Any interest in an SGC piggyback submission? CLOSED!! Grades popped!!

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

This is obviously the Milton Bradley variation. The submitter has noted it as such, and I wholeheartedly agree. I have looked at a ton of this version. Someone at SGC removed the Milton Bradley tag and called it the regular version. The white line is super hard to miss......

Wow. Although the card's back is not posted, I'm confident that is a MB. The white line is impossible to miss.

I believe the MB's have a different tone of yellow, too.

Oh, well. Great look card still.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Wow. Although the card's back is not posted, I'm confident that is a MB. The white line is impossible to miss.

I believe the MB's have a different tone of yellow, too.

Oh, well. Great look card still.

And there's the telltale black notch in the 'T' in the word "STARS."

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Wow. Although the card's back is not posted, I'm confident that is a MB. The white line is impossible to miss.

I believe the MB's have a different tone of yellow, too.

Oh, well. Great look card still.

It is...but what do you do now?? Sell it as a Milton Bradley and just say that SGC labeled it wrong???

[soxinseven]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

It is...but what do you do now?? Sell it as a Milton Bradley and just say that SGC labeled it wrong???

They likely won't do anything before it ships but I would send it back to have it corrected.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Hey all,

Grade update: Bobby sent me the garbled info from SGC and I am in the process of organizing it into a clean document. Will post when ready.

[bobbyw8469]

Thank you. I know it looked a mess.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Thank you. I know it looked a mess.

No problem! Happy to help, considering how much work you have done already

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Hey all,

Grade update: Bobby sent me the garbled info from SGC and I am in the process of organizing it into a clean document. Will post when ready.

Sure, no rush at all...

SweatingAirplane01.jpg

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by jollyelm

sure, no rush at all...

lol

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

lol

Stop screwing around on this thread and work on posting the grades!

[IronHorse2130]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Wow. Although the card's back is not posted, I'm confident that is a MB. The white line is impossible to miss.

I believe the MB's have a different tone of yellow, too.

Oh, well. Great look card still.

I submitted this card and can't believe it wasn't graded as a Milton Bradley. Here is a shot of the back.

[JollyElm]

I rightfully have grievances about the top pair here, and I don't know what's going on with the 1968 Mantle.

• The Winfield rookie is a wrong back card, so after talking with them about it, here was the reply:
"The Winfield would be labeled as wrong back and get an A."

But they graded it a 6.5, even though they told me directly it would only get an 'authentic,' as I wanted it to. WTF??

• The Brett rookie is just a cool, wildly miscut card that I was under the impression would also only get the 'authentic' grade. The card itself is pretty sweet, but they number-graded it an SGC 1, presumably because of how miscut it is. Argh!!! What's the point of that? Everyone can see it's crazy cut, so I wanted nothing more than an 'A.' Were I ever to sell it, how would I explain it? All anyone is going to see is an SGC 1 grade PLUS it's terribly cut, making it fall into the negative number grade category for anyone looking at it. Geez.

• And the 1968 Mantle got an 'A?' grade. What in high heck is that? Questionable authenticity?? Do they think it's a fake? Hopefully, the slab will have an explanatory word present.

winfieldrcbrettrcmantle1968.jpg

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I rightfully have grievances about the top pair here, and I don't know what's going on with the 1968 Mantle.



• The Winfield rookie is a wrong back card, so after talking with them about it, here was the reply:

"The Winfield would be labeled as wrong back and get an A."



But they graded it a 6.5, even though they told me directly it would only get an 'authentic,' as I wanted it to. WTF??



• The Brett rookie is just a cool, wildly miscut card that I was under the impression would also only get the 'authentic' grade. The card itself is pretty sweet, but they number-graded it an SGC 1, presumably because of how miscut it is. Argh!!! What's the point of that? Everyone can see it's crazy cut, so I wanted nothing more than an 'A.' Were I ever to sell it, how would I explain it? All anyone is going to see is an SGC 1 grade PLUS it's terribly cut, making it fall into the negative number grade category for anyone looking at it. Geez.



• And the 1968 Mantle got an 'A?' grade. What in high heck is that? Questionable authenticity?? Do they think it's a fake? Hopefully, the slab will have an explanatory word present.



Attachment 543751

Sounds like the mantle and winfield grades got swapped.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Sounds like the mantle and winfield grades got swapped.

No. The Mantle is Authentic with a description of miscut. The winfield is not miscut. Some errors were made. And they don't really have a good customer service number.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

No. The Mantle is Authentic with a description of miscut. The winfield is not miscut. Some errors were made. And they don't really have a good customer service number.

That’s my kinda miscut...

[big-six]

There are two duplicates- 1953 Berra and Rizzuto.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I rightfully have grievances about the top pair here, and I don't know what's going on with the 1968 Mantle.

• The Winfield rookie is a wrong back card, so after talking with them about it, here was the reply:
"The Winfield would be labeled as wrong back and get an A."

But they graded it a 6.5, even though they told me directly it would only get an 'authentic,' as I wanted it to. WTF??

• The Brett rookie is just a cool, wildly miscut card that I was under the impression would also only get the 'authentic' grade. The card itself is pretty sweet, but they number-graded it an SGC 1, presumably because of how miscut it is. Argh!!! What's the point of that? Everyone can see it's crazy cut, so I wanted nothing more than an 'A.' Were I ever to sell it, how would I explain it? All anyone is going to see is an SGC 1 grade PLUS it's terribly cut, making it fall into the negative number grade category for anyone looking at it. Geez.

• And the 1968 Mantle got an 'A?' grade. What in high heck is that? Questionable authenticity?? Do they think it's a fake? Hopefully, the slab will have an explanatory word present.

Attachment 543751

As long as they are not hand cut from a sheet SGC has always given wrong back cards number grades. My favorite 2 cards in the hobby a Wade Boggs/Roger Clemens wrong back pair are sitting in 8.5 and 9 slabs.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by bnorth

As long as they are not hand cut from a sheet SGC has always given wrong back cards number grades. My favorite 2 cards in the hobby a Wade Boggs/Roger Clemens wrong back pair are sitting in 8.5 and 9 slabs.

Ben, I think he was looking at the Ebay listing. There is a seller on there, selling the exact same card for $3k. He claimed the card could only get an authentic grades. Now, Darren's card proves that not to be true. And I with you. Why would it NOT receive a numeric grade?? It is a legitimate card....albeit with the wrong back.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Ben, I think he was looking at the Ebay listing. There is a seller on there, selling the exact same card for $3k. He claimed the card could only get an authentic grades. Now, Darren's card proves that not to be true. And I with you. Why would it NOT receive a numeric grade?? It is a legitimate card....albeit with the wrong back.

My guess is the card on eBay was hand cut from a sheet so it got the A. I have been collecting wrongbacks for over 30 years. Unless it is a junk era card you see way more hand cut than factory cut. Buying a sheet and cutting it up for the wrong backs has been a thing the entire time I have been collecting. Same thing for mis cuts. Usually they come from a normal sheet someone miscut on purpose to sell at a huge markup.

[BuzzD]

Looks like a duplicate Martin 1953 Topps as well. I am pretty sure I submitted the fake problem. My bad

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by BuzzD

Looks like a duplicate Martin 1953 Topps as well. I am pretty sure I submitted the fake problem. My bad

Edward...I sent you a PM.....looks like you and big-six sent the exact same cards......Berra, Martin, and Rizzuto......

I am 100% sorry that SGC randomized this order.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Ben, I think he was looking at the Ebay listing. There is a seller on there, selling the exact same card for $3k. He claimed the card could only get an authentic grades. Now, Darren's card proves that not to be true. And I with you. Why would it NOT receive a numeric grade?? It is a legitimate card....albeit with the wrong back.

Never saw the eBay listing. If that 'A' sells for such a big price, then I'll offer up my SGC 6.5 for the bargain basement price of S10k.

Regardless of the situation turning out better for me, my frustration stems from them directly telling me one thing, but then doing a different thing.