SGC Strikes Again!!!!!

[cammb]

Keep in mind that there are no crease, lumps or bumps that I can see. Went over with a magnifying glass and came up with nothing. Even if there was a minor blemish, that grade is not warranted. If anyone can point out the deficiency and I would appreciate it.


IMG_2824 by Tony Biviano, on Flickr

IMG_2821 by Tony Biviano, on Flickr

[upstateNYmilb]

This is crazy, I would've guessed 5 or 6

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Bigdaddy]

I would say it's his 4.07 ERA

That's craziness.

[Lorewalker]

Impossible to tell from those pics but there absolutely has to be a wrinkle to take it down that low.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Impossible to tell from those pics but there absolutely has to be a wrinkle to take it down that low.

I thought of a wrinkle that I'm not seeing, if so, I was expectinga 6 . Would a wrinkle take it down three grades?

[Tyruscobb]

That’s a great looking 3. Here is what I saw (not saying it knocks it down to a 3, though): a little diamondie; a few fish eyes; and a very small nick out of the card on the back, mid right side. Nice card.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by cammb

I thought of a wrinkle that I'm not seeing, if so, I was expectinga 6 . Would a wrinkle take it down three grades?

Yes it could. Would get nothing higher than a 4. It appears NM-MT, to me.

[D. Bergin]

Yeah, it kind of makes you think, what's the point of a 10 point grading system, if 95% of the surviving cards from a particular common series from 60's, are now all technically 1's and 2's.

You just threw 30 bucks in the ocean to grade a 50 cent card.

A 1961 Topps card should be judged on how it was supposed to present when it came out of a pack in 1961, based on it's original production specs.

Not how a diamond laser cut Panini Prizm card comes out of the factory today.

[D. Bergin]

Gotta be at least a warp or a bend or a deep press on there somewhere....or it's just a screw-up.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Yes it could. Would get nothing higher than a 4. It appears NM-MT, to me.

SGC 3, Last years PSA 7.

that's what I thought too. Recently, people are saying that it could have a slight surface wrinkle and still get a 5?

"GRADE
5

QUALITY
EX

DESCRIPTION
80/20 or better centering, minor rounding or fuzzing of corners, roughness or chipping along edge (no layering), one VERY slight surface or "spider" crease may exist on one side of the card, gloss may be lost from surface with some scratching that does not detract from the aesthetics of the card."

[cammb]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Yeah, it kind of makes you think, what's the point of a 10 point grading system, if 95% of the surviving cards from a particular common series from 60's, are now all technically 1's and 2's.

You just threw 30 bucks in the ocean to grade a 50 cent card.

A 1961 Topps card should be judged on how it was supposed to present when it came out of a pack in 1961, based on it's original production specs.

Not how a diamond laser cut Panini Prizm card comes out of the factory today.

You see it as throwing away 30 bucks for a common, I see it as a necessity on completing a graded set .I think it is one particular grader. I have success in recent subs then I get this. Not the first time.

[Casey2296]

SGC is grading like an entitled debutant right now, I wish CSG would change their hideous lime green label and offer a black apron, they'd get all my business.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

SGC 3, Last years PSA 7.

that's what I thought too. Recently, people are saying that it could have a slight surface wrinkle and still get a 5?

"GRADE
5

QUALITY
EX

DESCRIPTION
80/20 or better centering, minor rounding or fuzzing of corners, roughness or chipping along edge (no layering), one VERY slight surface or "spider" crease may exist on one side of the card, gloss may be lost from surface with some scratching that does not detract from the aesthetics of the card."

S0metimes it is just jaw dropping. You must have gotten the same grader as me.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Yeah, it kind of makes you think, what's the point of a 10 point grading system, if 95% of the surviving cards from a particular common series from 60's, are now all technically 1's and 2's.

You just threw 30 bucks in the ocean to grade a 50 cent card.

A 1961 Topps card should be judged on how it was supposed to present when it came out of a pack in 1961, based on it's original production specs.

Not how a diamond laser cut Panini Prizm card comes out of the factory today.

AND I'd say it's a waste of 30 bucks 9 times outta 10. In a 10 card submission, there are gonna be 6's that are 3's and 7's that are 5's. I think they grade 55 bowmans and 53 topps fair. Everything else is minus 2 grades. I like their service and took a few chances. Will not send in to anyone again. Just re-affrirmed my feelings how stupid it is for the true collector.

[mordecaibrown1]

Sad!

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by cammb

You see it as throwing away 30 bucks for a common, I see it as a necessity on completing a graded set .I think it is one particular grader. I have success in recent subs then I get this. Not the first time.

Sorry, didn't mean to insult you for sending the card in to begin with.

I meant that SGC threw away your 30 bucks when they miss-graded your card to begin with (assuming there's nothing hidden I can't see in the scan).

You obviously wouldn't have sent it in if you expected to only get a "3" for your set.

[JollyElm]

When there was that 'walkthrough of SGC' video floating around, the thing that struck me the most was the machine it put each card through (for any 'The Curse of Oak Island' watchers, they have something similar) that was like a cross between a blacklight and an x-ray machine. That sucker instantly showed all sorts of invisible things impossible to see in regular light - wrinkles, bends, etc.

If your card wasn't just a straight f*ck up by SGC, then I would see if any unseen issues become apparent under a blacklight.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

When there was that 'walkthrough of SGC' video floating around, the thing that struck me the most was the machine it put each card through (for any 'The Curse of Oak Island' watchers, they have something similar) that was like a cross between a blacklight and an x-ray machine. That sucker instantly showed all sorts of invisible things impossible to see in regular light - wrinkles, bends, etc.



If your card wasn't just a straight f*ck up by SGC, then I would see if any unseen issues become apparent under a blacklight.

They also used blacklights to discover what was going on in people's bedrooms in early 2000s MTV Room Raiders. Blacklights discover everyone's dirty little secrets.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by cammb

Keep in mind that there are no crease, lumps or bumps that I can see. Went over with a magnifying glass and came up with nothing. Even if there was a minor blemish, that grade is not warranted. If anyone can point out the deficiency and I would appreciate it.


IMG_2824 by Tony Biviano, on Flickr

IMG_2821 by Tony Biviano, on Flickr

Grading that card a 3 is criminal IMO. This is the reason I would no longer send card to SGC or PSA for grading.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

When there was that 'walkthrough of SGC' video floating around, the thing that struck me the most was the machine it put each card through (for any 'The Curse of Oak Island' watchers, they have something similar) that was like a cross between a blacklight and an x-ray machine. That sucker instantly showed all sorts of invisible things impossible to see in regular light - wrinkles, bends, etc.

If your card wasn't just a straight f*ck up by SGC, then I would see if any unseen issues become apparent under a blacklight.

I don’t know about you, but “perceptible to the human eye” seems to me like a reasonable requirement for what should be considered in grading. Sheesh.

[Vintagedeputy]

I think the print dots and registration issue is what did the card in.

[Snowman]

It looks like there could be a very small amount of paper loss in the top right corner. I had this exact same thing happen to me before. Try looking at that corner again through a loupe. If that's not it, you're probably missing a minor reverse wrinkle somewhere.

[t206hound]

Can post a link to the seller-ready images from SGC? Those will eliminate the glare and shadows that are on your photos. I agree with others, however, that for that card to be a 3 there must be a wrinkle or paper loss somewhere.

[MarcosCards]

I don’t understand the ‘wrinkle theory’ for the 3 Grade this card received. The grading company’s criteria for a 5 Grade reads:

“80/20 or better centering, minor rounding or fuzzing of corners, roughness or chipping along edge (no layering), one VERY slight surface or "spider" crease may exist on one side of the card, gloss may be lost from surface with some scratching that does not detract from the aesthetics of the card.”

Certainly, a definition of the term “VERY slight surface or “spider” crease” would be helpful - but I’m sure it boils down to subjectivity. Btw, the company put the word ‘very’ in all-caps — not me.

Considering the other visible aspects of the card, it seems that, based on their own criteria, it should grade around a 5. But a 3 is certainly puzzling.

The paper loss theory does make sense though.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Can post a link to the seller-ready images from SGC? Those will eliminate the glare and shadows that are on your photos. I agree with others, however, that for that card to be a 3 there must be a wrinkle or paper loss somewhere.

If you have an SGC account, you can log in and enter the cert number and see the pictures there.

[robw1959]

There may still be something hidden to the naked eye that SGC picked up on. They have an ultra-high resolution lighting camera that intensifies the image and projects it in an enlarged form for all to see. For example, sometimes they can spot hidden creases with that image. In your defense, I would say if it's not visible to the naked eye, then why are they so concerned about grading it as though it were visible?

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by rand1com

Grading that card a 3 is criminal IMO. This is the reason I would no longer send card to SGC or PSA for grading.

The only thing I see is 2 small
white dots on the top black border

[Jay Wolt]

Hard to believe that Buzhardt got the same grade as this N284 which is miscut, creased & has erasure marks

[661fish]

Unfortunately they are being just like PSA. A wrinkle would not bring it down that low.

[sreader3]

Nice card. Is this a water stain perhaps?

[Flintboy]

For the price the grading companies are charging, they should identify on orders like the one above why it graded what it did. The card appears NM-MT but gets a 3? At the very least a quick note on the slab stating why.

[Stampsfan]

I've been reading about and seeing more and more examples as presented here, when grading with SGC. Yes, their standards have certainly been stricter in the last year, but at times they seem unfair and inaccurate.

It's a bit of a slap in the face to submit something, only to have it come back and be disappointed. One person on a Facebook group called it insulting.

If so, it's a bit like a Monty Python skit.
"Send us your cards and we will degrade and insult and lower them, and you will pay us for the privilege."

[boneheadandrube]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Nice card. Is this a water stain perhaps?

I thought pen mark when I first saw it. That would certainly drop it to a 3.

[vthobby]

A PSA 8 of this same card just sold for $28.

A PSA 6 of this same card just sold for $4.

Surely the OP did not send it in to re-sell it or "reap the bounty" of this rarity.

It's a bummer but it might have been easier to try and just buy an existing graded #3 as the OP just wanted it graded.

Just a thought!

Mike

[cammb]

You are right. I sometimes do just that. However I thought this was a no brainer. On principle, I am going to appeal and resubmit the card along with tthe thirty bucks. I have got to get an explanation.

[vthobby]

Originally Posted by cammb

You are right. I sometimes do just that. However I thought this was a no brainer. On principle, I am going to appeal and resubmit the card along with tthe thirty bucks. I have got to get an explanation.

That is your right Tony all day however if you are sending it back for an explanation, I'd not send the $30 and see if they would do it. I feel that folks on here have found the likely culprits. The stain or ink Stain on front, the print dots on top of front, the possible paper loss on corner and the chipping on the back right of card. I think with all of this it will not be higher than a 4. Looks like an 8 but its most likely a 3.5 or 4. It happens where these cards sneak by our well trained eyes as you know. Happens to all of us. I was not trying to make you feel bad I was just surprised that a PSA 6 had just sold for $4 ! Crazy! I do understand you just wanted it graded for your set or collection.

Thank you for the thread and I think we would all be curious the outcome or response from SGC, thanks!

Mike

[cammb]

Just sent them an email asking them to look at the seller ready photos I did ask them to let me send the back without paying another fee due to the card being worth only 2 bucks.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by cammb

You are right. I sometimes do just that. However I thought this was a no brainer. On principle, I am going to appeal and resubmit the card along with tthe thirty bucks. I have got to get an explanation.

Regrettably, you won’t get one. I am running into that wall now with them. Good luck with your attempt. I hope they do tell you but Brent Martin (SGC Collector Support) was pretty clear in his explanation that they don’t keep grading records as to why a card is graded a certain way. Maybe it will be different with a review submittal.

Butch Turner