SGC - say it aint so

[Fred]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I think you are right about it being a reholder. Cert# says it was graded in 2017, and I think SGC went to the current all-black slabs/flip in 2018.

That would mean they they missed it TWICE. I didn't realize SGC went to this new holder back in 2018, for some reason I thought it was more recent than that, but I don't keep up with those details. Good to know though.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by Fred

That would mean they they missed it TWICE. I didn't realize SGC went to this new holder back in 2018, for some reason I thought it was more recent than that, but I don't keep up with those details. Good to know though.

That’s my point. If it is a reholder they missed it the first time and stuck by their product a second time. For better or worse. Unlike the dumpster fire that is PSA. That being said, it was quite the initial swing and miss.

[Orioles1954]

Do you think they gave it a numerical grade because it is miscut top-to-bottom?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Do you think they gave it a numerical grade because it is miscut top-to-bottom?

That was my guess but I don't know the issue.

[Fred]

The bottom part of the card is trimmed off. There are many OJs like this but all are accepted as being "trimmed". The TPGs usually give the card an "A" rating when the trim has been made.

I have one or two OJs in TPG holders that have the bottom trimmed off with an assigned numerical grade. For the most part, I usually don't collect the OJs in this condition, but since the price was right I purchased them.

It'd be nice if the TPGs made a few less errors. I used to save the pictures of really poor TPG grading errors. Maybe we'll start a thread some day and have people post pictures of the TPG errors they've come across.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Fred

The bottom part of the card is trimmed off. There are many OJs like this but all are accepted as being "trimmed". The TPGs usually give the card an "A" rating when the trim has been made.

I have one or two OJs in TPG holders that have the bottom trimmed off with an assigned numerical grade. For the most part, I usually don't collect the OJs in this condition, but since the price was right I purchased them.

It'd be nice if the TPGs made a few less errors. I used to save the pictures of really poor TPG grading errors. Maybe we'll start a thread some day and have people post pictures of the TPG errors they've come across.

I'm with you Fred, I don't normally collect trimmed OJs, but do have some since at the end of the day, they are still OJs. LOL And also like you, have seen some that should not have been given numeric grades due to being trimmed, but got one anyway. Hard to not pick them up, regardless of such issues, when as you said, "the price was right". My personal favorite OJs are the ones that are severely downgraded because of some damage, scrapbook glue/residue, or even writing, on their blank backs. If there was ever a set that the mantra "Buy the card and not the holder." applied to, it is the N172 OJ set IMO.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Do you think they gave it a numerical grade because it is miscut top-to-bottom?

You're absolutely right there is what seems to be a lot of extra card on the top edge. But then look at the Silver Flint card that Matthew posted in Post #9, and you'll quickly see about how much of the bottom part is actually missing. There is way too much bottom missing to ever be accounted for by the excess top part of the card.

Plus, these OJ cards are actual photos basically attached to cardboard backings. And for as early as they are, you don't normally find them with what I or others would term as a miscut. I honestly do not know their exact printing process, but don't believe these were created using sheets like T206s and more modern day cards are, that could then be mishandled in the cutting machines, creating the top-to-bottom, and side-to-side miscuts, along with the diamond cuts, that are prevalent in many sets. Otherwise, I think you'd see a lot more miscut OJs out in the wild.

[Fred]

See post #9. That is a full card. The entire front part of the card is an albumen photo that is adhered to a stiff backing.

Something else to look for in OJs are the "skinned" cards. The photos can be removed from the backing. What is left is a very thin photo. After the card is skinned, it can be affixed to a different cardboard backing which collectors will call "rebacked" cards.

All of those defects count against the OJ when being evaluated for sale/trade.

What could happen with this trimmed/numerically graded card is that someone that doesn't understand the OJ will purchase it thinking it's a "2".

Perhaps a couple years go by and the collector decides that they want to sell the card. People that know it's trimmed will not accept it as a "2" and the collector will most likely will be told it's trimmed. If the collector is a good person, they'll disclose the problem to someone that doesn't know OJs, but then that collector will probably be selling it at a loss.

Is that when these TPG guarantees are supposed to protect the collector? Can they go back to SGC and let them know they purchased it thinking it was a "2" and now it's dropped in value by 50% because it's really only an "A" card?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Fred

See post #9. That is a full card. The entire front part of the card is an albumen photo that is adhered to a stiff backing.

Something else to look for in OJs are the "skinned" cards. The photos can be removed from the backing. What is left is a very thin photo. After the card is skinned, it can be affixed to a different cardboard backing which collectors will call "rebacked" cards.

All of those defects count against the OJ when being evaluated for sale/trade.

What could happen with this trimmed/numerically graded card is that someone that doesn't understand the OJ will purchase it thinking it's a "2".

Perhaps a couple years go by and the collector decides that they want to sell the card. People that know it's trimmed will not accept it as a "2" and the collector will most likely will be told it's trimmed. If the collector is a good person, they'll disclose the problem to someone that doesn't know OJs, but then that collector will probably be selling it at a loss.

Is that when these TPG guarantees are supposed to protect the collector? Can they go back to SGC and let them know they purchased it thinking it was a "2" and now it's dropped in value by 50% because it's really only an "A" card?

Great points and question Fred.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Do you think they gave it a numerical grade because it is miscut top-to-bottom?

I think it's because it was trimmed 140 years ago and the remaining corners show consistent rounding on all four sides.
That, and they failed to measure it against a spec.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by swarmee

I think it's because it was trimmed 140 years ago and the remaining corners show consistent rounding on all four sides.
That, and they failed to measure it against a spec.

Good point - consistent rounding of corners gives the appearance of an aged card, however the TPGs should be aware that the bottom of the card should have the Goodwin information (and more in some cases) and that without it, the card is most likely trimmed. I don't know for a fact if the following is true, but it seems believable that the bottom portions of OJs were trimmed off to remove indications that the card had anything to do with tobacco products.

Sizing of OJs is all over the map. Most seem to fall within a certain range but there are many that are taller, narrower, shorter or wider than the "average" card. It's definitely an interesting "set" of cards. If you handle enough of them, you get a good idea on figuring out if the OJ is altered. I don't know how TPGs operate so I don't know if certain graders are designated for grading certain older issues of cards. It'd be wise if the TPGs didn't arbitrarily give any card to any grader to determine the condition of the card.

[Steve D]

deleted

[Steve D]

Here's the trimmed card, with a full-sized one:



Steve

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Fred

Good point - consistent rounding of corners gives the appearance of an aged card, however the TPGs should be aware that the bottom of the card should have the Goodwin information (and more in some cases) and that without it, the card is most likely trimmed. I don't know for a fact if the following is true, but it seems believable that the bottom portions of OJs were trimmed off to remove indications that the card had anything to do with tobacco products.

Sizing of OJs is all over the map. Most seem to fall within a certain range but there are many that are taller, narrower, shorter or wider than the "average" card. It's definitely an interesting "set" of cards. If you handle enough of them, you get a good idea on figuring out if the OJ is altered. I don't know how TPGs operate so I don't know if certain graders are designated for grading certain older issues of cards. It'd be wise if the TPGs didn't arbitrarily give any card to any grader to determine the condition of the card.

I agree John has a good point as well, but I'm with you Fred that a TPG with any reasonable knowledge and experience should know and realize that a significant bottom part of that card is missing. Obviously, some type of human error on the part of the grader, maybe due to inexperience, but you would think there should be some type or form of quality control review till they weren't so inexperienced then, right?

If I was working quality control and had that card, with that grade, going past me, it would have taken about 1 second or less for me to recognize the error and send it back to be corrected. I imagine that when it comes to vintage, especially pre-war cards, there are many members on here that could do just as well, and some likely better, at grading such cards than the employed graders these TPGs actually have doing it now.

[Leon]

A PSA one I own. Not mislabeled....
.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

That’s my point. If it is a reholder they missed it the first time and stuck by their product a second time. For better or worse. Unlike the dumpster fire that is PSA. That being said, it was quite the initial swing and miss.

Listen sgc is a great company but this is an ignorant statement. Sgc has. An entire generation of holders that they won’t guarantee to cross. The era prior to Dave buying the company where the holders have one grade. Under the old 10,20,etc system. The era where they really were lax on centering standards. So if you are going to try and pump up your favorite company by attacking their competition how about you at least be accurate with the information.

[Fred]

For clarification -

SGC will not cross over the cards in the older holders (cards graded with the 10, 20, 30, etc scale) to a new slab? Is that correct (it seemed fairly clear in the post).

Is there an easy way to determine if the cards were placed in the slabs by the old or new management? I see SGC has newer style flips. Are these new flips indicative of the new "regime" in place at SGC?

[jchcollins]

A properly graded card in a properly sealed SGC slab is still a thing of beauty, but as they continue to attempt to grow out of the britches that made them popular with vintage collectors originally, you are seeing more and more mistakes like this. Not surprising.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Fred

For clarification -

SGC will not cross over the cards in the older holders (cards graded with the 10, 20, 30, etc scale) to a new slab? Is that correct (it seemed fairly clear in the post).

Is there an easy way to determine if the cards were placed in the slabs by the old or new management? I see SGC has newer style flips. Are these new flips indicative of the new "regime" in place at SGC?

Thanks Fred,

I had not been aware of that grading issue regarding cards graded on the old SGC scale of 1-100, and how they won't automatically cross them over. And again, because I don't grade cards, I usually don't think about such stuff.

The part that surprises me a bit though is based on something I saw earlier in the thread about how the old guaranty went out the window with a change in owners. Again, I don't pay particular attention to TPGs and their dealings and such when they are bought or sold. The thing is though, the owners of a company are typically completely independent of the company itself. By that I mean if you incorporate or organize your entity as a type of LLC, the company is considered separate from the owners. You can have shareholders/LLC owners sell their interests to others, but the actual company itself, and all the legal agreements, contracts, and everything else they ever entered into are typically still in force and legally binding, and carryover to the new owners.

And that is exactly why a lot of times, when people look to buy/sell their businesses, they don't just buy/sell the stock of the corporation, or membership units of the LLC, instead they sell the actual underlying assets of the business. The new owners will set up an entirely new entity to buy those assets, and then operate the business through that new entity going forward. Doing so allows the new owners typically to completely remove any and all responsibility and liability for any old agreements, contracts, guaranties, or anything else of that sort that the old entity had been part of and/or agreed to. And not honoring or carrying over those old SGC grades would likely be part of it as well. As someone earlier noted, the old SGC name was also rebranded a bit at the same time as the 1-100 grading scale was being abandoned. I haven't done any checking or research, but the circumstances sure seem to point to when that ownership changed, there was an asset sale by the old SGC to the new SGC that took place so the new company could abandon the guaranties and promises the old company had made. Which basically makes anything in the old slabs worthless, or at least worth a lot less, in the eyes of the hobby. Just look at GAI graded cards that are still out there.

Oh, and the new company also buying and continuing to use the old company name, along with other things like continuing to list older slabs they do not guarantee or stand behind any more on their pop reports, is just a deceptive, but legal, way for the new company to make new and old customers think it is still basically the same company. It is also how the old company owners can cash out and profit off the goodwill and positive reputation they had built up, by actually selling the rights to the company name along with things like the old pop report records. Meanwhile the new company owners buying these, get all the rewards with none of the risks, while often also fooling a lot of people into thinking that nothing has really changed.

Not directing this spiel at you Fred, but more to let others know how things that can end up affecting them personally like that can happen, and maybe more importantly, why they happen. Any of the TPG owners out there today could suddenly decide to cash out and simply sell their assets and company name to someone else, completely abandoning the guarantees and promises made to their customers. Something for people to keep in mind that love and rely on the value in their graded cards so much. The TPG owners can go at any time, without your consent or permission, and pretty much dump any guarantees or promises you thought they had ever made to you as their customer, by simply selling everything off. And collectors can't even go back against the old, original company and its owners on such guarantees or promises because typically after such sales, the old owners immediately remove all cash and remaining assets from the old company, and either abandon or formally shut it down. And of course, one of the, if not the biggest, reasons people incorporate or set up their businesses as LLCs is because in doing so, they know you typically can't ever come after them personally for any liabilities, suits, or guarantees. Definite food for thought and something for hobby collectors to keep in the back of their minds.

[BobC]

Sorry, double post.

[Fred]

Bob,

I think I get it. New SGC doesn't have to honor anything the old SGC did or said was part of their charter which was something people trusted would be around for a long time.

GAI and SGC were quite different in that most of the old SGC graded material was much more reliable than the GAI encapsulations. Initially GAI was pretty good, but then it became obvious that trimmed/altered cards were being slabbed with numerical grades. After that, I think people lost faith in them and GAI ended up as a suspect TPG (not that they all aren't).

I think the "old" SGC slabs are fine but they were always behind PSA in sales price, especially for post-war cards. It's just a shame that new SGC is turning their back on old SGC slabs. It's all good, I'll be happy to take a discount on an old SGC slabbed card I feel good about.

This thread has probably run its course. My initial reaction to the slabbed trimmed OJ with a numerical grade was just disappointment.