Were they these ones?
3 Likes
Yep!
1 Like
Iâm gonna say itâs on the buyer.
They are the ones fuelling this market without doing any due diligence. If the card is worth nothing, which, why should it be, itâs damaged already, then itâs their loss.
If no one bought these cards, then they wouldnât be submitted.
As for the grading companies, their whole practice is unprofessional and arbitrary to begin with, so this is just more of the same.
2 Likes
I almost won this Ariga auto few months back when it was auctioned off Goldin. I had the same concern on the missing personalisation which could be a plus to most buyers but a red flag for me.
Bullet doggedâŠ
1 Like
This thread is valuable for the future perception of autographed cards in the community. @fourthstartcg highlights the importance of company standards and expectations surrounding auto grading. To my current understanding, grading companies have been consistent with their grading of autos: for the auto grade, they only review the autograph; for the card grade, they review the condition of the card while excluding any ink markings on the card that may have been attributed by the signing of the card. Technically, wiping of these additional ink markings such as personalization would be captured in the card grade. If the wiping of the ink was done poorly, then the condition of the surface would be reflected in the grade; however, if the wiping was so proficiently managed such that the graders could not tell the difference, then the ink removal would be no different than someone cleaning dirt off the card before submitting the card. Conversely, based on the current grading standards, inking a card after receiving an auto will not impact the card grade because it is not within their scope of review.
The above observation leads into my question - what are the expectations from the community regarding the auto market today? Should their be a tiered definition of âauthenticity?â Should only the autograph matter even if there are additional designs and sketches provided by the artist? If the community collectively agrees that a sketch with an auto is more âvaluableâ or meaningful than the auto alone, should the sketch not be authenticated as well?
When grading autos became more popular a few years ago, there was an E4 thread debating on whether the card grade should even be able to receive a 10 even if there are ink markings from the artist, which inadvertently âaltersâ the card. After learning more about the auto community, gaining a deeper appreciation for the nuances of the signing process, and understanding the standards of grading companies, I have come to acknowledge that a card can still receive a 10 if the standards are adjusted to exclude ink markings; however, this exclusion in the card grade implies that the ink has to be authenticated as part of the auto. Currently, grading companies are excluding the additional ink in both categories, which is absolutely perplexing to me. I understand that the mission of any successful company is to streamline their processes while providing value to their consumers, but this complete disregard of the additional markings on the card significantly reduces the value of this grading service, especially as more and more people are exploiting this aspect.
I believe the grading companies need a complete overhaul of their authentication standards to include both the auto and the additional ink markings that are on the card. The subsequent changes to their review processes will be significantly more laborious than their current process, but the value their current grading services provide are incredibly limiting (and as mentioned in other threads, the most rudimentary value of this service has been raising concerns due to incompetence). Otherwise, the altered ink marks need to be reflected in the card grade.
cpbog1
2 Likes
Whatâs the TLDR, Jason 
6 Likes
From ChatGPT:
TL;DR: cpbog1 highlights discrepancies in grading standards for autographed cards. Current practice separates autograph and card grading, ignoring additional ink markings. Debate arises over whether these markings should affect card grade and if sketches alongside autographs should be authenticated. Proposal suggests grading companies update standards to include all ink markings, improving accuracy and value of grading service.
9 Likes
Nice, itâs a stunning card and top tier artwork. The auto and illustration make this a huge grail.
Frankly, I donât see the blowback here on BGS. Their job is to authenticate the signature and in this case the card too - which they did. PSA have been grading FAKE autos recently. I havent seen that from BGS in a long while.
The personalisation is not part of the signature. This is only a thing in PokĂ©mon. BGS are also not privy to Arigaâs personal contracts with TPC - maybe in this case he signed it without the personalisation privately? It isnât their job to know that.
There is a lot of chat about artists being âdisrespectedâ. Letâs be honest, if Ariga, Saitou and Harada were allowed to do as many events as Arita does - then they probably would. It is extremely lucrative for them.
Arita does these events from a business perspective (anyone who has actually met him at an event knows this, when he is signing it is work for him) and from what I can see, he cares less about the 2nd market stuff compared to other artists.
Profit is not the motivation for Ariga, Saitou, and Harada. It is not an issue of them being âallowedâ to do signings.
2 Likes
Are you sure about that?
All their Pokémon-based illustrations are IP-wise owned by TPC.
Saitou for example, at the event in December 23 in Orlando (?) was doing paid sketches but was unable to do Pokémon characters.
From what Iâve heard, Arita has a different deal.
I think they should be allowed to do as many signings as they wish. I would love to have more autographs from them.
At any rate, BGS did just fine. People like to get mad over anything.
I donât think you understood my post.
Of course Pokemon sets rules for signings. We know Pokemon requires personalizations and dates on all signed cards. That rule is how we know for certain that this BGS card was a wiped personalization. The date corresponds to the Overload signing in Hartford, where all cards had to be personalized to the personâs full name as confirmed by their ID.
However, these rules are not holding back artists from doing signings. The idea that Midori Harada would want to sign as many cards as possible for as much money as possible and is only being held back by Pokemon is laughable to anyone who has followed signatures. Itâs the artistsâ own choice to do signings or not. In the current environment, many are choosing to simply not sign rather than deal with the problems autograph âfansâ present.
1 Like
BGS recently slabbed a forged Naoki Saito card that was auctioned off on Pwcc.
In my opinion, they should be privy to this information. How can a company claim to be a leader in the hobby, PSA/BGS/CGC, but have no actual in house expert for Pokemon and be so unaware of current events.
This is information known by a large majority of hobby. So for them to be slabbing these cards, or at the bare minimum not catching the wiping, tells me they really really donât have anyone in there who knows what theyâre doing.
4 Likes
Again, the main issue I had and the motivation for commenting on the post was them tagging Ariga in an altered card. Also itâs just about transparency. If youâre going to advertise a card that is now for sale, potential buyers should know it has been altered and they can make up their own mind.
I was going to leave it with just a comment on Instagram a but my comment was silenced so I decided to use my own platform to say something. Now this is the third google result for âbgs pokemon signatureâ. If they donât care about grading an altered personalization, then why hide those comments?
Anyway, the primary discussion here is whether grading companies should slab autographs if they have knowledge or reason to believe that it was altered? I actually lean towards âyesâ. I would love if the grading companies would clarify their own positions on this.
2 Likes
As someone who knows and cares very little about signatures, Iâm curious how could a grading company know if a signature had its date and personalization wiped or if it was just signed before those rules were in place? Was signature dating always a rule
1 Like
Well I am not surprised, none of them are perfect and buying autos is always a risk.
I was mainly speaking about this issue OP raised with the personalisation being removed.
I did understand your post, but perhaps I went off on a tangent. As I said, I donât think BGS did anything wrong here. They validated the auto, the personalisation is not (arguably) part of that.
The criticism should be directed on the part of the personalisation wiper!
Having someone who is even remotely aware of the hobby and current events within the hobby, is the easiest way to catch this.
Thereâs almost always some sort of indication that a personalization was once there. I think itâs being missed by a company like BGS. An in house expert would at the bare minimum know to look a bit closer at the card for that, rather than ONLY authenticating the autograph.
5 Likes