What the Hell SGC I am out

[JamesGallo]

I don't have much time to post here lately, but I feel this is important to post for various reasons.

I sent a 3 card submission to SGC last week, which arrived on the 14th

1917 Zeenut Bill Burns
T225 Abe Attell Blank Back possibly printer scrap
T203 Winner Cut A Fowl Bawl

I don't use SGC a ton anymore mostly because they don't have a registry and I am just not buying a ton of raw cards anymore. A day after they received the cards I got a refund for two of the cards. I sent an email asking what the refund was for and Brent told me it was for the T225 and T203.

I had sent in the T225 years ago but figured I would give it a go again. I have the full T203 Mayo set and have been working on the Winner set for years, they are ALL in SGC holders (30 or so cards) so I wanted to keep the new addition in the same holder. I had graded other T-203 in June of 2021.

After being told what the refund was for I asked why T-206 blank backs are graded which are likely scrap as well but more importantly why the hell a basic tobacco card is no longer being graded by SGC. Amazing I got NO response and my cards shipped today.

The fact that they wont grade a basic tobacco card just blows my mind. Blowing off my questions just seems to be pair for the course with grading companies these days anyway. For every one good thing they have 2-3 times as many issues and this is the last call for me.

So I guess if you intend to send SGC basic cards you better ask if they still grade them because who knows what the hell they will refuse these days.

James Gallo

[Leon]

So they didn't really give a reason? Surely they, and all TPGs, should grade them?
Here are some raw Winner's below... I never thought about sending them in.

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

I don't have much time to post here lately, but I feel this is important to post for various reasons.

I sent a 3 card submission to SGC last week, which arrived on the 14th

1917 Zeenut Bill Burns
T225 Abe Attell Blank Back possibly printer scrap
T203 Winner Cut A Fowl Bawl

I don't use SGC a ton anymore mostly because they don't have a registry and I am just not buying a ton of raw cards anymore. A day after they received the cards I got a refund for two of the cards. I sent an email asking what the refund was for and Brent told me it was for the T225 and T203.

I had sent in the T225 years ago but figured I would give it a go again. I have the full T203 Mayo set and have been working on the Winner set for years, they are ALL in SGC holders (30 or so cards) so I wanted to keep the new addition in the same holder. I had graded other T-203 in June of 2021.

After being told what the refund was for I asked why T-206 blank backs are graded which are likely scrap as well but more importantly why the hell a basic tobacco card is no longer being graded by SGC. Amazing I got NO response and my cards shipped today.

The fact that they wont grade a basic tobacco card just blows my mind. Blowing off my questions just seems to be pair for the course with grading companies these days anyway. For every one good thing they have 2-3 times as many issues and this is the last call for me.

So I guess if you intend to send SGC basic cards you better ask if they still grade them because who knows what the hell they will refuse these days.

James Gallo

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Leon

So they didn't really give a reason? Surely they, and all TPGs, should grade them?
Here are some raw Winner's below... I never thought about sending them in.

Never seen these before. Pretty amazing/hilarious.

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Never seen these before. Pretty amazing/hilarious.

After I sent a email saying thanks for the lack of response I quickly got a "we are looking into it" response but they already sent the cards back. The inconsistencies are out of control, they are more worried about turn around and building up the modern card market instead of the people who helped build up the company years ago and still give a damn.

Leon I don't have 4 of those if you want to sell them LMK. Thanks

James G

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Never seen these before. Pretty amazing/hilarious.

Here is my favorite from the set, and the only T203 I own.

Brian

[G1911]

Is the T225 one of the poster cuts? 99% of the blank backs are those.

[Lucas00]

I hear Sgc is no longer Grading Blank Backs of any cards that have a standard back available.

Breakout cards on YouTube had this same issue with a I believe it was a ‘62 topps blank back.

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by G1911

Is the T225 one of the poster cuts? 99% of the blank backs are those.

No its the Prize Fighter Boxing series. Various backs but I have never seen a blank back

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I hear Sgc is no longer Grading Blank Backs of any cards that have a standard back available.

Breakout cards on YouTube had this same issue with a I believe it was a ‘62 topps blank back.

And that would be fine even though I find it to be silly. How can you go from grading a card type for 20+ years and then stop. Also would have been a simple response to the one card, still clueless on the T203 though

My only response to that is you don't have the knowledgeable staff anymore which goes back to them caring more about new crap then vintage but who knows really.

James G

[Republicaninmass]

They have become a band of idiots.

They told me the only back variations of 1952 topps are red and black, there are no gray backs, even after being a choice in their drop down menu. They subsequently graded gray backs for REA a week later.

I fought the charges on my credit card and won. I suggest you try the same.

[BobbyStrawberry]

What is going on over there? It seems like they are trying to run the business into the ground.

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I hear Sgc is no longer Grading Blank Backs of any cards that have a standard back available.

Breakout cards on YouTube had this same issue with a I believe it was a ‘62 topps blank back.

Wow I hope that doesn't include the M101-4's as I have a near complete SGC set. No Babe Ruth (of course). They are more common in blank back.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

No its the Prize Fighter Boxing series. Various backs but I have never seen a blank back

I have 2 genuine T225 blank backs of the normal thickness. Those were the only ones I’ve been able to find. I made a thread on the boxing board recently asking if anyone knew of any others. Most of the blank backs listed and seen are the thin cutouts from the advertising poster. Very cool card! Cool to know there is indeed another one or there.

I’m building the master set of all 10 backs.

[sbfinley]

I cannot rest from travel: I will drink
Life to the lees: All times I have enjoy’d
Greatly, have suffer’d greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone, on shore, and when
Thro’ scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vext the dim sea: I am become a name …

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have 2 genuine T225 blank backs of the normal thickness. Those were the only ones I’ve been able to find. I made a thread on the boxing board recently asking if anyone knew of any others. Most of the blank backs listed and seen are the thin cutouts from the advertising poster. Very cool card! Cool to know there is indeed another one or there.

I’m building the master set of all 10 backs.

Mine may very well be one of those cut out, but I have seen the Cracker Jack ones graded in the past so who knows. Is the back of the poster blank I am not sure I am familiar with it.

At one point I have all or nearly all the backs for Attell, but they refuse to note the backs and it became a pain some are far rarer then others. Good luck with the hunt.

James G

[BobC]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

And that would be fine even though I find it to be silly. How can you go from grading a card type for 20+ years and then stop. Also would have been a simple response to the one card, still clueless on the T203 though

My only response to that is you don't have the knowledgeable staff anymore which goes back to them caring more about new crap then vintage but who knows really.

James G

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.

[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

[JamesGallo]

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.

Umm That would certainly be taking it to a new level and would mean they would have to draw some type of crazy line in the sand. No more grading Cobbs. I highly doubt there was any thought to it. Either someone messed up or they just don't care. the only possible reason is I doubt they do custom inserts anymore but I think this is not a unique size card.

Thanks for trying to give them an out but yea no I dont' think that's it.

James G

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Mine may very well be one of those cut out, but I have seen the Cracker Jack ones graded in the past so who knows. Is the back of the poster blank I am not sure I am familiar with it.

At one point I have all or nearly all the backs for Attell, but they refuse to note the backs and it became a pain some are far rarer then others. Good luck with the hunt.

James G

Some of the backs advertise that people can buy a full set "framed" for $1; which is the poster, and has a blank back. I believe there are at least 2 extant copies of the complete poster known. The cards cut from it are a bit thinner than a normal card, and are the "blank backs" ones usually sees. I don't believe any of the authenticators have ever slabbed them, though I doubt SGC is really aware of the details. Because the poster wasn't just for advertising and as available for direct sale, a fair number of these blank back cutouts are floating around. It's probably this then, that caused it not to grade, rather than a policy change. No idea why they wouldn't grade the other card...

Some of the backs are a lot tougher than people realize. Gorgeous little set that gets not much love. Here's one of the complete posters:

[Johnny630]

Maybe their have been layoffs....no longer have the resources to look into this to see what it is. Idk

[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.

[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 JamesGallo

Umm That would certainly be taking it to a new level and would mean they would have to draw some type of crazy line in the sand. No more grading Cobbs. I highly doubt there was any thought to it. Either someone messed up or they just don't care. the only possible reason is I doubt they do custom inserts anymore but I think this is not a unique size card.

Thanks for trying to give them an out but yea no I dont' think that's it.

James G

Oh, I wasn't giving them an out, just thinking of a possible reason they may not have graded it for you. But regardless of that reasoning, they still should have given you full disclosure and reasoning as to why not.

And what I was suggesting was by no means saying they're looking to draw some crazy line in the sand. Cards of players like Cobb generally just show him posing or playing ball, nothing wrong with that. But maybe show an image of Cobb, or any other player, hitting or otherwise abusing or demeaning a minority person, now that is an entirely different story and issue for just that particular card/image, not for any other cards/images that player may appear on/in that don't have such potentially troubling images or connotations.

Is it likely that is the main reason they didn't grade your T203 card, I agree with you it is probably not. But it doesn't mean that refusing to grade it because of its potentially offensive nature to many is not a completely illogical and implausible reason for someone to not want to grade it as well. Just throwing it out there as part of the conversation that many people may never have considered or thought off.

Just look at our culture today. Say/do/show something that gets taken even the slightest bit the wrong way, and the next thing you know you're being attacked online and over social media and being treated like a pariah, which no business I've ever heard of would ever voluntarily want.

[Exhibitman]

Part of the issue is that if the blank back is a one-off, the company may be thinking that it is really a misprint rather than a variation. I've got all sorts of blank backs from all sorts of companies. It happens. As I recall, the last one I sent to SGC (a 1970 Topps Hank Aaron AS) got an "A".

[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!

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

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.

This. If it was virtue signaling the correct thoughts and PC wokeness that is amenable right now, it would be published. The whole point of the virtue show is to signal it and appear morally right. To do it in secret accomplishes nothing, no company actually practices woke culture and shuts up about it.

I don't know why they would decline a T203, but this seems far fetched.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

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.

OK, if you're really afraid to say to a TPG that it may be something to think about as part of their business and what they do, so be it. Just not sure how making such a comment either way will negatively impact you.

[gabrinus]

Not to change the subject but cool poster Greg...Jerry

[Kutcher55]

Some guy on FB recently posted a freshly graded SGC 5 ‘63 Mantle that had a pube on the Mick’s chin. It was hilarious — the pube was shaped similarly to the Family Guy’s chin that seems to resemble a ballsack.

I think the owner is a net54 guy. Maybe he will share it here. It’s pretty hilarious although probably not for him.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Some guy on FB recently posted a freshly graded SGC 5 ‘63 Mantle that had a pube on the Mick’s chin. It was hilarious — the pube was shaped similarly to the Family Guy’s chin that seems to resemble a ballsack.

I think the owner is a net54 guy. Maybe he will share it here. It’s pretty hilarious although probably not for him.

INSIDE the case?? Or outside?? I doubt very seriously that was slabbed like that.

[Kutcher55]

Inside. At least that was the claim of the post. No reason to think the guy was making it up as I believe him to be a reputable sort.

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by G1911

This. If it was virtue signaling the correct thoughts and PC wokeness that is amenable right now, it would be published. The whole point of the virtue show is to signal it and appear morally right. To do it in secret accomplishes nothing, no company actually practices woke culture and shuts up about it.

I don't know why they would decline a T203, but this seems far fetched.

Yes and if this was the case it should have been a cut and dry response from them and not the crickets i got.

As absolutely ridiculous as i think it would be to pick and choose what cards you all of a sudden grade because the PC climate of the world we are i , i would not be so upset if they just said that from the start. That being said the lack of a reason gets me thinking how clueless they are atm.

James Gallo

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Some guy on FB recently posted a freshly graded SGC 5 ‘63 Mantle that had a pube on the Mick’s chin. It was hilarious — the pube was shaped similarly to the Family Guy’s chin that seems to resemble a ballsack.

I think the owner is a net54 guy. Maybe he will share it here. It’s pretty hilarious although probably not for him.

LOL, why does everybody always assume it's a pube. I'll never understand that.

[bobbyw8469]

Wasn't there a boxing card from the 50's where the guy stood in front of a swastika? Do they not grade that one anymore?? How about the horrors of war card?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

LOL, why does everybody always assume it's a pube. I'll never understand that.

Because they always are. I know of no other hobby that begets such a large number of errant examples. They're everywhere: cardboard boxes, poking out of jerseys, monster boxes, top loaders, and now they're even forever encased in plastic.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Wasn't there a boxing card from the 50's where the guy stood in front of a swastika? Do they not grade that one anymore?? How about the horrors of war card?

1956 Adventure Max Schmeling SP.

[cammb]

What is so offensive to some of you guys? Is it the white guy stealing a base or the white lady showing her underwear?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cammb

What is so offensive to some of you guys? Is it the white guy stealing a base or the white lady showing her underwear?

People are offended by the over the top characteristics of the cartoon caricature of one of the races depicted in this manner, because that person is not white. The child with the missing tooth who appears mentally disadvantaged is not offensive, because it portrays a white. I believe these are the current criteria. Not sure how this thread got here... Surely there is a different reason (or sheer incompetence) the card isn't being encapsulated.

[painthistorian]

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why a formerly good company like SGC decided to give up phone service and customer service, must have taken a short sighted executive decision maker to do that. Well 18 months later and thousands of sold cards later, I have decided not to use them anymore until its finally resolved, no matter how fast they grade, the new card market is on the verge of collapse and is a bloated, manipulated market and as a poster just stated, SGC forgot who was their base.

[jchcollins]

This was my gift from SGC in yesterday's mail. The ultra rare, 1963 Topps #200 SP Mickey Mantle "Clubhouse Pube" card!

Really, WTF. How does this get through QC? Brent was of course apologetic, and offered shipping and a reholder and quick turn around, but instead I just had him refund me and popped it. Mickey is now resting in a shiny new One Touch, where I managed to get the job done without encapsulating errant short and curlies from my nether regions. I'm done, have no stomach to send those guys my cards anymore. This was after last year dealing with defective slab inserts that had misshapen plastic shards sticking into the edges of other Mantle cards.

I do love a properly graded card in an attractive slab, but from now on will seek out 3rd party sellers where I can inspect the slabs first over sending my own raw vintage in. The disgust factor / "these guys know more about grading than me, really?" aspect of this was just too much for me. I'm an (apparently emotional) Cubs fan, if that makes a difference. That was a line too humorous to pass up on other social media yesterday...

For your viewing pleasure, The Mick - Peter Griffin style. A shame they don't have dual grading on relics, as I'm pretty sure the pube itself would have been at least a 7. Strong texture and curl:

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

INSIDE the case?? Or outside?? I doubt very seriously that was slabbed like that.

Yep! See above. That was me. It was totally slabbed like that, and stuck to the inside of the slab (thankfully not the card...) when I popped it.

Thanks for reaching out to me, Jason.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

This was my gift from SGC in yesterday's mail. The ultra rare, 1963 Topps #200 SP Mickey Mantle "Clubhouse Pube" card!

Really, WTF. How does this get through QC? Brent was of course apologetic, and offered shipping and a reholder and quick turn around, but instead I just had him refund me and popped it. Mickey is now resting in a shiny new One Touch, where I managed to get the job done without encapsulating errant short and curlies from my nether regions. I'm done, have no stomach to send those guys my cards anymore. This was after last year dealing with defective slab inserts that had misshapen plastic shards sticking into the edges of other Mantle cards.

I do love a properly graded card in an attractive slab, but from now on will seek out 3rd party sellers where I can inspect the slabs first over sending my own raw vintage in. The disgust factor / "these guys know more about grading than me, really?" aspect of this was just too much for me. I'm an (apparently emotional) Cubs fan, if that makes a difference. That was a line too humorous to pass up on other social media yesterday...

For your viewing pleasure, The Mick - Peter Griffin style. A shame they don't have dual grading on relics, as I'm pretty sure the pube itself would have been at least a 7. Strong texture and curl:

I must have missed this saga originally. That must be pretty annoying to be the recipient, but damn is that funny. I have no trust in the graders, but I do sincerely expect them to not encase their pubes with the card. That's a first