My SGC Submission - The Die Is Cast...

[jchcollins]

Cool you did so well with the writing on the back of the ‘64 Mantle. That gives me hope. I have a ‘55 Aaron with tape on the back, but it looks pretty good on the front. I’m probably going to send that in to SGC here in a few weeks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Cool you did so well with the writing on the back of the ‘64 Mantle. That gives me hope. I have a ‘55 Aaron with tape on the back, but it looks pretty good on the front. I’m probably going to send that in to SGC here in a few weeks.

It's weird that I'm doing cartwheels over a mere 2.5, but minus the penmanship, it is otherwise really nice...and what type of lunatic actually looks at the BACK of a card???

[Beercan collector]

Nice to see the fair grades ,
- I’m thinking the grader(s) appreciated your notes .

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Nice to see the fair grades ,
- I’m thinking the grader(s) appreciated your notes .

My idea for the notes started because there was no individual listing for the 1969 Topps #491 'White Letter' Variation in the drop down menu of the on-line submission form. After asking SGC about it, they told me their graders 'research' each card to determine what it is before the grading started. Rightly or wrongly, and not finding that response overly comforting, I wanted to make sure they had the proper info right from the get-go.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It's weird that I'm doing cartwheels over a mere 2.5, but minus the penmanship it is otherwise really nice...and what type of lunatic actually looks at the BACK of a card???

Exactly. And no, it's not weird. I think in theory I would say "Sure, I like the backs to be nice." But in reality, especially for a pricey or iconic card - if the front looks nice but the card is like half price or less because of writing or tape or paper loss on the back, it's to those that I'm quickest to say "Wow, I'll take it..."

[JollyElm]

Follow-Up...

1967laughlin#17NOGRADE2.jpg

It turns out the card that they would not grade was one of my 1967 Laughlin World Series #17 submissions. If you're familiar with the set, you may know that early in the run Mr. Laughlin pasted two print sheets of the cards together to 'thicken' them before cutting everything into individual cards. (He seemingly soon started using thicker stock.)

My guess is the card in question must have been stored in a screw-down holder or something for a long while, because it was so flattened down that there was nothing to indicate it was two separate cards adhered together when I submitted it. However, freed from whatever constraints held it, the last remnants of mucilage faltered and the two cards began to (now obviously) separate...perhaps coaxed a little by the graders?

Although still somewhat attached, the separation is now clear as day...

1967laughlin#17separated2.jpg