SGC will now slab Rebacked N172 Old Judge Cards.

[bn2cardz]

For the sake of not outing an auction I am keeping the details out of this.

I saw an N172 card in a SGC A holder that was previously for sale without a holder but with a comment card from SGC stating the card was rebacked.

The auction description states "possibly rebacked".

I don't have an issue with rebacked cards being slabbed as A, and would like to get some of mine done, but I was under the impression SGC wouldn't slab them.


-Follow Up it is official that SGC will slab these cards. See email from SGC pasted below-

[packs]

I have been confused by their policy on re-backed cards too. I've called them a few times for clarity and typically get the same answer. They say that they will not holder them because they have been restored. I've pointed out to them that they have holdered plenty of restored cards as authentic. But I never get anywhere.

[bn2cardz]

I have never understood why rebacked n172 cards couldn't be holdered with wording stating such just like trimmed cards. Yet I have at least understood that this was fact. So I was confused when I saw a card for sale that had been originally decided to be rebacked by SGC is now in an SGC holder. I will be glad if they have started doing it, but didn't know if anyone has heard if they have officially decided to or if this card just got through somehow.

[packs]

I would love it if they started holdering the re-backed cards too. But I haven't been able to get a Yes. The other restored cards I've seen them grade don't carry the restoration tag on the flip. Just authentic.

[glchen]

Maybe the TPG's are concerned with situations like with T206's where someone re-back's a difficult T206 back (like Drum) with a HOF front (like a Cobb) where that front originally had a common back.

[tlwise12]

I had a Tener that I didn't know if it were rebacked or not and sgc confirmed that it was at the national this year. However, they did holder it as an "A" at my request.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by tlwise12

I had a Tener that I didn't know if it were rebacked or not and sgc confirmed that it was at the national this year. However, they did holder it as an "A" at my request.

That and the fact that I saw this other one makes me think they have changed their protocol. I will send an email and ask and see if I can get an answer.

[packs]

Maybe the person I spoke to just wasn't aware. Although I did call twice.

[DixieBaseball]

I have a pretty scarce OJ that is rebacked and holdered Authentic "Rebacked" It took a conversation, but due to scarcity, they went ahead and holdered it. (This was a few years ago) They told me that they typically don't holder rebacked OJ's, but if it is scarce, rare, etc. they will consider it.

I doubt they will holder a bunch of them.

Edited to add if they re-holder and it is re-backed they will have to mark it "re-backed" "authentic" on the label. (That is the case with my card) Again, it was with rare exception they do this for a re-backed OJ as they agreed it was scarce enough and made sure it was labeled properly. Also, this was done for the uniformity of my Nashville collection of N172 players.

[bn2cardz]

From Bob Luce today:

"Andy,

We hadn’t changed our policy recently. I can’t comment about the two cards you mentioned without having them in front of me. However, the Net54 thread and your email gave us the opportunity to revisit our policy. We have decided to start encapsulating rebacked N172 Old Judges as SGC Authentic with a “rebacked” notation on the third line. In rare cases, we will reserve the right to reject cards if the new backing does not even faintly resemble a real Old Judge backing. For now, we will restrict the new policy to N172’s and similar issues with blank cardboard backs. Feel free to post on Net54 about our policy change, which will take place immediately.

Regards,
Bob Luce"

This is exciting news.

[GoldenAge50s]

I have recently acquired an OJ that I THINK has been skinned, like maybe one thin layer. I haven't handled any OJ's in several yrs, but it just seems the one's I had back then were a bit thicker.

Is there a way to tell w/out having another OJ to compare it to?

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s

I have recently acquired an OJ that I THINK has been skinned, like maybe one thin layer. I haven't handled any OJ's in several yrs, but it just seems the one's I had back then were a bit thicker.

Is there a way to tell w/out having another OJ to compare it to?

Hello Fred, if your OJ is paper thin it has been skinned. You are essentially left with the thin and very fragile albumen photo paper. Cheaper cards from the same timeframe, often actress cards, are sometimes donated to the cause of providing a good cardboard backing to a cherished baseball subject resulting in a "rebacked" card. I myself have never done this.

[h2oya311]

I have an Old Hoss Radbourn OJ (rebacked) that is on its way back from NJ w/ an Authentic (Rebacked) designation.

I did not ask for any special treatment, but I guess my timing was perfect, since it looks like the policy only recently changed. I assumed they were already doing this...silly (and lucky) me!

[GoldenAge50s]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Hello Fred, if your OJ is paper thin it has been skinned. You are essentially left with the thin and very fragile albumen photo paper. Cheaper cards from the same timeframe, often actress cards, are sometimes donated to the cause of providing a good cardboard backing to a cherished baseball subject resulting in a "rebacked" card. I myself have never done this.

Hi Joe--

No, it is not paper thin (there is more than just the photo itself)--it has SOME of the cardboard backing--I just don't think it's as thick as the OJ's I owned a few yrs ago. I sold them all & hence have nothing to compare it to.

Were some OJ's actually thinner than others straight from production? (Kinda' like some T206's vary in length w/out being altered in any way)

Thank you for your reply!

[Jeffrompa]

Authentic for a re-backed card is fine as long as there is full disclosure .

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Jeffrompa

Authentic for a re-backed card is fine as long as there is full disclosure .

There will be full disclosure on the slip as noted from the email from Bob Luce at SGC:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

...We have decided to start encapsulating rebacked N172 Old Judges as SGC Authentic with a “rebacked” notation on the third line.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s

Hi Joe--

No, it is not paper thin (there is more than just the photo itself)--it has SOME of the cardboard backing--I just don't think it's as thick as the OJ's I owned a few yrs ago. I sold them all & hence have nothing to compare it to.

Were some OJ's actually thinner than others straight from production? (Kinda' like some T206's vary in length w/out being altered in any way)

Thank you for your reply!

I am in no way a expert in OJ's but have a few (including a single Gypsy Queen) and the only noticeable difference I have seen in thickness has been on the rebacked ones I have (I have not owned or touched a single skinned card so don't know the thickness on one of those).

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I am in no way a expert in OJ's but have a few (including a single Gypsy Queen) and the only noticeable difference I have seen in thickness has been on the rebacked ones I have (I have not owned or touched a single skinned card so don't know the thickness on one of those).

In my somewhat limited experience rebacked cards come in a variety of mediums and thickness. Some are done poorly and others are barely able to be discerned. I have owned several, some were good, some not so good. I have owned a few skinned ones too. OF course they are thinner...

[h2oya311]

Very disappointed!

Just got my submission back from SGC and my rebacked OJ was not graded Authentic. After this thread I thought it was a done deal. Guess not. It was a poor rebacking job, but it looks like authenticating rebacked OJs is not cut-and-dry. Need to make a phone call today.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Very disappointed!

Just got my submission back from SGC and my rebacked OJ was not graded Authentic. After this thread I thought it was a done deal. Guess not. It was a poor rebacking job, but it looks like authenticating rebacked OJs is not cut-and-dry. Need to make a phone call today.

The new policy didn't take place until the day of the email which was the 21st. You posted that your cards posted to the SGC website on the 21st, meaning your card was probably graded prior to the change in policy (even if by a day).

[bn2cardz]

The slab on a rebacked card makes a huge difference. The card I originally was talking about at the beginning of this post was the King Kelly card in collectauctions.com. The seller had tried selling the card in a previous collectauctions auction without the slab and didn't get a bid with a min bid of $300 (August Auction) Now with it slabbed 4 months later it brings 931.77 with BP.

[packs]

The scans are different too. The first auction looked a little strange with the greenish tint.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by packs

The scans are different too. The first auction looked a little strange with the greenish tint.

They are. The hue of the scans are different (could be due to the plastic reflection, or the automatic adjustment for black with the SGC case, or a new scanner. I am not blaming the auction house). All the flaws are the exact same.

[aaroncc]

Don't see a rebacked designation on the Kelly. I think its wierd that if a rebacked card was scarce that it could be encapsulated Authentic. And now only Old Judges that are rebacked are encapsulated. Alot of picking and choosing, not sure I like where grading has gone.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by aaroncc

Don't see a rebacked designation on the Kelly. I think its wierd that if a rebacked card was scarce that it could be encapsulated Authentic. And now only Old Judges that are rebacked are encapsulated. Alot of picking and choosing, not sure I like where grading has gone.

1) The Kelly has seemed to slip through at SGC as they said that wasn't normal at the time and was done prior to SGC saying they would start doing it, and when they are doing it from here on it will be designated as such.

2)It isn't only Old Judges that will get encapsulated from the SGC email "we will restrict the new policy to N172’s and similar issues with blank cardboard backs" so it sounds like they just don't want people taking a DRUM back and putting it on a non DRUM player in t206 sets and it getting encapsulated, but in cases where the backing won't be used to add rarity value. There is no reason a Old Judge rebacking shouldn't be treated similar to trimming. They both could have been used to make the card look better, but they could have also been used for other reasons (trimming to fit in a binder page, rebacking to stabilize the back of a picture that lost its backing).

[aaroncc]

Or how about rebacking to add value.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by aaroncc

Or how about rebacking to add value.

That is what I was meaning by saying make the card "look better". Trimming has been done for malicious and innocent reasons just as rebacking has been, yet trimming (and other alterations such as recoloring) have been getting A slabs for a while. So why would rebacking not?

[aaroncc]

It just seems that the reason of sending a card to get authenticated has lost its purpose. Saying its authentic but its trimmed, this card is authentic but recolored, and now this card is authentic but rebacked. But only if you use certain paper to reback or if its a poor reback job then now we wont authenticate it. Give me a break. I understand sending a card in to find out if it has alterations or even what the grade is. But sending in a rebacked card seems like a stretch.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by aaroncc

It just seems that the reason of sending a card to get authenticated has lost its purpose. Saying its authentic but its trimmed, this card is authentic but recolored, and now this card is authentic but rebacked. But only if you use certain paper to reback or if its a poor reback job then now we wont authenticate it. Give me a break. I understand sending a card in to find out if it has alterations or even what the grade is. But sending in a rebacked card seems like a stretch.

I do agree with you that the material used to reback making a difference on if it gets slabbed is a strange.

I do think that slabbing the card as authentic makes sense, though, because you still want to know that just because the back doesn't look right it is still an authentic front and it is period.

Also collectors may like the uniformity of having their collections look the same so they want it their cards in similar holders (TPG holders, a certain screw down, or other type).

[bcbgcbrcb]

As a follow-up to this thread, I am wondering if representatives from the three grading companies will come forward on the board here with their company's current position on holdering re-backed cards, specifically Old Judges, as "Authentic"? It seems that there is a lot in perceived value at stake here so I would like to hear it straight from the TPG's representatives. If the answer is "Yes", does it depend on the degree of re-backing, etc.?

[Matthew H]

I've never heard of SGCs pervious policy on not holdering re-backed OJs. I've pulled a few of them out of Auth holders, including a Serad. Not a particularly special card... It didn't even have a period back on it.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

As a follow-up to this thread, I am wondering if representatives from the three grading companies will come forward on the board here with their company's current position on holdering re-backed cards, specifically Old Judges, as "Authentic"? It seems that there is a lot in perceived value at stake here so I would like to hear it straight from the TPG's representatives. If the answer is "Yes", does it depend on the degree of re-backing, etc.?

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

From Bob Luce today:

"Andy,

We hadn’t changed our policy recently. I can’t comment about the two cards you mentioned without having them in front of me. However, the Net54 thread and your email gave us the opportunity to revisit our policy. We have decided to start encapsulating rebacked N172 Old Judges as SGC Authentic with a “rebacked” notation on the third line. In rare cases, we will reserve the right to reject cards if the new backing does not even faintly resemble a real Old Judge backing. For now, we will restrict the new policy to N172’s and similar issues with blank cardboard backs. Feel free to post on Net54 about our policy change, which will take place immediately.

Regards,
Bob Luce"

This is exciting news.

SGC has given their position.

[Leon]

I think it's good they will grade them AUT with the caveat of "Rebacked". I think it can only help the hobby. To me it's not a lot different than other alterations. I would rather buy one in a holder marked "rebacked" than buy a raw one and find out it's rebacked after the fact.

[packs]

I agree. It's also a good preservation method to have them in the holder.

Well, the King Kelly OJ has made it's way to ebay. Seller says he does not believe the card has been re-backed. $1875 obo