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

[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.

[big-six]

The three I submitted

[bobbyw8469]

The Mantle had no peers. The Rizzuto and Berra appear distinct on the bottom border. Martin on the corners.

[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.