T206 Red Cobb SGC 60/Altered? on eBay

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So why is there wear on the front but the back piece is square?

That's my take exactly. I believe in the existence of corner pulls on T206 cards -- I think I've probably even seen them before. But I would expect the wear to be more even front and back.

Notwithstanding this, I would be willing to take the SGC graders at their word on this one. Hardly worth the headache if they thought it was a jump ball, which obviously they don't.

[steve B]

If the split corner had one side fold over and stay folded over for some time it could end up like that. And a clumsy attempt at flattening it could cause the pull of the nicer half. The thinner corner would wear more easily than a full thickness corner too.

But the lack of much wear to the other three corners makes it very weird. I'd really love to see the way the card had been originally stored. Perhaps in a part of a box that exposed one corner only? If so, there should be others from the same source with 3 nice corners and one more worn one.

Steve B

[T206DK]

that corner looks like it could have been layered. I worked with document preservationists from the Ohio historical society that used similar techniques to restore damaged documents and such. Donor paper from the correct era is needed or you have to have someone make paper for you.

My first soaking of a dirty Obak card back in 2000 revealed alterations that were unable to be detected with the naked eye or with my magnifier. After soaking the card for about 5 minutes in warm , distilled water I noticed that not only were the pieces of gunk that looked like tobacco coming off the card, but part of the bottom right corner just floated away revealing a rounded edge underneath. you could see several very thin pieces of paper floating around in the water. Since then my brother and I have discovered a handful of T206's in our collection that had similar alterations. We bought them all off of Teletrade years ago, and not all of them were high profile cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

That's my take exactly. I believe in the existence of corner pulls on T206 cards -- I think I've probably even seen them before. But I would expect the wear to be more even front and back.

Notwithstanding this, I would be willing to take the SGC graders at their word on this one. Hardly worth the headache if they thought it was a jump ball, which obviously they don't.

I don't see, based on the scans, how it is any better than a jump ball, in which case the tie should go to the customer.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't see, based on the scans, how it is any better than a jump ball, in which case the tie should go to the customer.

All well and good to be a tie and a jump ball....except neither of the 2 opposing sides feel that way. Otherwise, it's a great way to break a tie!!
I think one prevailing theory, which I am sure can be shot down with another, is that the corner in question was flipped up and then laid back down (most collectors don't have a big problem with this as it's done all of the time) some time later in it's life, and that is the reason for the uneven wear on front as opposed to the back. We know T206's are quite thick compared to some other cards so I guess it could be possible. It could also explain the complete break in the paper. I am not stating this is MY view but it is a view, nonetheless, and a potential explanation. For me personally, I am still not 100% either way, but it does look weird. regards

BTW, Peter...your statement about how can we trust SGC after this, was absolutely ridiculous imo. I trust them with my personal cards and they are still our grading company of choice for B and L Auctions. Have you ever lost a case? (not inferring who is correct on this card, just making an example) If you have then how could any future client trust you? IT sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Leon I agree with the proposition one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, and if it were just a mistake on initial grading I wouldn't think about it at all really, but the insistence after a further review that this card is not possibly altered does make me wonder more generally.

[Leon]

Any question is fair. This board is known for tough questions. Yours truly has had some of the toughest ones thrown at me. It's all good.

I think on this one card in question both sides will continue to disagree with the other. The graders at SGC are adamant as well as Greg is adamant. Maybe they can leg wrestle at the National for it? With enough alcohol I might even leg wrestle , not sure for what, but I might do it!!

[botn]

Hey Leon,

SGC calls this a corner pull. While I am not sure what the definition of that is (though maybe if you look it up it says see T206 Red Cobb SGC 60). Your theory of the flip does not work as the piece in question is completely severed at the side, the top and the bottom which you can see from the new pictures I posted. For it to be a "flipped" corner it would need a hinge. No hinge on this piece.

So why does the front of the corner have wear yet the back does not? The back piece is the most fragile and if it were not added to the card recently I cannot see how it would remain on the card or not sustain wear as well.

Due to the piece being severed how is it staying on the card and why is it on an angle?

Can anyone provide scans of a corner which has similar characteristics? I have never seen anything like this on a card. I have submitted tens of thousands of cards over the years.

Thanks,

Greg

[Leon]

I haven't handled or submitted quite as many cards as you have. I was only giving others' theories that I have heard. I didn't say they were mine. I do think a piece could be broken all the way around it and still be hanging on though. Personally, I would call that more of a paper pinch (see Red T206 Cobb for definition) but this is more semantics than anything. It's still a great looking card......I am sorry there is such controversy with it. regards