My SGC Submission - The Die Is Cast...

[JollyElm]

The plot, it does thicken...

Cards were graded today, 9/28/23, BUT they sent me a message stating, "You have been refunded $15.00 for 1 card that SGC cannot grade."
No explanation as to why they cannot grade it was included, and they did not say which card is being sent straight to bed without plastic. Argh.

On the submission form, every card had the 'slab if authentic' box checked, so this is even more confusing.

Since this is a blind reveal thingy, I'm not going to investigate and discover which card it is, so it'll be a surprise to me (right up until the moment I see the back of it still in the semi-rigid holder I put it in, and begin shouting obscenities).

Whichever one I guess is the culprit, I assume will be wrong. The obvious choice is the miscut Bench rookie card, because it's the only one that isn't 'normal,' but that's too easy. The 1967 Laughlins are tricky, but I have plenty of them graded by SGC, so they are low on the suspect list. Perhaps the very problematic 1954 Bowman Mantle?
Could it be a 'minimum size not met' thing, maybe with the 1971 Ryan? But I thought they give it an 'A' and note it on the flip when that's the case. This is going to be an anxious few days waiting for Mr. Postman to (now) darken my doorway.

ETA: I did mention the 1971 Rose is a tad bit wider than normal, could there be something afoul there?

[hockeyhockey]

SGC does the authentic/minimum size not met on the flip, so it wouldn't be that one. PSA would just not grade a card like that and refund you.

[Houseofd]

You mentioned in the video the 1971 Topps Rose was slightly oversized, but you did not say by how much. I have read accounts on PSA Forum of cards being returned N9 9 (not graded) and the submitter assumed/knew it was because the card was oversized.
So could the beautiful Rose turn out to be the thorn in your submission?
Seems like within 1/16th of an inch of the standard size can result in card being undersized or oversized. Those of course are PSA standards, not sure if the same rules apply at SGC.

[JollyElm]

The unknown is driving me bonkers, but the good news is the tuxedo box is due to arrive tomorrow, so an answer will be at hand.

Here's a non-scientific comparison of the 1971 Rose card's size. It's only a tad bit wider...

rosewidthcomp.jpg

[refz]

Can’t you find out under your submission # the results of the grading? Should state which one wasn’t grade-able. Would you rather be surprised? I have a hunch it isn’t the bench rc that should get an A but who knows..

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by refz

Can’t you find out under your submission # the results of the grading? Should state which one wasn’t grade-able. Would you rather be surprised? I have a hunch it isn’t the bench rc that should get an A but who knows..

Yes, I could, but since it's the first 'blind reveal' video I've done, I absolutely DON'T want to be, but must be, surprised.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Yes, I could, but since it's the first 'blind reveal' video I've done, I absolutely DON'T want to be, but must be surprised.

I waited to do a true blind reveal with myself one time. It's overrated, lol. I always just look at the grades when they ship now. If I am going to be disappointed, I figure might as well get it out of the way and get it over with before I actually get the cards in hand.

[refz]

I missed where you stated that a few posts up, my bad! Yeah my last submission surprised me. The one I thought was getting the “A” numerically graded and another got the “A” min size not met. It blew my mind but on the same token wasn’t disappointed.