Yup. Even if the masses cool-off on green Cobb's, there will always be a huge demand for GORGEOUS green Cobbs.

As for the green Cobb being "readily available," I can tell you that 52 mantles are readily available, and they do pretty well regardless of condition. Guys overpay big time for well centered copies of lesser grades. T205 Cobbs are "readily available," but I can't find one that meets my parameters (which has more to do with eye appeal, than grade). I've seen a bunch of mid-grade t205s that don't do it for me. A type of card can be readily available, but a special example is not.

Wow I think ya might want to have someone read my posts to you and try to explain them to you. Both of my posts are referring to technical aspects of assessing a card's grade and the school of thought that is applied by the graders when doing so, which seems to have gone way over your head.

Overpay is the key word. I would guess that people who bought during the height of the mania will have a hard time getting back what they paid for some of those lesser grades.

Well thanks for your contribution. You could have saved some time and just posted psa's grading standards. If you are going to just parrot them, then you really contribute nothing to this conversation. A crease is a crease of course of course. Perhaps you can step out of that box where you live, and maybe do a bit of critical thinking. Maybe you can question why all creases should be treated the same, rather than just blindly accepting it. Perhaps, you can ask yourself why an ugly 5 is more valuable than a gorgeous 3. If the populations are about the same, there is nothing inherently more valuable about that 5. It's just a numeric grade which tells us the microscopic condition of cardboard. Nothing more. Grades provide WONDERFUL guidelines for us, but should not be the end all be all. That is enough critical thinking for you for today. You may go back into your box now.

What are you proposing Orlando? A grading scale based entirely on subjective eye appeal? If not, then any scale with "objective" standards is necessarily going to have some outliers where the card looks better than the technical grade, but so what?

Boy someone is very defensive:D. My initial post was to Barry but you decided to reply to me and in so doing completely twist my post due to some hang up of yours. Nice job! I get that you dig centered 1s with great eye appeal. Unlike all of your self-serving posts, none of mine were stating what my opinion or beliefs are about the eye appeal of cards or their value in the hobby. I am typing this slowly hoping that it sinks in. Must have been a rough week for you in court.

No peter, that would be madness, and inevitably lead to anarchy. I am proposing that we use the grades as guidelines, but not get so hung up on them when applying value. And I propose that a crease on the face be treated more harshly than an innocuous invisible crease. Same with paper loss.

This seems a straw man point. Nobody uses grades as the sole determinant of value, or suggested that. Certainly Greg did not, as I read it.

Self serving? I don't sell cards, and my only 1 is a pop 5 Cobb. And I "dig" all nice looking cards regardless of grade. I choose not to be a slave to societal norms and question things that don't make sense. Like how typing slowly can somehow express your position more clearly.

Or it is maybe THE PREMISE OF THIS ENTIRE THREAD.

Look at the whole picture
 

The market recognized that not all 3's are the same. The market took into account all facets of the card - the great centering, color, focus...and a minor technical flaw that makes the flip read "3". All things considered, the market priced the card high and possibly very correct when compared to an average "3".

I don't think so. Nobody said only the grade matters. But it matters some. It would be as foolish to think the grade is irrelevant, as to think it's the sole determinant. It's some combination of both in most cases except where it's a truly commodity card in which case the flip rules.

Hi Greg,
Thanks for your comments and I don't want to get in the middle of an argument here, but my feeling is grading is subjective and that there really aren't that many objective standards in the grading process. That's why I hate the numeric grades cards receive because it's pretending that there really is an objective and precise standard. That's why the same card can be resubmitted several times and get a different grade each time.

I think eye appeal is very important and should be part of the grading process. If a card is ugly for the grade, good chance it's overgraded. If it's "the best 3 I've ever seen", maybe it is in fact better than a 3. I'm just not a big fan of third party grading in its current form, and think it could be done a whole lot better. Not saying I have the answer to how it should be done, I'm just not a fan.

What does it take to become a grader at either SGC or PSA? I think I've read on a previous thread that PSA graders are allowed like 15 seconds to look at a card, to determine the grade. Maybe that applies in what kind of service the customer paid for or value of the card?

Grading changed the hobby, which has allowed for subjective opinions to be traded like commodities.

I would have loved to see a grading company back in the early 2000s, just grade the card saying it's either fake, altered, or genuine and un tampered with. In other words KIS (Keep It Simple).

Beautiful!
 

Sam,
Congratulations on landing a beautiful Cobb! I've always thought that whether you can easily afford a card like this, or you have scratched and scraped to earn extra spending money for a long time to purchase a card like this; as long as you are happy with it, then its a good buy no matter what happens in the market place.:D
Happy Collecting Everyone!
Tim Kindler

I bought a heavily creased red background T206 Ty Cobb back in 2002 or there abouts for $350 off Ebay and sold it a year later for $325. I didnt really buy many cards or really keep up with the hobby for a few years. During that time, I regretted selling the card and decided a couple years ago to buy another. I was surprised when I started looking around how much the prices had gone up. I found one a couple months ago with a small chuck missing and a little paper loss on the back for $400 which I bought. I actually like it better than my first Cobb. Could I have gotten one similar cheaper? In other words, did I over pay? I have no idea, and I don't care. I am really happy with it. That's is what is most important to me.

I think SOME people do, cuz we've seen examples of the SAME card magically reholdered in a slab with a higher grade and it sells at an AH for many multiples of the original sale price. The registry sometimes drives blind love for the grade on the flip regardless of what is inside the plastic.

That is a beautiful card. If I had the disposable income, I would have happily paid that much for that particular Cobb. Congrats! I'm envious.

+1. Congrats on the very pretty Cobb, Sam. Part of a great collection you have. We buy our cards for our enjoyment with our own money, not so some stranger on the internet can tell us if they think we made a wise investment, or not.

+2

Congrats Sam on the awesome pickup!!! The card is amaaaaaaazzzzzzzing!!!!

I overpay occasionally but my time, the right card and paying using interest free terms or cash is my rationale.

I am not implying any here does this, but I know it happens. A guy argues and negotiates or spends countless hours to try and find his bargain. Then plunks down his MasterCard and pays 10-20% interest making minimum payments. That mentality makes buyers premium sound cheap as well as the countless hours of TIME scouring for that specimen priced slightly below what someone else paid. I could not care what someone else pays or paid for an item. My buying decision is solely based upon its value to me. If I make a few bucks down the road, great. But that is not my driver for my buying decision.

I made a living selling cards all through the 80's, not interested in doing that again. Was a great experience but my return to collecting 3 or 4 years ago was to seek things I like. Nothing more. Nothing less. My collection has morphed a little in the past 90 days or so and instead of chasing a smorgasbord of everything, I have mostly pursued 19th century boxing, baseball and non sport. I sold most of the 50's and 60's baseball I had amassed over the last few years to help finance it. Got a financial ass licking on a couple things. Made a few bucks on some others. When it's all said and done probably a net sum zero. Anyway, that's my .02

Absolutely beautiful card, and a great example of buying the card and not the holder. Great purchase, Sam! Collectors and the market are indeed maturing!

May your collecting persevere in the face of adversity and bring you happiness,

Larry

+1.

Best wishes,

Larry

You got that right, Jay. The 1907 Dietsche Fielding Pose Cobb and the 1907 Wolverine News Cobb Portrait are centerpieces of my collection.

Highest regards,

Larry

You know I'm right there with you on that, Orly. Cobb will always be one of the game's greatest icons!

Highest regards always,

Larry

+10,000 on that too!

Best wishes,

Larry

Grades do matter, but we had this discussion years ago on a thread I started: eye appeal can and often does trump technical grade, unless the "collector" is really buying plastic slabs with a certain flip inside.

Best wishes, Pete,

Larry

+1 on the '52 Mantles, although I think "readily available" is an enormous understatement. It appears that there is an endless stream of them. And take note as to the large number appearing in the newer PSA holders--lots of ungraded specimens in old-time collections finding their way to market when the prices are just too good to be true for lower grade copies??? In the '90's, one author estimated that 15,000 examples existed--he may well have been off by a factor of 2 or three!

But may your collecting always bring you joy,

Larry

What did the Dietsche Cobb Fielding and Cobb Batting end up at in the Heritage Auction? I find the website difficult to navigate.

I am glad I picked up my Cobb Fielding a few years ago from Jeff Lichtman when he upgraded his copy.

fielding $5520

batting $4080

Any chance of the not so popular Sweet Caporal Domino Disc PX7 to have a chance like the cards and post cards so see an increase

dare to dream!!!:p

A sarcastic way of saying In your dreams

Interpret as u wish!!!!! Rising tides tend to benefit all cards of a given player...look at ruth...but coins and pins...i have no idea...not my thing!!!

I disagree. The problem with the single number is people paying the same for all PSA 3 Cobbs, which here our buyer obviously did not do. The purpose of TPG, particularly in the internet age -- and with Heritage's super-bright scans, which the buyer here acknowledged above -- is to show the hidden flaws. That card would've been sold as EX-MT 25-30 years ago. Not today.

As I've said before here, grading is a pyramid. At the top, you have the 10s. 10 means perfection and thus all 10s will be identical. As you go down the pyramid, grades are set for a variety of reasons -- 9s almost all look the same, but 3s, 2s and 1s have a huge number of potential flaws, including paper loss on reverse, creasing, corner wear, etc. What makes a card a PSA 2 could be a variety of factors that tell you nothing about the eye appeal of the card without looking at it.

Professional grading is not designed to reflect eye appeal. It is designed to point out flaws, often hard to see or hidden, in a piece of card board. When you see a clean-looking SGC 30, you actually know there are a lot of hard to see flaws. When you see a badgered up SGC 30, what you see is what you get. But not all SGC 30s will look alike -- in fact, at that level of the "pyramid" you will have a lot of different looking cards.

This becomes problematic when sellers try to sell a PSA 2 for what a previous PSA 2 sold for. Without comparing both cards, going by the number alone gets you nowhere because what you don't know about the previous card is whether the damage was similar or whether the eye-appeal was comparable. Sometimes you can get a pretty good deal on a nice looking 2 when a seller is willing to use a previous ugly 2 as a comparable. This is why they say, "Buy the card, not the holder." Which is exactly what our buyer did this time -- kudos to an intelligent market decision!

right when you get down to cards with flaws.....i call it the 'authentic' principle...

not all authentics are alike..some can go for 2x and 3x mroe than the next..same with PSA 1s......and now people are starting to see it on the less flawed but still flawed cards in the psa 2-3 range....... huge spectrums on that range that can overlap the next or even next 2 grade ranges..... plus centered cards almost have their own range and not limited to the VCP range....needs to be a 'centered VCP" site..

But isn't eye appeal a big part of being exceptional for the grade and worthy of the half point bump? At a minimum, this card should have been a 3.5. It is better than any 3 Green Cobb that I have seen. It is better than the last 2 4s that sold and why it sold for more than those cards. I think the buyer has a 4.5 in a 3 holder and someone with pull will get it in a 4.5 holder one day.

I would think Heritage has pull, and would have tried to upgrade it if it had a shot.

" grading is not designed to reflect eye appeal. It is designed to point out flaws, often hard to see or hidden, in a piece of card board."

That is a very fair point. My modest proposal was not meant to imply that card with a hidden crease that looks gorgeous should rocket to a 7 due to eye appeal. I only suggest that grading companies shouldn't robotically treat all flaws the same. A more prominent crease is a more eggregious flaw than a hidden crease. Paper loss on an innocuous part of the card (i.e. On the back corners) is less eggregious than paper loss on the front where the image is affected. This isn't subjective. On a technical level as well as on visual appeal, this is the case. If a crease is more prominent than another crease, it is obviously a greater flaw and should be treated as such. Is it really that crazy to propose that some flaws are worse than others? The idea that "a crease is a crease is a crease" seems to me to lack any sort of nuance or common sense, and it leads to painfully disparate results in the lower grades. And this is just comparing a crease to a crease. What about when 1 hidden flaw = 4 rounded corners? We see that all the time. The tpg has hit a hidden flaw so hard that it puts it in the same grade scale as other far more eggregious and obvious flaws. I just think that the SEVERITY of the flaw needs to be weighed, and not just robotically give the same weight to all flaws equally. It will never happen, but that is all I am saying. Compare the cards below. Never mind eye appeal. Can you seriously tell me theses cards are technically equal?

I think that's rather the point. PSA's explanation of their half-grades seems to defy what happened here.

No chance. Maybe a tiny increase but nothing crazy like the T206s and the PCs.

Hi Barry,

I am not sure why the op decided to start an argument with me. I was not giving my opinion on whether the grading standards were right or wrong. Only trying to suggest that most times a card has a technical flaw that renders a grade much lower than the card would appear and upon examination in hand based on current grading standards, the grade would be justifiable.

Eye appeal should play apart in a grade but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the grading process is supposed to be an objective process following certain guidelines but at the end of the day we have people making these calls. The market has always been sophisticated and compensates where the grading process has "failed". A nice 4 might sell for more than an average 6. I see it all the time and support that market as both a buyer and a seller.

Greg

The question proves my point. I don't need PSA to tell me that the middle one has better eye appeal. I need PSA to tell me that the scan doesn't tell the whole story: the middle one has a crease or paper loss on reverse -- which I am certain it does -- and which will always keep it below a 4.

Copied from PSA website.



The Importance of Eye Appeal and Subjectivity in Grading


Over the years, more and more collectors have come to understand the basic guidelines behind PSA grading. After grading for well over a decade, PSA grading standards have truly become the official standard for the most valuable cards in the hobby. That being said, there are a host of grading questions that arise and the one basic question that comes up the most has to do with eye appeal and centering.

While it's true that a large part of grading is objective (locating print defects, staining, surface wrinkles, measuring centering, etc.), the other component of grading is somewhat subjective. The best way to define the subjective element is to do so by posing a question: What will the market accept for this particular issue?

Again, the vast majority of grading is applied with a basic, objective standard but no one can ignore the small (yet sometimes significant) subjective element. This issue will usually arise when centering and/or eye appeal are in question. For example, while most cards fall clearly within the centering guidelines for a particular grade, some cards fall either just within or just outside the printed centering standards. The key point to remember is that the graders reserve the right, based on the strength or weakness of the eye appeal, to make a judgment call on the grade of a particular card.

What does this mean exactly?

Well, take this example. Let's say you have a 1955 Topps Sandy Koufax rookie card that is right on the edge of the acceptable guidelines for centering in a particular grade. The 1955 Koufax card has a yellow background that tends to blend with the border of the card. In other words, the contrast isn't great, so poor centering may not be much of an eyesore – the borders are not clearly defined. In this case, if the card exhibits extremely strong characteristics in other areas (color, corners, etc.), an exception may be made to allow an otherwise slightly off-center card to fall within an unqualified grade (no OC qualifier). This is a rare occurrence but it does happen.

On the other hand, there are cards that technically fall within the printed PSA Grading Standards that may be prevented from reaching a particular unqualified grade because the eye appeal becomes an issue. For example, a 1957 Topps Sandy Koufax card has great contrast between the white borders and the picture because the background is very dark. It is possible that a 1957 Topps Sandy Koufax, one that technically measures for a particular grade – let's say 70/30, may be prevented from reaching that unqualified grade because the market would view that card as off-center – based on eye appeal issues. Again, this is a rare occurrence but it does happen from time to time when a judgment call has to be made on a card that pushes the limits for centering.

In conclusion, the issues discussed do not apply to the vast majority of cards that filter through the PSA grading process each day but this is an issue that needed some clarification in the marketplace. The bottom line is that there are times when a PSA grader must make a call on a card that falls on the line between two grades and that final determination is made based on experience, eye appeal and market acceptability.

Jeff, here are the final prices on the two cards. I disagree with you on the HA website. Once you get the hang of it, you will see navigating is pretty easy on it. Now, if you want to see a hard website to navigate through, then go to www.huntauctions.com and enjoy.

Jake, you are correct that not all authentics are alike. Eye appeal has a tremendous affect on buyers. Final hammer price was 33k on REA.

Pins, buttons, and Disc are all nitche items which will slowly gain popularity. Very undervalued over the years and as collectors are looking for items they don't have of a key player (like Cobb), they will start collecting these kind of items which will make them more mainstream. We saw this happen with the postcard market over the last 15 years.

There is a great book by Muchinsky "Baseball Pinback Buttons". The book doesn't show everything out there, but it's a great reference guide to educate collectors who want to start collecting these kind of collectibles.

Part of the problem with grading is that some cards are undergraded and some are overgraded. Not all grading is accurate.

If someone with better skills than me could post images of the two 1951 Bowman Mantles just sold in Heritage, it would be useful.

The one graded by PSA was poorly centered and out of register. Given those two crucial flaws, it never should have been graded higher than VG 3.

And the SGC example was as nice a VG-Ex as you could possibly hope for, with near perfect centering, very strong corners, and deep rich colors. It had two tiny gum stains on the reverse. At minimum, it was a very strong VG-Ex and should have easily qualified for the 4.5 grade.

So the latter was easily a grade and a half better than the former, which the market perfectly recognized. Had each been accurately graded, the cards wouldn't even be worth discussing.

I can live with grading disparities. What is far more troubling is the number of doctored cards in holders. FAR more troubling.