SGC Grade of "0 - C"

[Exhibitman]

Since intent is so hard to figure I'd simply prefer an "A" with an explanation note on the flip, like "color added to back" or "trimmed left edge".

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Since intent is so hard to figure...

I think in most cases with cards it's pretty easy to figure - when someone writes a players name or position on a card it's not done with intent to make the card appear as if it's in better condition then it was; when they take a black marker and color in the border on an N300 then it is. Of course your point is well taken in those cases where there is some ambiguity (I'm actually curious which way the TPGs would go with those) would , but IMO most cases are pretty clear.

[t206hound]

I was wrong about which card was rejected. I assumed that it was the one with crayon, but it wasn't. The one with crayon graded a 10 as expected. The rejected card was the Stovall from this ebay listing... reference the back scan on the right:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=370392708814

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Matt

I think in most cases with cards it's pretty easy to figure - when someone writes a players name or position on a card it's not done with intent to make the card appear as if it's in better condition then it was; when they take a black marker and color in the border on an N300 then it is. Of course your point is well taken in those cases where there is some ambiguity (I'm actually curious which way the TPGs would go with those) would , but IMO most cases are pretty clear.

I absolutely agree with this statement. I also believe SGC will look at "intent" on the "marks" too. I am surprised that a crayola on the back of a card would get an A. I would guess there is something else wrong. If not, then they must have felt the crayola was meant to enhance the card in some way. best regards

woops, I missed reading that last post....my assumption was correct