Fair enough, but I still think the market change is largely responsible for the price gap between these particular cards.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
i not daring anyone to buy anything....but talk is cheap and theres an awful lot of people saying what they would buy but not actually buying.....there are rare exceptions on every issue of course.... but easy to say and not actually buy. If something happens 9 out of 10 times in terms of price..id rather be on that side than the 1 out of 10 time if actually buying |
Yep. The .5 was the deal-breaker for me. Guilty as charged! Perry Mason strikes again.
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
I still think the exceptional centering and registration is the reason for the higher price on the Mantle not the timeframe of when it was sold.
The Mantle on the left sold for less than half the price at $104,000 on 5-1-16 while the one in question sold for $215,000 on 5-14-16 and I think this Mantle would bring a higher price than a lot PSA 7's in the same auction. Attachment 282164 |
Quote:
I will tell you this: if both those CJs were at auction TODAY (and mine magically lost it's immensely important half grade), not only would I pay more for the sgc, but I wouldn't even bid on the Psa. |
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
the colors have been enhanced but it still looks like better registration than the other example, The same card sold four months later in a Heritage auction for $89,625. Here are both of them with Heritage scans. Attachment 282167 |
Quote:
|
2 Attachment(s)
This should be a permanent sticky for anyone who doubts the power of scans and anyone glibly comparing cards based just on scans.
|
Peter, the AH scan is all anyone has to go off when they are bidding at auction. That cuts both ways on psa and sgc-graded cards. You bring up a very serious issue about AH's using questionable scans. The SGC 7 mantle looks almost too good to be true, and may well be a product of that practice. But this string began with two cards from the same auction taken presumably with the same scanner. The premise of the post was to compare two equally graded cards, one by sgc and one by psa, and ask if the holder is more valuable than the card even when the SGC is clearly a nicer card.
|
Quote:
More critical thinking needed. |
My world has been turned upside-down. I am now critically thinking. I must now make personal visits to all AHs and hold it in-hand before bidding on a card. I can no longer buy on eBay. I can't even admire nice cards anymore, and must assume that Battlefield is now the staff photographer at Heritage. I see the light now. I just wonder how this board can go on if we can't discuss images of cards.
|
There you go.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
As for the 52 Mantles in this discussion the improved color in the heritage scan may have played a role, but I believe the centering difference alone is enough to justify the difference in price. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
. |
Confession
I must admit that in my "Diminutive Surface Scuffing" thread that I did "doctor" the scans of the 55 Topps cards to make it easier for the naive among us to see the presumed defects. I suppose that some would argue that all my scans are "Doctored", but for the aforementioned thread I used SET (Scuff Enhancement Technology). So there :eek: , now I feel better. ;)
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
On the subject of 52T Mantle colors, what up with this one?
|
If that card weren't in a holder, I would bet a thousand bucks it is fake. But since it's in a bvg holder, I would only bet $500.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Sgc was behind by 50% yesterday, but just passed the PSA.
|
Quote:
|
I was joking Leon.
|
Quote:
|
The SGC card now leads by just over 15%. I'm thinking that'll hold, as long as we're making predictions.
|
Quote:
Brian (better late than Ernie Nevers) |
I join you all in asserting the superiority of the SGC 96 Jackie. I just cannot fathom why PSA would award a card with such a large, ugly fish-eye a MINT 9. They're totally wrong. At the very least, the label should have their qualifier for a print spot. Without taking another gander, even if the PSA Jackie has perfect centering, perfect print registry, strong color, and no other print spots, when I look at that card, my eyes go to "fish-eye" sore. The SGC 96 looks regal and presents perfectly.
Anyone bidding on the PSA crumb bum is obviously buying the holder, 'cause when the time comes and they open up their "new prized card", the fish-eye is gonna start winking at them with all its might. Regret is a powerful emotion, and they're going to get quite a dose of buyer's remorse. ---Brian Powell |
Quote:
|
Clarity isn't that good, light strike and an obvious print dot (defect) in the card but because the corners are sharp and borders are white it's still OK to slab it a 9. Grades of 9 and 10 should be for special cards that do not have any issues IMO. Will also add if any no named collector submitted that card it gets a 7 "SEVEN" all day long and they would be happy with it to being accurately graded.
Would love to know who the consignor was of the card? |
With a relatively major print flaw that detracts/distracts that much from the appearance, it should not be a 9. I wouldn't object to an 8, but still, that's not a 9. As a cynic, I too wonder who submitted it.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
WOW! The SGC example is over $91K while the PSA is at $39K.
|
The Jackie looks like it was graded many years ago by the serial number. Back then even with the print dot a 9 was not shocking and from the looks and Mike's description I would have probably expected a 9 from 1992-2007. And before people scream that the standards should not change I agree but all three have tightened up in one way or another over the years in my opinion.
|
Wow - strong sale on the JR SGC, but beautiful card...glad to see the market forces work as they should, someone buying the card, not the holder
I believe SGC has also graded two other high-end copies of the 1949 Bowman Jackie, one 98 and another 96. Curious what that SGC 98 might fetch. |
Jackie
A 1/8 inch piece of ink caused a $62,000 price difference! Amazing.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
There's plenty to choose from, but I like the 1947 D302 portrait.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think the question of which of Jackie's cards is his true RC is an intriguing question worthy of debate. There's been a ton of research that has taken place by board members discussing the issue and to me it's either the 1947 Bond Bread Robinson portrait (white border) with facsimile auto, which I think most agree was a promo card or the 1947 D302 Bond Bread with cropped corners. There's absolutely no question both of these (along with the white bordered 12-card Jackie set) pre-date both the 1948 Leaf (actually produced in 1949) and the 1949 Bowman, but I don't think a consensus has been reached to date regarding which was Jackie's absolute first card. Pretty amazing considering the player and his impact on modern day sports and civil rights, much less baseball.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:46 PM. |