SGC 10 Counterfeit Mantle

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Not really sure what the OP is asking. "How did this happen?" You linked to dozens of instances where PSA graded this fake as real, so why should/must we be surprised that SGC missed one? You claim it is well documented, yet your link shows that this was outed only a year ago. Was the SGC card graded since, and is your point they should have known?
I will reserve my comments on the grade received and the price asked for a fricking reprint, fake or not, but am just unclear as to the point of the original post.

I think the point is that SGC should be able to tell what they are looking at and reliably authenticate a card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think the point is that SGC should be able to tell what they are looking at and reliably authenticate a card.

They should only authenticate real reprints, damn it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They should only authenticate real reprints, damn it.

I mean it’s fine if they don’t want to authenticate the 1983 reprint release from Topps. But since they are, they should be correct about it.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think the point is that SGC should be able to tell what they are looking at and reliably authenticate a card.

Surely so, but it is obvious the fake has made its way through grading undetected dozens of times, so I really don't see a point in asking how. The answer is it happens because SGC made a mistake, just as PSA did dozens of times over. I just don't see it as particularly noteworthy. That SGC graders should be able to tell what they are looking at before authenticating is obvious, that they did not in this case is clear but not shocking, to me anyway. There are worse mistakes made by grading companies that are highlighted here about once a week it seems.

[NiceDocter]

To finish the sublime with the ridiculous, Topps ought to issue an Authorized Reprint of the Fake Reprint card. Then let the grading companies figure out what to do with THAT.

[brianp-beme]

I am wondering who the knuckleheads were that printed the back of the sham reprints upside down. Were they that careless to make a mistake that should easily be identifiable by any reputable reprint authenticator? Or is there something else much more sinister going on here...

Brian ('sham reprints' and 'reputable reprint authenticator' should become accepted hobby terms)