How would you react to a personal attack (by SGC)?

[hank_jp]

WOW!

When someone once said a little information could be a dangerous thing he was on to something. I usually do not prefer to comment on matters I'm invovled with until they are either resolved or unresolvable. Clearly I feel there is a need for some factual commentary here.

When I first purchased this card I did so only because it was certified by SGC as a 1909-11 Old Mill Cigarettes T206 Dolly Stark Brown Back SGC 30. I would not have been interested based on the scan, since it clearly looked to me to be black. I wanted to know why the label guaranteed it was brown. After I received it, again, to the naked eye, it was a faded black. Then I looked at it under magnification and I saw that the ink was brown. That was enough for me to understand how it got labeled. It wasn't enough for me to be thrilled at having this as the one example for my back set because the hand cut, easily visible light brown examples appealed to me more. But this was still one to keep in my opinion.

I looked at all my other OM Southern League cards under a loupe and they were all clearly black to me, only this one appeared brown - much darker than the hand cut ones [obviously] but still brown. I always assumed there may be others like this out there, so eventhough this was the only labeled an Old Mill brown back with a number grade I still did not consider it unique or spectacular. It might be both, but because the brown color was not visible to the naked eye it had less appeal to me than many of my other cards.

Over the years I have sold cards that in retrospect I would like to have back - I imagine we all have. With the money raised I pursued other items I wanted. When I decided to see what this card would bring at auction I sent it to REA along with other cards. I told Rob that he should review this card carefully since it looked faded black and only under a loupe could I detect the brown back, and if for any reason he felt uncomfortable listing it to send it back to me. He did send it back. I mentioned this card to Bill Goodwin and sent it to him along with other cards with the same explicit information. He reviewed it himself under magnification and was satisfied that it was brown. I insisted that in any description of the item that potential bidders understand that it looked faded black but appeared brown under a loupe and also that SGC said it was brown.

I would never have kept the card initially if I did not feel it was brown [under magnification] nor would I have sent it in as an auction item if for any reason I was convinced that it was black.

For those who questioned if I told Goodwin that REA passed on the item I have this to say. How many of you had a T206 card for many years and finally sent it in for grading only to be told that a card looking perfectly fine to you was trimmed? Then, when you either resubmitted it to the same or different grading company because you disagreed with the assesment, I'm sure that you included a note saying, "By the way XYZ Grading Company said this was trimmed. I just wanted you to know that." That is the way it works, right?

When Bill told me a number of collectors questioned the card, we both agreed to pull it and send it back to SGC for a thorough review. There was no hesitation to do this.

I was expecting SGC to contact me fairly quickly. When about a month had passed I decided to call them for an update. I was expecting a detailed explanation of what they did and what they decided. What I got was a grilling about what I paid, when I bought the card, from whom and where. Not a single word about their findings. I had to call them back the next day to actually hear them say that their graders decided it was black. When I asked if it was looked at under magnification I receved no answer ... and I still have no answer to this day. When I asked for a written evaluation I was told they would not provide that and I still have not received one. When I asked why it was originally labeled as a brown back among the answers I received were:
A. The head grader in 2005 believed it was a brown back
B. It was submitted for grading as a brown back on the form and their data entry entry person at the time may have kept that brown back designation on the final label.

I then asked if the fact that all other Old Mill brown back cards known to exist were hand cut with a light brown ink back while this one was factory cut with the brown only visible under magnification was the reason it was deemed not to be a brown back this time. I never received an answer to this question and it still has not been answered.

Eventhough one of SGC's employees told me "when I look at the card, it looks to be faded ink that appears slightly brown", he added that he was not a grader and not an expert but the current chief grader "immediately recognized the card was a mistake." However, that still did not address the issue if the card at that time, was viewed under magnification, because I also immediately thought it was black until I saw it wasn't. [OMG I'm having flashes of John Kerry - OY!]

Many of you have thoughts about what compensation I should receive for this once SGC verified card IF IT IS NOT BROWN. But what should be done, if under magnification it clearly is brown? SGC broke it out of the holder and refuses to return it as they received it. We have a difference of opinion about this card and what once, based on their say so was a truly remarkable and rare card is now apparantly just another common.

My feeling at this time is that I want this card brought to the National Show in Baltimore. I want a group of knowledgeable T 206 collectors [you guys from this board are fine with me] to look at it ... under magnification. If you say it is black I'll take the raw card and put it in my raw T206 set. BUT, if when viewed under a loupe you say it is brown, SGC should agree to do one of three things:

1. Put it back in their holder with the prior description on the label including the fact that it is a brown back with a number grade. Also include certification as to how this latest review was arrived at.

2. Keep it out of their holder but replace it with an Old Mill brown back that they have no problem labeling as such.

3. Keep it out of their holder and compensate me somewhere between a commom price and a brown back price and return the raw card to me.

Of course another solution is possible, which is the one have been anxiously trying to facilitate. Namely, in order for SGC to keep this out of their holder, labeled as it was, we should reach a satisfactory solution that we both can live with and return the raw card to me [because I still want to show it at the National]. That is the solution I was pursuing and I hope SGC's tone will now change and that they will not insist on waiting until they are good and ready to make a decision, but instead act in a more timely manner.

I apologize for the very long post but I felt the questions raised deserved a serious response. I also hope you will excuse me from further posts on this topic at this time. Those of you who know my son or me are always welcome to call us at any time, especially on issues as significant as this.

Regards,

Hank