What is the highest ever graded Old Judge card?

[Chuck9788]

I've been trying to research this answer. Does anyone know what was the highest ever numerical grade given to an Old Judge card? Thank you.

[cgjackson222]

According to this Heritage listing, there are 5 SGC 9s, and one is graded higher. Not sure what that one is.

According to the PSA pop report, there are seven 9s, which is the highest grade: https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...ld-judge/42210

[raulus]

Can't speak to the other TPGs, but here's what PSA has to say about the N172s. 7 of them have graded at PSA 9.

[BobC]

Per the SGC pop reports, they've graded five SGC 9's, and one single SGC 10 card of Charles Alcott. I don't know how you compare SGC to PSA in the grading of OJ cards, but based on this, unless there's a PSA 10 out there somewhere, it would seem to me that this Charles Alcott SGC 10 card should rank as the highest graded OJ ever, at least for now. Would like to actually see the card in person to verify that it deserves this grade though.

[G1911]

I'm going to doubt the top POP's really meet the criteria and would help to be that condition by reasonable hobbyists if cracked out.

Here's one of the PSA 9's.

[canjond]

The one pulled from the pack was an SGC 98, right?

[ricktmd]

I used to own this card. I know it's not the highest but a high-grade Old Judge and worth showing.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm going to doubt the top POP's really meet the criteria and would help to be that condition by reasonable hobbyists if cracked out.

Here's one of the PSA 9's.

This would be a 4 at best today lol

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by BobC

Per the SGC pop reports, they've graded five SGC 9's, and one single SGC 10 card of Charles Alcott. I don't know how you compare SGC to PSA in the grading of OJ cards, but based on this, unless there's a PSA 10 out there somewhere, it would seem to me that this Charles Alcott SGC 10 card should rank as the highest graded OJ ever, at least for now. Would like to actually see the card in person to verify that it deserves this grade though.

I've seen the Alcott card, it's incredible looking. If I remember correctly, it was pulled from a pack, then right to the grader. I thought about purchasing it at one point. The asking price was basically all of the money I had. I sold an old car, so money was just burning a hole in my pocket. Alcott was also high on my OJ wantlist because he's the only Mansfield player in the set. More of his cards show him with St Louis.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This would be a 4 at best today lol

Do they use entirely different criteria for grading Old Judges because, yeah, that looks like about a 4 or 5 to me.

[oldjudge]

I think the Alcott was one of the most overgraded cards ever. It was pulled directly from a pack by Alan Rosen, I believe, but it was heavily stained on the back from the cigarettes. Technical grade should have been a lot lower in my opinion.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I think the Alcott was one of the most overgraded cards ever. It was pulled directly from a pack by Alan Rosen, I believe, but it was heavily stained on the back from the cigarettes. Technical grade should have been a lot lower in my opinion.

And exactly why I said I'd like to actually see the card in person to determine if it deserved the grade given to it. I'd take Jay's opinion on the condition of an OJ card over any TPG grader, period!

But if you're talking just pure highest TPG graded OJ ever, it seems that this SGC 10 Alcott card is the highest graded one out there, which appears to answer the question the OP was asking.

[Fred]

I've got a few SGC 10 graded OJs... oh, that's when 10 really meant 1.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I think the Alcott was one of the most overgraded cards ever. It was pulled directly from a pack by Alan Rosen, I believe, but it was heavily stained on the back from the cigarettes. Technical grade should have been a lot lower in my opinion.

This could definitely be true. I only saw the front I believe, which was incredible looking. I doubt if I saw the back looking as bad as you describe, I would have been interested at all in it. I probably saw it in 2002, so it's been a while. I know someone bought it not long after I saw it too, because I wrote asking about it and it was gone. I could be wrong, but I believe BMW Cards had it when I saw it.

[G1911]

Anyone have the pics?

[Lorewalker]

Apparently not the highest graded OJ but a key from the set, https://goldinauctions.com/1887_N172...-LOT86957.aspx

[Fred]

alcott hands on hips Mansfield SGC98.jpg

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Apparently not the highest graded OJ but a key from the set, https://goldinauctions.com/1887_N172...-LOT86957.aspx

This one at least looks better than the other PSA 9 shown in this thread.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Fred

Attachment 568001

Thank you!

[Lorewalker]

And one more...

https://postimg.cc/GTL1w4sX

[Misunderestimated]

SGC's grading back in the early days was much more forgiving that it has been the past 10+ years.

I think that they (tacitly) considered the set/issue and curbed the grading standards accordingly. PSA not so much but certainly a little.
At one point I had an SGC 98 T202 -- I'm not sure that it would get a PSA 8 (or an SGC 8) now.

As to Old Judge cards I think that the TPGs don't consider the strength of the image -- so there are some rather obscured N172s with high grades and some beautiful ones with low grades based on the back of the card. As a middling Old Judge collector for 25+ years I've always cared much more about the image than the back. Same with Mayo's where the slightest absence of black on the reverse is nearly fatal to the grade of an otherwise beautiful front image.

I have a high PSA grade (7) Old Judge that has a pink front. It used to be that the pink was a big problem for Old Judge collectors -- I don't think the TPGs considered it one way or the other.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

SGC's grading back in the early days was much more forgiving that it has been the past 10+ years.

I think that they (tacitly) considered the set/issue and curbed the grading standards accordingly. PSA not so much but certainly a little.

I think SGC is worse today than in the past when it comes to grading OJs. I've received OJs graded by SGC with the new holder and label that I'm almost certain have alterations (reback or trim).

I have a couple PSA graded OJs that have been assigned numerical grades even though the Goodwin ad at the bottom has been trimmed off.

The only thing SGC is doing good with OJs is that they are putting the pose number on the flip. Other than that, I think they're grading of OJs has not improved at all, and neither has PSA.

None of the TPGs seems to have a clue about grading OJs, let alone anything else. Aren't the TPGs supposed to KNOW how to DETECT alterations to provide hobbyist with a subjective opinion that is supposed to protect the collector. Well, the do a shittttty job of it. TPG subjectivity is horrible and collectors are a bunch plastic addicted junkies that can't get enough of being screwed over.

Someone please pull the soap box from beneath my feet so the TPG noose can do it's job.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Fred

I think SGC is worse today than in the past when it comes to grading OJs. I've received OJs graded by SGC with the new holder and label that I'm almost certain have alterations (reback or trim).

I have a couple PSA graded OJs that have been assigned numerical grades even though the Goodwin ad at the bottom has been trimmed off.

The only thing SGC is doing good with OJs is that they are putting the pose number on the flip. Other than that, I think they're grading of OJs has not improved at all, and neither has PSA.

None of the TPGs seems to have a clue about grading OJs, let alone anything else. Aren't the TPGs supposed to KNOW how to DETECT alterations to provide hobbyist with a subjective opinion that is supposed to protect the collector. Well, the do a shittttty job of it. TPG subjectivity is horrible and collectors are a bunch plastic addicted junkies that can't get enough of being screwed over.

Someone please pull the soap box from beneath my feet so the TPG noose can do it's job.

Good points!

There are certain cards/sets that is seems useless to ever have graded, for one reason or another. S74 silks are one such set, and I would argue that OJ cards belong in that same group. Seems the TPGs don't have very good, consistent standards to begin with, and in regard to certain cards/sets the need for authentication itself seems unnecessary. I've really not seen anyone able to create a really good fake or counterfeit S74 silk, or a fake OJ card. And for certain other sets it seems totally futile as well. Like with 1921 Herpolsheimer or 1904 Allegheny Card Co. cards. There's only one of each and every card in those sets that exist, so what difference would it make how they are graded, they are all 1 of 1's, and would be the highest graded of that player's card every time. And with OJs, the way that ALL the TPGs seem to totally ignore the condition/clarity of the photo images on them is just totally bizarre and senseless.

Experienced collectors of any such sets really don't need a TPG to tell them how nice their cards/items. And the same can probably be said for sets that are very rare to begin with. In truth, the better case/need for grading is more appropriate IMO for those sets where there are lots and lots of those particular cards out there, like with the T206 or Goudey sets. Not really as necessary, and maybe desirable as well, for the rarer, more obscure sets that exist.

[Leon]

OJ grading is a crapshoot. Serious OJ collectors (I dabble) aren't as worried about the number on the flip as they are the aesthetics of the card.

[Mozzie22]

What's the story on the pack pulled O.J? Love to hear the story behind it.