Developing Theme?

RonD

Lurking on the Vintage 54 Board and came across this mess. I am not pointing fingers but I guess we have to assume altered cards are more prevalent than we had hoped.

koby

Thank you for posting the thread. The posters on that message board seem to be implying that the expensive SGC 9 King Kelly card that is on BMW's website may have once resided in a PSA 6 holder. Apparently, when it was in the PSA 6 holder and sold in a Mastro auction, the card had a wrinkle, that is no longer there. BMW is neither denying or admitting to this. Very interesting reading.

Between BOTN's repaired SGC Ty Cobb card and this SGC King Kelly card, the question I have is how are these card doctors so sophisticated that SGC cannot catch the alterations?

KallMaloneSay

From what I've seen/been around, I'm sure card doctoring is even worse in the modern card market than the vintage. Lots of short cards in BGS holders. Lately I've seen quite a few cards that were significantly short left to right, not top to bottom, including a BGS 9.5 Prior Prospect Premieres AUTO (Geez, why is it that Mark Prior is at the root of every BGS timmed card debacle?). And if you think that the root of the problem is with unexperienced graders, then check out the evidence with PSA submission number 4069828 with zip code 89121. It was a GAI 9 1st graded Chad Pennington 00 Playoff Contenders AUTO RC that was swimming left to right in the holder. It was obvious to me it was trimmed on the right edge (this set is notorious for having a terrible right colored border). Even though I was 99% sure it had been trimmed, I wanted to see what PSA had to say about it, and partly to my dismay (I want that card in a PSA 9 holder) but perhaps more to my pleasure to see that PSA doesn't compromise it's values as much as GAI or BGS by slabbing cards they have to know are trimmed. So even the grandaddy of grading himself, Mr. Baker, with his fancy loupe and supposedly trained eye missed what any one of us could determine with our naked eye in less than two seconds. (FYI, I bought it in the GAI holder, I've never had anything graded by them nor have I ever attempted to trim a card, Zardoz even held this card in his hand at my shop and noticed the trimming immediately)

As for BGS, the BGS 10 Prior SP Authentic is way too obvious of a trimmed card being graded. Also at every major show I have many of BGS' top submitters buy raw cards from me that are clearly 8.5's at best because of bad corners/edges, but as long as the surfaces are okay then they take them. Strangely I see those cards on ebay a month later in a BGS 9.5 holder without the bad corners. Hmmm. I refuse to name those buyers, but many of you guys can figure a few of them out without me saying anything. Strangely these dealers have very close to no cards graded by PSA with them anymore, but instead only deal with BGS and GAI, showing that they must have had some problems with PSA catching their bag of tricks at some point. Just the way I've seen things, I'm not going to be nieve and say that PSA has never in their history graded an altered card, but from my viewpoint you are ten times safer with a high grade PSA card being legitimate than the other grading companies.
Jason

aconte

<< <i>Between BOTN's repaired SGC Ty Cobb card and this SGC King Kelly card, the question I have is how are these card doctors so sophisticated that SGC cannot catch the alterations? >>



Koby or Sgc hater,

The part you missed was that the card went from a Psa 6 to Psa 9 holder.

And lets not kid each other you question SGC on everything every chance you get. You are the true unknown Psa lover and Sgc hater! The fact is I'm sure there is a reason for your constant bashing and hate of the Sgc brand. I see that you continue and always will have a hot nut for them. Go get um
champ!

Just thought I'd chime in before I head to the Fort with a boatload of crossovers...

And I know you really love Sgc...

aconte

koby

Tony,

I do not agree with what you are implying as I do not hate any real grading company. My collection consists of raw cards as well as cards graded by a number of grading companies, including SGC. Most of the time, I feel the SGC does a fine job. In fact, asided from the looser centering criteria and the lower resale value, I have really had nothing to complain about from SGC.

In this case, I am concerned, as all graded card hobbyists should be, that one of the major grading companies is unable to detect alterations. SGC very seldomly grade post-war and modern cards and the SGC people pride themselves on their knowledge of pre-war cards. That was their niche, but here we have two examples that stumped SGC. (BOTN's Cobb card and BMWs Kelly card) SGC used to be one of the companies that I relied on for pre-war cards. Now I just don't know.

Have a good time at the Ft Washington show!

Koby

aconte

<< <i>Most of the time, I feel the SGC does a fine job. >>



Sure you do.

This is a Psa board and I don't have any intention of going back and forth with you. The network54
board has ALOT of interesting threads about grading companies and mistakes. Quite a few listed
as you know the last few months.



<< <i>SGC people pride themselves on their knowledge of pre-war cards. >>



You sling the b.s. better than me. Your backhanded way of mocking them is great.



<< <i>Have a good time at the Ft Washington show! >>



Thanks good buddy. You have a good night too and a good weekend! Try not to let any concerns
of Sgc's inability to grade pre-war put a damper on your weekend and card collecting. Again,
be good and thanks for the warm wishes! Maybe some day we can be pals!

aconte or Tony to my good buddies on the boards.

koby

What do you mean someday? After corresponding with you on these message boards for more than a year, I already consider the two of us pals.


Did you see the Forum 54 thread recently? It looks like not only SGC blew it on this card, but also PSA.


PSA 6 Kelly = SGC 96 Kelly = PSA 9 Kelly (?)

Someone has posted the original picture of the Kelly card when it was in a PSA 6 holder and described as having a back wrinkle. This PSA 6 card sold in a Mastro auction for $2936.

According to the experts, the same exact card now resides in a PSA 9 holder and no longer has a wrinkle. The PSA 9 card is being sold on the BMW for $150000.

If this is true, this is absolutely amazing to me. If it is true that someone can alter a card and turn a $3000 card into a $150000 card, it makes me glad that I am priced out of the expensive card market. Even more disturbing is that card doctors are so good at what they do that reputable grading companies like SGC, GAI and PSA are unable to detect their alterations.

aconte

Koby,

Here's one you missed from the past week:

Psa is an embarrassment to pre-war grading!

Title taken from the network54 board.

aconte

aconte

Koby,

By the way my friend, the Fort show was a lot of fun! Psa is still king but a lot more tables with Gai and Sgc stuff. It seems dealers
are opening themselves up to more choices too. But like I said Psa is still the leader in the industry so there were lots of cards
for you if you were there!

Your pal,

aconte

koby

Thank you for the update. It is good to see that more people are using the smaller grading companies as I was having great difficulty finding cards for my SGC and GAI sets.

Didn't have time to go to the Fort this time. Hopefully I will make it to the next show and I can show you and Vayank my SGC card collection.

NickM

Confusing a (black and white) 1922 American Caramel card with a (color) 1932 U.S. Caramel card should never happen with a vintage grader. There is no excuse for not catching that. I agree with the network 54 poster who called American Caramels the most widely recognized 1920s sets, and if you're a pre-war collector, 1932 U.S. Caramels are a set you should recognize easily - they are very expensive cards, mainly of HOFers, and headline many of the major card auctions. This isn't like confusing two similar e-card issues from the '00s or '10s or getting some of the PCL issues mixed up. This would be comparable to mixing up '50 Bowman and '54 Topps.

Nick