

[Matthew H]

I've never heard of SGCs pervious policy on not holdering re-backed OJs. I've pulled a few of them out of Auth holders, including a Serad. Not a particularly special card... It didn't even have a period back on it.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

As a follow-up to this thread, I am wondering if representatives from the three grading companies will come forward on the board here with their company's current position on holdering re-backed cards, specifically Old Judges, as "Authentic"? It seems that there is a lot in perceived value at stake here so I would like to hear it straight from the TPG's representatives. If the answer is "Yes", does it depend on the degree of re-backing, etc.?

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

From Bob Luce today:

"Andy,

We hadn’t changed our policy recently. I can’t comment about the two cards you mentioned without having them in front of me. However, the Net54 thread and your email gave us the opportunity to revisit our policy. We have decided to start encapsulating rebacked N172 Old Judges as SGC Authentic with a “rebacked” notation on the third line. In rare cases, we will reserve the right to reject cards if the new backing does not even faintly resemble a real Old Judge backing. For now, we will restrict the new policy to N172’s and similar issues with blank cardboard backs. Feel free to post on Net54 about our policy change, which will take place immediately.

Regards,
Bob Luce"

This is exciting news.

SGC has given their position.

[Leon]

I think it's good they will grade them AUT with the caveat of "Rebacked". I think it can only help the hobby. To me it's not a lot different than other alterations. I would rather buy one in a holder marked "rebacked" than buy a raw one and find out it's rebacked after the fact.

[packs]

I agree. It's also a good preservation method to have them in the holder.

Well, the King Kelly OJ has made it's way to ebay. Seller says he does not believe the card has been re-backed. $1875 obo