SGC-no mas

[Fred]

Originally Posted by sb1

Probably why they no longer give them a numerical grade is the fact that most of the non-square frame subjects which are the only true blank back T204's are in fact early two-part cards that had the front and back adhered to each other and separated later in life due to moisture or damp environments. These early two-part cards are very scarce.

Most collectors are unaware of the two-part T204's and often buy these "blank back" cards thinking they are a scarce error when in fact they are not. Again, Anderson, Bancroft, Bransfield, Burkett, Dineen and Moran can and do come with blank backs and were made that way. If one had one of these blank backs and one of the supposed blank backs in hand they will find a difference in stock thickness.

Scott, not that clarification is necessary, but would a "thinner" blank back T204 be like a skinned OJ?

That's great information! Thank you!

Originally Posted by Brian

So I think if SB's point were rigorously applied, they would never give a numerical grade to Zeenuts lacking the coupon, and they do (I have a bunch). They are also "separated" from ~1/4-1/3 of the card.

I spoke to SGC, and they said my points were "well taken."

I completely agree with that - any Zeenut with the coupon removed should have AUTH on the label. All you can do is hope the TPGs understand the first couple years of Zeenuts didn't have coupons.

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Frustrating experience Brian.
I've always said if another TPG wanted to put SGC out of business all they would have to do is offer a black apron.

Now that is funny, and probably so true today.

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Not that big a deal, they're only baseball cards, not worth getting that upset about.

Sacrilege!

Originally Posted by calvindog

This one took months to get back from PSA; then I noticed the error and figured I'd call it a day.

OMG - the ultra rare Gogans with the "C" variation!



.

[sb1]

#23 Report Post
Unread Today, 10:34 AM
Fred's Avatar
Fred Fred is offlineFred
Member

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,015
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post
Probably why they no longer give them a numerical grade is the fact that most of the non-square frame subjects which are the only true blank back T204's are in fact early two-part cards that had the front and back adhered to each other and separated later in life due to moisture or damp environments. These early two-part cards are very scarce.

Most collectors are unaware of the two-part T204's and often buy these "blank back" cards thinking they are a scarce error when in fact they are not. Again, Anderson, Bancroft, Bransfield, Burkett, Dineen and Moran can and do come with blank backs and were made that way. If one had one of these blank backs and one of the supposed blank backs in hand they will find a difference in stock thickness.


Scott, not that clarification is necessary, but would a "thinner" blank back T204 be like a skinned OJ?

That's great information! Thank you!

As to value, perhaps similar to an AUT card. As to appearance, the back will be smooth, as these T204's were two parts put together, but the two pieces easily separated over time it seems.

Here is an example of the two-part cards

https://www.brockelmanauctions.com/T...-LOT17081.aspx

[bobbyw8469]

[ullmandds]

Ed cicolte? Was this ever corrected?

[sb1]

No, same on all.

I will say that is very strong embossing on the Cicotte, most of the two part cards have weak embossing. Could be that the soiling just highlights it. Either way, the highest it would have graded based on the wear would have been a 1. I don't think the label hurts the card(value) at all, it's still Cicotte and a tougher T204 as they get bought up and held.

[Yoda]

Scott probably knows more about Ramlys than all of us put together. He was involved in a big Ramlys find years ago and really is your go-to guy with any questions about this beautiful set. I still have a super Jimmy Collins in my PC he sold me at the National years ago.

[Brian]

Thanks so much for posting scans for me, Bobby. It is much appreciated.

Scott, thanks for the information. I can say the back seems deeply embossed and does not look smooth, although obviously I can't say to what extent until I have it cracked. I can, however, say that the card looks better than the high res scans would suggest. It may have gotten a 1.5--a T210 Series 8 Cohen that I won in one of your recent auctions looks a lot worse IMO, and it got a 1.5 in the same submission. Who knows?

Scott, you should definitely ask Old Cardboard and the PSA site, among others, to add this information under the T204 entry. It will be very useful, to many of us.