Heritage Rosen Mantle - Greatest Card Ever Auctioned?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

If any of you are suggesting SGC just gave this card a 9.5 on a whim or because they wanted the notoriety, I think you're crazy. I guarantee that toning isn't very noticeable or significant in person. Of course when you zoom in on it at 500% actual size it's going to look worse.

I am suggesting, stating directly actually, that the card does not meet SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. For over twenty years the grading advocates have been touting grading because it is not based on subjective eye appeal, but revealing the true flaws in a card, which is why many mint looking cards can get a 4, for that funky wrinkle you can’t even see normally. The stain does not seem to be in accord with SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. Even if we pretend the stain does not exist, the centering does not meet the published standard either. It is not my opinion that these defects should keep a card from being called a 9.5, it is SGC’s published opinion that these defects are not Mint+. And yet they gave it this grade anyway, ignoring their own standards, along with a marketing quote from that bastion of honesty (as I have learned from this thread), Mr. Mint. I do not know why they chose to do so.

We all know a Dale Coogan I submit with no backstory, marketing, or spin and the exact same damage would not get a 9.5.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am suggesting, stating directly actually, that the card does not meet SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. For over twenty years the grading advocates have been touting grading because it is not based on subjective eye appeal, but revealing the true flaws in a card, which is why many mint looking cards can get a 4, for that funky wrinkle you can’t even see normally. The stain does not seem to be in accord with SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. Even if we pretend the stain does not exist, the centering does not meet the published standard either. It is not my opinion that these defects should keep a card from being called a 9.5, it is SGC’s published opinion that these defects are not Mint+. And yet they gave it this grade anyway, ignoring their own standards, along with a marketing quote from that bastion of honesty (as I have learned from this thread), Mr. Mint. I do not know why they chose to do so.

We all know a Dale Coogan I submit with no backstory, marketing, or spin and the exact same damage would not get a 9.5.

Regardless what we think it does have the 9.5 and if it sells (depending if there is a reserve) then it will set the new Record for Highest Card Sold.

In person it is a beautiful card and in person at the National Show the card looked really good and presented better than the picture of it. In my uneducated humble opinion

[G1911]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Regardless what we think it does have the 9.5 and if it sells (depending if there is a reserve) then it will set the new Record for Highest Card Sold.

In person it is a beautiful card and in person at the National Show the card looked really good and presented better than the picture of it. In my uneducated humble opinion

Not a single person has disputed that it resides in a 9.5 slab, that it will set a record, or that is a beautiful example.

None of it changes that SGC has clearly ignored their own standards.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by G1911

Not a single person has disputed that it resides in a 9.5 slab, that it will set a record, or that is a beautiful example.

None of it changes that SGC has clearly ignored their own standards.

Theyve also authenticated the "Zuckerberg " signed rookie, when they state they dont authenticate autographs anymore. The inmates are running the asylum, and nobody cares!

[robertsmithnocure]

Bob, Isn’t capital gains on collectibles 28%?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Theyve also authenticated the "Zuckerberg " signed rookie, when they state they dont authenticate autographs anymore. The inmates are running the asylum, and nobody cares!

I don't think people like to discuss them shutting down their autograph authenticating because they accepted a bunch of fakes, in the first place. Got to push the narratives, no matter how obviously problematic or untrue they are.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't think people like to discuss them shutting down their autograph authenticating because they accepted a bunch of fakes, in the first place. Got to push the narratives, no matter how obviously problematic or untrue they are.

Right! Around the same time they also removed their "guarantee" on their graded cards. Well hobbyists, as usual, showed them how wrong these things were by sending them more cards than ever. Take that SGC!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Right! Around the same time they also removed their "guarantee" on their graded cards. Well hobbyists, as usual, showed them how wrong these things were by sending them more cards than ever. Take that SGC!

The guarantee doesn’t matter, since SGC’s verdict must be correct, thus the guarantee is pointless, you see.

Anyways, it’s a good thing we trust SGC so much that we must ignore the evidence of our eyes and ears, never address that the card undeniably does not meet their own standards, keep the pump pumping, and insist that the people who can read SGC’s own grading standards are “crazy”. After all it’s not just SGC, Mr. Mint said it’s the best which means it’s a SGC 9.5! You trust Mr. Mint, right? Never admit a load of bunk is a load of bunk if that bunk is being used to pump a card you want to see pumped. Even if it requires a nonsensical argument that relies on Mr. Mint being an honest arbiter and ignoring the actual wear and the entire back. #invest

It’s a great card, a fortune would be made simply selling it honestly.