CGC does not encapsulate Authenticated Cards 3 3

[Yeahiwasder4dat]

On 10/3/2021 at 4:32 PM, Kusig said:

I just keep waiting and checking back for Paul to chime in and clarify that the opinion given was that it was altered and not authentic hence why it wasn't put in a case.

Wouldn't be "altered" if it wasn't auth.

[PaulS.]

Receiving a CGC label back with a raw card does not mean the card is authentic. In fact, we send back labels that say NG (Not Genuine) all the time. These labels of course could not be used again as they are printed with the card information that is tied to our internal database. 

The only way in which CGC guarantees the authenticity of a card is if it is still sealed in its original CGC holder. If a card is returned raw, like these were, we are not making any claims as to the authenticity of the cards. Could they still be authentic? Of course, and I am sure they are. But because they were cut in a way that can be seen as deceptive, we will never put them in a CGC holder. There is no room for debate on this. We simply will not be doing it because, intentional or not, they are made to look like a different issue. 

As for the inking issue that was brought up, inking to hide wear is of course deceptive, but it is not done in order to alter the card to make it into a more valuable type; but rather to appear to be a higher grade. That is why those will still be graded as if the inking wasn't there, but they will go into a Green Qualified label with the issue noted on the back.

A similar example would be a fake 1st edition stamp added to a Pokémon card. Even though it might have the same amount of additional ink applied as a card that is inked to hide wear does, its the attempt to make it into a different card altogether that is the main issue. That too would be returned as altered.

 

Thank you,

Paul 

[Yeahiwasder4dat]

On 10/4/2021 at 9:31 AM, PaulS. said:

Receiving a CGC label back with a raw card does not mean the card is authentic. In fact, we send back labels that say NG (Not Genuine) all the time. These labels of course could not be used again as they are printed with the card information that is tied to our internal database. 

The only way in which CGC guarantees the authenticity of a card is if it is still sealed in its original CGC holder. If a card is returned raw, like these were, we are not making any claims as to the authenticity of the cards. Could they still be authentic? Of course, and I am sure they are. But because they were cut in a way that can be seen as deceptive, we will never put them in a CGC holder. There is no room for debate on this. We simply will not be doing it because, intentional or not, they are made to look like a different issue. 

As for the inking issue that was brought up, inking to hide wear is of course deceptive, but it is not done in order to alter the card to make it into a more valuable type; but rather to appear to be a higher grade. That is why those will still be graded as if the inking wasn't there, but they will go into a Green Qualified label with the issue noted on the back.

A similar example would be a fake 1st edition stamp added to a Pokémon card. Even though it might have the same amount of additional ink applied as a card that is inked to hide wear does, its the attempt to make it into a different card altogether that is the main issue. That too would be returned as altered.

 

Thank you,

Paul 

So whether or not it's encapsulated depends on the alteration? In this case collector edition cards have square cut corners instead of round but because it looks more similar to an alpha/beta it won't be encapsulated even if there isn't malicious intent?

It's less of the fact that it's altered, and more so because the alteration just makes it appear as a different card? I would have assumed if it wasn't auth, it would've gotten a NG instead of an AC. Although this doesn't apply to me in Magic cards but I was struggling to understand the difference as I sub sports cards as well and those are far more often doctored than Magic/Pokemon and the same standards are probably applicable to CSG.

Like for example a trimmed 1960/70 card would get an AC grade and be slabbed, but if you stamped something to make it look like a more rare version for example it wouldn't be but might get an AC label as well?

That's probably not the best example as I can't think of any of those that were stamped. Let's say instead, someone removed the "Reprint" part on the back of a card. As that would dynamically change the card and it's value to make it appear as a different card.

Asking less about grading, but in terms of what I might need to be aware of of I see a slab with an AC designation vs someone with a raw card. Would it would mean there's a larger underlying issue if someone is selling one that isn't slabbed, and I should avoid it? I buy a lot of them as well.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Yeahiwasder4dat

[Kusig]

On 10/4/2021 at 8:31 AM, PaulS. said:

Receiving a CGC label back with a raw card does not mean the card is authentic. In fact, we send back labels that say NG (Not Genuine) all the time. These labels of course could not be used again as they are printed with the card information that is tied to our internal database. 

The only way in which CGC guarantees the authenticity of a card is if it is still sealed in its original CGC holder. If a card is returned raw, like these were, we are not making any claims as to the authenticity of the cards. Could they still be authentic? Of course, and I am sure they are. But because they were cut in a way that can be seen as deceptive, we will never put them in a CGC holder. There is no room for debate on this. We simply will not be doing it because, intentional or not, they are made to look like a different issue. 

As for the inking issue that was brought up, inking to hide wear is of course deceptive, but it is not done in order to alter the card to make it into a more valuable type; but rather to appear to be a higher grade. That is why those will still be graded as if the inking wasn't there, but they will go into a Green Qualified label with the issue noted on the back.

A similar example would be a fake 1st edition stamp added to a Pokémon card. Even though it might have the same amount of additional ink applied as a card that is inked to hide wear does, its the attempt to make it into a different card altogether that is the main issue. That too would be returned as altered.

 

Thank you,

Paul 

Thank you Paul

[Drew99]

On 10/4/2021 at 9:57 AM, Yeahiwasder4dat said:

So whether or not it's encapsulated depends on the alteration? In this case collector edition cards have square cut corners instead of round but because it looks more similar to an alpha/beta it won't be encapsulated even if there isn't malicious intent?

It's less of the fact that it's altered, and more so because the alteration just makes it appear as a different card? I would have assumed if it wasn't auth, it would've gotten a NG instead of an AC. Although this doesn't apply to me in Magic cards but I was struggling to understand the difference as I sub sports cards as well and those are far more often doctored than Magic/Pokemon and the same standards are probably applicable to CSG.

Like for example a trimmed 1960/70 card would get an AC grade and be slabbed, but if you stamped something to make it look like a more rare version for example it wouldn't be but might get an AC label as well?

That's probably not the best example as I can't think of any of those that were stamped. Let's say instead, someone removed the "Reprint" part on the back of a card. As that would dynamically change the card and it's value to make it appear as a different card.

Asking less about grading, but in terms of what I might need to be aware of of I see a slab with an AC designation vs someone with a raw card. It would mean there's a larger underlying issue if someone is selling one that isn't slabbed, and I should avoid it. I buy a lot of them as well.

Hold up a second… this is amazing.  Apologies to all.  I am on the phone with the customer support person from last week right now who was in touch with the graders who said they WERE authenticated. 

So great… now I don’t know what I have again.  
 

Paul, does CGC offer an authentication ONLY service?  I do not want the cards graded.  Just for clarification.

I can only go on what I have been told.

[Drew99]

I have just got off the phone and I feel it’s reasonable to ask for a refund.  If the cards aren’t gradable… fine… I shouldn’t have paid for grading.  
 

The person I have been on the phone with is a very nice person and confirmed what I have said here.  There has been a mistake.

Paul, you can contact me privately if you want to discuss further what exactly has happened if you wish.  I have no interest in dragging this out further.

I have many issues with the policy here but they are your policies and Paul has stated the policy correctly.  I have no further dispute.

my impression was that authentication occurred before grading and I would therefore be able to have an authentication only service which I have recently inquired about as recently as Friday of last week.  This is still a confusing item in customer support.

my apologies.

 

please do let me know if you do offer an authentication only service in the future as this is a valuable area of collecting and I thought, believed that I was pursuing this end with CGC.  I was misinformed.  
 

[revat]

On 10/4/2021 at 9:41 AM, Drew99 said:

I have just got off the phone and I feel it’s reasonable to ask for a refund.  If the cards aren’t gradable… fine… I shouldn’t have paid for grading.  
 

The person I have been on the phone with is a very nice person and confirmed what I have said here.  There has been a mistake.

Paul, you can contact me privately if you want to discuss further what exactly has happened if you wish.  I have no interest in dragging this out further.

I have many issues with the policy here but they are your policies and Paul has stated the policy correctly.  I have no further dispute.

my impression was that authentication occurred before grading and I would therefore be able to have an authentication only service which I have recently inquired about as recently as Friday of last week.  This is still a confusing item in customer support.

my apologies.

 

please do let me know if you do offer an authentication only service in the future as this is a valuable area of collecting and I thought, believed that I was pursuing this end with CGC.  I was misinformed.  
 

Yah I think independent of how your specific situation resolves, it's obvious that the website needs clearer language and customer service needs be more clear about the specific rules of the specific services, OR know when to escalate to experts higher on the food chain.

[Rufuss C. Kingston]

On 10/4/2021 at 6:57 AM, Yeahiwasder4dat said:

Asking less about grading, but in terms of what I might need to be aware of of I see a slab with an AC designation vs someone with a raw card. It would mean there's a larger underlying issue if someone is selling one that isn't slabbed, and I should avoid it. I buy a lot of them as well.

You should never see a CGC slab with a AC designation because AC means Altered Card (or altered in a way that it prevents encapsulation), and AC cards don't get slabbed, only altered cards with a Green Label, but those would not be considered AC by CGC.

[Rufuss C. Kingston]

On 10/4/2021 at 9:41 AM, Drew99 said:

my impression was that authentication occurred before grading and I would therefore be able to have an authentication only service which I have recently inquired about as recently as Friday of last week.  This is
 

The grader is the Authenticator.  There is someone who checks submissions to make sure the card name/number entered is correct for the card submitted, but they don't verify if it is real, though it's possible they could tell, that is not their roll in the "workflow".  We don't pay grading/authentication fees for random CGC employees opinions, only for random cgc grader employees opinions, which in turn represent the "secure" opinion of CGC, the company!

And at the end of the day, it is not an "Authentication Only" service that you want CGC to start, because technically they already have that.  What you need is for them to come up with an "Authentic but Altered" service/label which they don't have currently and is the reason for the lack of encapsulation of your cards.   Paul was a little harsh in grouping your cards in the altered to deceive (clipped) category, but as mentioned previously, if your cards were encapsulated authentic, then there would be no way of someone other than yourself to know that the corners on the cards were rounded and are not original. (again, level of authenticity)

Edited October 5, 2021 by Rufuss C. Kingston

[Drew99]

Yeah, true enough.  This has been a really terrible experience.  Appreciate your thoughts

I got some bad guidance from an employee but I don’t want to go further than that because their intention wasn’t bad.

bottom line Pail is correct.

I don’t agree but he is correct.  Harsh is an understatement.  

the most absurd thing to me of this whole thing is the pictures and Paul’s general idea that if anyone could confuse them with another set idea.  That’s really lame.  
 

Who cares if some rando person might????  
 

lastly the side of a card thing really sticks out to me.  For whatever reason they have a “one side” rule which just seems to be completely made up for my cards.  
 

Or rather, maybe the CE cards and IE cards are so unique that they don’t have rules to deal with them. 
 

on a previous board I asked to respond to the picture you see and it was well… one side looks fake… and I’m like… you don’t get a grade for each side.  The card is looked at as a whole and there’s like several places I can copy and paste from your site that discuss this on the grading.  
 

doesn’t matter… they have a rule.  You don’t know what it is.  But they have a rule.  
 

its a procedure.  He’s correct.  He’s following the rules.  I know he’s being truthful… but to only look at one side of a card and say that the other one CANNOT be taken into account when the other side looks like mine is a bit problematic if your trying to say that my cards are trying to be “deceptive”

That was the nature of my specific questions when I called and asked in advance.  They are collectors edition cards.  They can’t be deceptive… just turn them over… apparently they have a “one side”rule

and they have a “if anyone who isn’t a trained grader who might be under the mistaken uninformed impression that your card might look like something that it’s not” rule 

but yes generally… Paul is correct

[Yeahiwasder4dat]

On 10/5/2021 at 2:23 AM, Rufuss C. Kingston said:

You should never see a CGC slab with a AC designation because AC means Altered Card (or altered in a way that it prevents encapsulation), and AC cards don't get slabbed, only altered cards with a Green Label, but those would not be considered AC by CGC.

I got you. I thought the AC labels were just a no grade equivalent but could still be encapsulated. Making a little more sense now. They just don't have anything that's an "Auth" label. Either can be graded with qualifiers like "marked"/inked, etc or or not at all. I haven't seen a break down of what they do/do not have so I was trying to relate it to equivalent cards I've seen graded. Thanks.

[Drew99]

There’s a myth out there that alpha cards are rounded way more than they really are.  They are just cut differently… that’s all. Most people have never seen an alpha timetwister and may be “fooled” by a picture of one side of a card but certainly not a grader or someone familiar with the cards.  The cuts and the borders are easily distinguishable from a mile away.

[PaulS.]

On 10/4/2021 at 9:57 AM, Yeahiwasder4dat said:

So whether or not it's encapsulated depends on the alteration? In this case collector edition cards have square cut corners instead of round but because it looks more similar to an alpha/beta it won't be encapsulated even if there isn't malicious intent?

It's less of the fact that it's altered, and more so because the alteration just makes it appear as a different card? I would have assumed if it wasn't auth, it would've gotten a NG instead of an AC. Although this doesn't apply to me in Magic cards but I was struggling to understand the difference as I sub sports cards as well and those are far more often doctored than Magic/Pokemon and the same standards are probably applicable to CSG.

Like for example a trimmed 1960/70 card would get an AC grade and be slabbed, but if you stamped something to make it look like a more rare version for example it wouldn't be but might get an AC label as well?

That's probably not the best example as I can't think of any of those that were stamped. Let's say instead, someone removed the "Reprint" part on the back of a card. As that would dynamically change the card and it's value to make it appear as a different card.

Asking less about grading, but in terms of what I might need to be aware of of I see a slab with an AC designation vs someone with a raw card. Would it would mean there's a larger underlying issue if someone is selling one that isn't slabbed, and I should avoid it? I buy a lot of them as well.

Correct. These were cut in such a way that, at a glance, they do not look like Collector's Edition cards. Therefore we will not grade them. 

You are correct that if they were not authentic, they would have likely received the NG label instead, as that is obviously a worse issue than the cards being altered. 

I would suggest you not apply what I am saying to CSG. They are a different company and have slightly different rules and no-grade codes.

 

Thanks,

Paul

[Drew99]

On 10/6/2021 at 2:58 PM, PaulS. said:

Correct. These were cut in such a way that, at a glance, they do not look like Collector's Edition cards. Therefore we will not grade them. 

 

[PaulS.]

This thread has run its course. I am sorry you were unhappy with the service you received, but the graders still examined these cards, and you obtained their opinion.

 

Thank you, 

Paul