N403 Yum Yum Welch Pitching

[ullmandds]

I agree with Jeff...send it to PSA...Compared to these exemplars...I don't like yours so much?

[Baseball Rarities]

Here is a side by side comparison of Leon's and the one in the Library of Congress. These are the only two examples that I know of. Obviously the quality of the one from the LOC is much better than the other, but we have all seen the exact same Old Judge cards that have completely different looks to them based on how they have deteriorated over the years.

[Leon]

I doubt I send it to PSA grading for their opinion. The science and the evidence make me feel it's fine. I think it would have been better if SGC gave it a ? instead of COU. They are still my grader of choice and I generally like their grading, but opinions can be different on things. And I thought this card was good so wanted another opinion.
Also, SGC has been known to review cards so I might have them look at it again in the future. No one is perfect. I could be wrong and BVG could be too. But I am leaning the way I am for now. The printing is definitely out of focus. But being in a book, or other mfg or elemental issue, could cause that. From my little experience I thought it was good when I first got it. Again, I could be wrong. Also, I had a good opportunity to return it to the seller for a refund and chose not to.

Ps..thanks Kevin for posting those.

[oldjudge]

Based on the side to side images I think SGC may be right, but I would have to have it in hand to know.

[chalupacollects]

To me sounds like Beckett went the extra step putting it under a microscope to verify paper composition where SGC didn't. Also with the fading and wear, could be some chemical reaction between elements of ink and paper in the book and with the card... Also where the book was stored for over 125 years may factor in also...

[oldjudge]

I absolutely no faith in Beckett knowing anything about 19th century cards. SGC has graded enough of these cards so that they should know what they are talking about.

[Ricky]

If I had a history of sending a lot of cards to SGC for grading, before I accepted a counterfeit ruling, I'd want to hear from them why they graded it that way. It sounds as though Beckett applied some science to their determination. Certainly, for the amount of money and business that you give SGC, an explanation could be warranted in a unique case like this.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I absolutely no faith in Beckett knowing anything about 19th century cards. SGC has graded enough of these cards so that they should know what they are talking about.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

How do you know that SGC did not "go the extra mile"? Even if they did not "go the extra mile" it would shock me if they got it wrong on a counterfeit 19th century card. I assume they have graded more than PSA. I would guess this is the first Beckett has graded. Not saying they are wrong but SGC is the expert in this area.

It's a good thing it wasn't a signed card.... SGC's got a great track record of "authenticating" signatures on older cards....

Edited to add - it looks like the pictures/scans are not the same but we've seen where different scanners and settings provide a different image of the same type of cards.

[Tao_Moko]

Leon - have you considered letting an authenticator of documents review it? I would think that they could give you a more professional analysis of the stock and ink. Baseball cards are infants in the realm of ink on paper. http://www.cohascodpc.com/appraisal.html

[Fred]

Eric, in this case it's an albumen photo adhered to stock.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

To me sounds like Beckett went the extra step putting it under a microscope to verify paper composition where SGC didn't. Also with the fading and wear, could be some chemical reaction between elements of ink and paper in the book and with the card... Also where the book was stored for over 125 years may factor in also...

How do you know that SGC did not "go the extra mile"? Even if they did not "go the extra mile" it would shock me if they got it wrong on a counterfeit 19th century card. I assume they have graded more than PSA. I would guess this is the first Beckett has graded. Not saying they are wrong but SGC is the expert in this area.

[ccre]

It doesn't look good to me. I hope I'm wrong.