Holy Cracker Jack !!
 

https://www.fanaticscollect.com/prem...-103-psa-15-fr

150k USD for a PSA 1.5 ?? This has gotta' be a record !

All the record prices happened during the pandemic and so it's crazy to see something like this happening today.

And I just love what they did here:

As World War I started, baseball’s popularity continued to grow from city to city. Hitters like Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, and Joe Jackson posted record-setting numbers despite playing in the dead-ball era.

They're trying to put him on the same level as Cobb and Wagner - ha !! He was good, but not THAT good! :rolleyes:

How on earth is this card a 1.5?

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...9b9deca2ba.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...87c95c1fca.jpg

Gorgeous card and "comps" are only part of the equation nowadays



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

There appears to be a horizontal wrinkle at the top of the card just above the 'Cracker Jack'. Perhaps this was enough to lower the boom on the grade for this boomtastic card.

Brian

Looks nicer than many high grade Jackson CJ's.

100%. The eye appeal is off the charts. It used to be in a SGC 2.5 slab also. I don't think the PSA grade of Fair / 1.5 is accurate. Looks like a true Good / 2 or 2.5 even with the upper crease.

The card may not look like that in hand. People just assume it will, but ain't necessarily so. Scans, especially at the settings auction houses use, can mask defects. Not saying it's intentional.

I don't think that's a crease. Looks to be some missing red ink during printing process. I think someone found other JJ's with similar marks. Either way, PSA has thoroughly screwed CJ grading from past grades to today's. It's completely F'd comps. This card would have received an easy 5+ if graded 10 years ago (hence price paid).

Good call AJ. I was wondering the same based on my recent research, There are other 1914 CJ SJJ cards w/ this. i do think SGC was closer to the true grade (2.5) than PSA (1.5). Jeremy will know once the card is in hand.

We won't ever know how he really compared to Cobb. Based on what stats we have he was quite a bit off from Cobb, How he would have done in a few more prime years plus a few old man years we can't say. And really, who was comparable to Cobb?
He probably would have made it to 3000 hits. His batting average is only 10 points behind Cobb. Slugging and OPS are almost identical. Could he have made a transition from deadball hitting to the power game of the 20's? No way to tell, but 12 hr in 1920 while still batting .382 gives a fun hint.

His numbers as 163 game averages are better as a hitter than Wagner, certainly a function of him being banned in his prime. His power was better, but Wagner in his prime was a better hitter. one of those things that can be debated for a long time

For example look at this PSA 6. Notice similar red ink snail trail at top and check out those bottom two corners. Make it make sense how there's a 4.5 grade difference between these two cards?

No obvious flaws from the scan to justify the grade as the eye appeal is off the charts!

I would spend the money to have REA resubmit for the higher grade.
Great looking card!

A buddy won that. While I've not seen it, he said there is a slight wrinkle where some of you have identified.

I have some recently graded CJ that look near mint front and back but got 2's and a 2.5
I have scanned them in 1200dpi and looked them over with a magnifying glass and see no issues at all. Makes no sense.

Looks bleached

That's a bright scan, even the plastic looks bleached.

Not a wrinkle, just a PD that Ken Kendrick's PSA 8 has as well.

Card is just as nice in hand. There is a slight bend near the bottom left corner and a slight wrinkle that I can't always even find that is just to the left halfway up the bat to near the edge. Aside from the slightly rounded corners and those two flaws, I cannot find any others.

That said, I am sure there is something else wrong with it to justify the 1.5 by PSA and the 2.5 by SGC but I can't see them so the card presents like a 5+ to me and I'm extremely happy with the price I paid.

Hard to disagree with this.

Actually that is not where I said the slight wrinkle is Bob, but I certainly see how you'd assume that.

Basically my situation exactly with this card. I've examined it with a 30x loupe and no mas.

Yeah that's the image settings because in hand (I'm holding it right now) it is not that bright. Borders have beautiful natural toning.

By the way, here's a link to my thread with some of the cards I am selling to help pay for the card: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=361685

Given that Goldin sold an Authentic last night with a large chunk missing out of the bottom for 60K, I'd say this purchase looks quite good in comparison.

The same card sold in December in REA for $31,200.

Jeremy, you did very well with your purchase. Your timing pre-HOF news couldn’t have been better. Good luck with your sales.

Let’s hope this trend keeps up with the 1914 Cracker Jack Joe Jackson PSA 2
That is live in Goldin Vintage Auction

https://goldin.co/item/1914-cracker-...-sgc-gd-2r7c2p

And am praying for that trend

To be transparent it is my card

Holy Cracker Jack !!
 

A comparison across their first 13 seasons of their career via Stathead. Capped at 13 because Jackson.

You can run the query yourself here: https://stathead.com/tiny/F84rT

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...3f7f348128.jpg

Jeremy in da house congratulating you smart investment octavio

With the 1914 CJ Jackson at a Total PSA/SGC POP of only 73 due to the set’s distribution methodology, and considering the card’s aesthetics and future prospect of Jackson’s HOF induction, this one is certainly a cornerstone collection piece. I think we’ll look back on it in 5 years after perhaps double digit appreciation like 52 Topps Mantles and say, ‘If I only bought one then…’

considering the likely high # of crack and resubs for jackson, i would guesstimate the total graded pop is closer to 50-55. i'm using the Branch Rickey and Rabbit M. total pops as a baseline.

I was referring to the PSA 6 example above. :)

But I am really curious - what was going through your mind when you decided to spend an enormous sum of money on a 1.5? Is this something that you're gonna' crack out and have re-graded? Are you gonna' leave it like that because you think 150k Usd for a 1.5 is a great investment? In other words, do you think that low-grade examples will someday be selling for a quarter or even half a million dollars US ? Or you don't care about the money and investing part and just bought it because it looks nice ?

Looks more like FOMO to me, but what do I know ??

It's a 1.5 that presents like a nice 5. At least if the pics aren't doctored. This is the kind of thing with grading that just makes me shake my head. If I have a 1.5 or 2 in my collection, you can bet that there will be noticeable creases that break the surface, etc. - but yet this card barely appears to have a scratch.

The perpetual subjectivity tied to all grading doesn't seem something to bet on faltering anytime soon.

psa forgot how to grade vintage after the collector's acquisition. current psa executes aren't a fan of vintage either (maybe because of the payouts).

sgc graded it a 2.5. then it was crossed over to psa in late 2022.

this cj 14 jackson is not even close to being a 1.5 / fair card. psa standards (which their graders ignore themselves in my experience) allow 4s and 3s to have creases while factoring in other condition aspects.

jeremy has the card in-hand and can chime in. his card is handsome big boy card.

The 1.5 grade is laughable. PSA has become ridiculously and artificially tough on grades they give. There’s just not enough room between a beat up example (that I’d be happy to have) as a psa 1 and this card.

When it comes to a card like this, does it go to someone who might've just graded a bullshit shiny thing worth $.50, or does it go to a higher level based on its declared value? Are there tiers of expertise at all or is it one big pool of people making $15 an hour with the power to make million-dollar judgements?

looking at these stats it does make you think Jackson is overvalued and Speaker, Lajoie, and Collins are way undervalued.

The grade of a 1.5 on that 1914 Jackson is just pathetic. I don't care if it has a minute wrinkle or crease, it's a 2.5 to maybe a 3, all day long and 2x on Sunday! Great card.
.

i dont think it would be out of place in a psa7 holder. gorgeous card

If you don't know Jeremy Lee
 

He is one of the most prolific and best webcasters in the Sports Card Field.

In self serving pub, I was on with Jeremy a couple of months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btr_tBuOngE

I think you're forgetting though that essentially, those three are just PLAYERS, while Jackson is considered a LEGEND.

He has the mystique from the infamy of the 1919 World Series, he's prominently featured in a classic film many consider the greatest baseball movie of all-time, Cobb stated he was the greatest hitter in history, Ruth modeled his swing after Joe, and he has arguably one of the best nicknames in all of sports.

All of this must factor into his "value".

Appears to have been soaked. Beauty otherwise

I’ve been collecting ‘14 Cracker Jack now for 12 years. That particular Joe Jackson card might be the finest example in existence. Grade be damned.

I think PSA forgot how to grade Pre-War. I recently had 11 1914 CJs graded and all came back significantly lower than expected.

It’s POP control.


Geoff Bedine
Premier Card Collectors
Since 1977

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think PSA radically changed the way they grade CJ's as before they didn't downgrade cards for caramel stains. Nowadays they automatically downgrade by 2 grades anything with staining. This combined with a tougher overall standard you can see older CJ's with 2-4 grades higher. I've seen hundreds of examples to base this opinion on.

P.S. Geoff if you want to get rid of any of your 14's let me know! :-)

They also need to do a better job differentiating 1914 and 1915 CJs as 14s were in package only and 15s could be acquired through redemption.

My hope is that they look at each card set in Vintage and look comparatively at the population.

Additionally, they should provide grading standards by set (CJs, T206, etc) so we know what to expect for each card we send.


Geoff Bedine
Premier Card Collectors
Since 1977

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I respectfully disagree. There should not be different standards for different sets. If that means that some sets simply do not have high grade examples, so be it. Cards shouldn’t be graded on a curve.

I hear you and appreciate the feedback, however, something should be done to even the playing field from older graded examples and newer graded cards where you have a 2-3 grade difference of a similar condition card. I see it every day. It makes it difficult to grade vintage when you try and rely on consistency from grading services.

Thanks my 2 cents.