What the Hell SGC I am out

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

James, that sucks, sorry to hear they did that to you.

As far as them not grading your T203 card, and giving you no reason why, I'm assuming the "Fowl Bawl" card you sent them is the same card/image as the very one Leon posted an image of, am I right? Assuming so, I'm going to go out on a limb here and pose a thought/question. Is it possible they declined to grade and encapsulate your T203 card because of the very politically incorrect, by today's standards, image on that card, and the idea(s) it portrays?

There's another current thread here elsewhere on the forum about possible players that some refuse to collect due to their not so nice actions and deeds. Is it possible one of the TPG's has gained a conscience and decided to no longer grade certain cards that may show what are nowadays unacceptable images and/or portray questionable ideas or topics? Once a TPG encapsulates such a card, the image/ideals portrayed on that card are now linked to that TPG, as long as the card remains in their holder. The TPG then may have just declined to give you the actual reason for not grading it so as to not publicly broadcast a possible change in their thinking, and maybe spark folks to go looking for other "not so nice" cards they had previously graded in the past, and then call them out on those. Would be interesting to see what the TPG would have done had you sent them a different T203 card to grade, without the quite obvious racial bias and imagery on the card you did send them.

Even the Vatican, when they censored classical art, just went around putting fig leaves over the naughty bits.

But perhaps such minimalist censorship is maybe not that possible to do in this case.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by raulus

Even the Vatican, when they censored classical art, just went around putting fig leaves over the naughty bits.

When it comes to statues I assume this meant drilling into the private parts to make those fig leaves stay on. I can only imagine that drilling hurts quite a bit.

Brian

[raulus]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

When it comes to statues I assume this meant drilling into the private parts to make those fig leaves stay on. I can only imagine that drilling hurts quite a bit.

Brian

Can't say that I'm an expert in this field, but my recollection from my last tour guide's remarks leads me to believe that it was less drilling and more just a sort of an affixing agent, like maybe glue or paste. I guess maybe some of the card soakers could give it a try to see if they could get it to come off in a warm bath.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

Even the Vatican, when they censored classical art, just went around putting fig leaves over the naughty bits.

But perhaps such minimalist censorship is maybe not that possible to do in this case.

Nic, why would you say it "is maybe not that possible" for a TPG to not want to encapsulate a card that has such an obvious racially derogatory image and connotation on it, or am I misunderstanding you? I could see not necessarily wanting to have my business name permanently associated with a card/item that many current or potential customers may find extremely offensive.

Or did you mean by your statement that in this case the TPG cannot just gloss over and more or less ignore the card's negative image and connotation, and really has no choice but to either refuse to grade such a card, thereby condemning the card's image and connotation, or go ahead and accept it for grading and apparently have no issue with the card's image and connotation? The TPG obviously can't go putting a proverbial "fig leaf" over parts of the card that may be seen negatively, and so they must make an "all or nothing" type decision in this case. Is that more like what you're trying to say?

As I asked in my last post, I wonder if the TPG's response to grading the OP's T203 card would have been different had he sent in a different T203 card without such a possibly negative image and connotation?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

Nic, why would you say it "is maybe not that possible" for a TPG to not want to encapsulate a card that has such an obvious racially derogatory image and connotation on it, or am I misunderstanding you? I could see not necessarily wanting to have my business name permanently associated with a card/item that many current or potential customers may find extremely offensive.

Or did you mean by your statement that in this case the TPG cannot just gloss over and more or less ignore the card's negative image and connotation, and really has no choice but to either refuse to grade such a card, thereby condemning the card's image and connotation, or go ahead and accept it for grading and apparently have no issue with the card's image and connotation? The TPG obviously can't go putting a proverbial "fig leaf" over parts of the card that may be seen negatively, and so they must make an "all or nothing" type decision in this case. Is that more like what you're trying to say?

As I asked in my last post, I wonder if the TPG's response to grading the OP's T203 card would have been different had he sent in a different T203 card without such a possibly negative image and connotation?

Hi BobC!

I suspect this is another case where you're deep into the weeds here, focused on important details and serious thinking, and I'm mostly just popping in with a random moment of ludicrous hilarity intended more to amuse than to enlighten. Although my wife will also be the first to remind us both that the only thing worse than an accountant with a sense of humor is one who *thinks* they have a sense of humor.

But as long as I'm at it, here's another hot take:

I understand the good folks at Disney have taken to adding warning labels to the beginning of their classic movies, so that discerning audiences will be forewarned about the sorts of terrible subjects, images, and historical anachronisms that they will be subjected to if they continue on to actually watch the movie.

Perhaps the TPGs could add some sort of a cover to objectionable cards that can be rolled back a little at a time, but is permanently affixed so as to be incapable of being removed from the case. The cover could have a lengthy disclaimer about the card in question portraying historical themes and images that are not suitable for modern audiences, at which point a would-be viewer of the card could choose to proceed, or could choose to move on and spare themselves from such indecent exposure.

In this fashion, the TPG could demonstrate that they have properly managed to both provide the submitter with an opinion about the card's grade, while also transmitting their lack of support for the messages and themes conveyed by the card.

And with any luck, it's only a matter of time before most every historical baseball player is subject to being cancelled or censored. Heaven knows that there is no shortage of valid reasons for going there.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

Hi BobC!

I suspect this is another case where you're deep into the weeds here, focused on important details and serious thinking, and I'm mostly just popping in with a random moment of ludicrous hilarity intended more to amuse than to enlighten. Although my wife will also be the first to remind us both that the only thing worse than an accountant with a sense of humor is one who *thinks* they have a sense of humor.

But as long as I'm at it, here's another hot take:

I understand the good folks at Disney have taken to adding warning labels to the beginning of their classic movies, so that discerning audiences will be forewarned about the sorts of terrible subjects, images, and historical anachronisms that they will be subjected to if they continue on to actually watch the movie.

Perhaps the TPGs could add some sort of a cover to objectionable cards that can be rolled back a little at a time, but is permanently affixed so as to be incapable of being removed from the case. The cover could have a lengthy disclaimer about the card in question portraying historical themes and images that are not suitable for modern audiences, at which point a would-be viewer of the card could choose to proceed, or could choose to move on and spare themselves from such indecent exposure.

In this fashion, the TPG could demonstrate that they have properly managed to both provide the submitter with an opinion about the card's grade, while also transmitting their lack of support for the messages and themes conveyed by the card.

And with any luck, it's only a matter of time before most every historical baseball player is subject to being cancelled or censored. Heaven knows that there is no shortage of valid reasons for going there.

Don't worry Nic, I thought you might be taking it from the comedic/satirical side. I've learned not to just assume though, and from my side always try to throw in an LOL, smiley face, or something to designate the humor or satirical intent of what I'm saying. If I don't do that though, I am generally being very serious.

And as I responded to Jim, the OP, in my last post, I do not think that given the way things are today that businesses are still all totally ignorant or oblivious to potential issues that can arise in regard to being associated with things that aren't accepted like they once were. The rise of online presences and social media have taken care of that. Again, look at the other current thread here on the forum asking about certain players you may not collect due to things they've said or done. There were several posters so far admitting they have issues with, and therefore don't want, cards of certain players as a result. So why would it seem to people that the idea of a grading company maybe not wanting to be associated with a potentially offensive card to many is somehow crazy and farfetched? As a CPA yourself, who's probably worked with and advised a number of businesses over the years, what would you say if someone from a TPG had come to you as their client and said they had someone submit a potentially racially offensive card to them to grade, and they were concerned that by grading it, their company name would now be right alongside of and forever linked to that potentially racially offensive image. Would you just simply tell/advise them to go ahead and grade it, make the couple extra bucks off this one customer, and don't look back or ever worry about it because it couldn't possibly ever negatively affect their business going forward, or would you say something else like, holy crap, maybe we should talk and think about this some more?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't worry Nic, I thought you might be taking it from the comedic/satirical side. I've learned not to just assume though, and from my side always try to throw in an LOL, smiley face, or something to designate the humor or satirical intent of what I'm saying. If I don't do that though, I am generally being very serious.

And as I responded to Jim, the OP, in my last post, I do not think that given the way things are today that businesses are still all totally ignorant or oblivious to potential issues that can arise in regard to being associated with things that aren't accepted like they once were. The rise of online presences and social media have taken care of that. Again, look at the other current thread here on the forum asking about certain players you may not collect due to things they've said or done. There were several posters so far admitting they have issues with, and therefore don't want, cards of certain players as a result. So why would it seem to people that the idea of a grading company maybe not wanting to be associated with a potentially offensive card to many is somehow crazy and farfetched? As a CPA yourself, who's probably worked with and advised a number of businesses over the years, what would you say if someone from a TPG had come to you as their client and said they had someone submit a potentially racially offensive card to them to grade, and they were concerned that by grading it, their company name would now be right alongside of and forever linked to that potentially racially offensive image. Would you just simply tell/advise them to go ahead and grade it, make the couple extra bucks off this one customer, and don't look back or ever worry about it because it couldn't possibly ever negatively affect their business going forward, or would you say something else like, holy crap, maybe we should talk and think about this some more?

Yep. The world is infinitely more complicated than it was just 10 years ago. What a time to be alive!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

Yep. The world is infinitely more complicated than it was just 10 years ago. What a time to be alive!

LOL

So, does that "Yep" mean that you would advise a TPG client to maybe sit down and talk some more about them grading a potentially offensive card then?

You are so correct though that things are definitely not the same, even from such a short time ago. And that is exactly why what is possibly crazy and farfetched today is a TPG/business NOT at least looking at and thinking through the potential issues and impact of becoming involved with grading potentially offensive material/items. Doesn't mean they won't still end up doing it though.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

LOL

So, does that "Yep" mean that you would advise a TPG client to maybe sit down and talk some more about them grading a potentially offensive card then?

You are so correct though that things are definitely not the same, even from such a short time ago. And that is exactly why what is possibly crazy and farfetched today is a TPG/business NOT at least looking at and thinking through the potential issues and impact of becoming involved with grading potentially offensive material/items. Doesn't mean they won't still end up doing it though.

Trying not to get drawn into a serious discussion here, especially in a public forum, about topics that could get me cancelled myself, if my views are considered to be sufficiently outside of the current orthodoxy.

But if we ignore all that, for any business that changes their policies around delivery of their services, it seems like they should be willing to publish that change in policy to their customers and potential customers, to avoid having those customers feeling abused when stuff like this happens.

I mean, when my local Taco Bell runs out of Nacho Fries and/or Mexican Pizzas, they at least have the good sense to post a sign so that I am alerted to it, and can instead direct my business to another fine dining establishment. A similar courtesy from our local friendly TPG would be a good way to go, if it is indeed the situation that their policies have changed.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't worry Nic, I thought you might be taking it from the comedic/satirical side. I've learned not to just assume though, and from my side always try to throw in an LOL, smiley face, or something to designate the humor or satirical intent of what I'm saying. If I don't do that though, I am generally being very serious.

As a general rule, northern Italians score high on the list of most sarcastic and irreverent blackguards around. (Mussolini was a southerner).

I come from a long line of jocular signori who are always looking for an angle to sneak in a joke. Safe to assume that I'm never being serious.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

As a general rule, northern Italians score high on the list of most sarcastic and irreverent blackguards around. (Mussolini was a southerner).

I come from a long line of jocular signori who are always looking for an angle to sneak in a joke. Safe to assume that I'm never being serious.

LOL

Good to know, I'll keep that in mind.

[Casey2296]

I'll posit that SGC can't get out of their own way on how to be successful. So many missed opportunities during Covid to take market share with proper management. The black apron is the only thing keeping them relevant.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.