1934 Goudey Lou Gehrig SGC 98 on Sports Cards Plus

the 'stache · #1 08-01-2013, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

That 86 is an amazing card.

I'm not sure the lower right is a wrinkle. Maybe just a bit of a print flaw where something dragged across the sheet while wet? Wrinkles get hit a lot harder than 86, One of my cards with a bend, not even a wrinkle, and only visible at just the right angle got knocked down to 50. (despite the published standard allowing wrinkles all the way up to 70

)

There's also a slight difference in registration and a fisheye on the cheek. Hard to notice since it's in a complex area and not a dark color.

I'd still take the 86 over the 10, assuming I could ever afford either.
It's just that nice looking overall. I think it's one of the nicest Goudeys I've seen.

Steve B

Steve, good catch on the lower right "wrinkle". I'm looking at the cards on my laptop, not the usual flat screen I have for my desktop. After looking at it a second time, I think you're absolutely right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Bill- I slightly disagree with you on the coloration of Gehrig's face on the 10. I honestly think that is one of the reasons the card got the grade. It almost looks too good (deep color saturation) if you know what I mean....Corner wise, there is not 2 and a half grade difference between the two, but I do see some other areas that account for the grade difference.

Kevin, your eye is certainly better than mine. I can see what you're referring to with the corners. I also missed a slight blue "smudge" in the white border on the right side. As to the coloring, I might just look at some other examples of the card.

They're both incredible though.

CMIZ5290 · #2 08-01-2013, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Steve, good catch on the lower right "wrinkle". I'm looking at the cards on my laptop, not the usual flat screen I have for my desktop. After looking at it a second time, I think you're absolutely right.

Kevin, your eye is certainly better than mine. I can see what you're referring to with the corners. I also missed a slight blue "smudge" in the white border on the right side. As to the coloring, I might just look at some other examples of the card.

They're both incredible though.

Looks like a wrinkle to me as well....Surprised they would still give it a grade of 86...

Peter_Spaeth · #3 08-01-2013, 07:04 PM

Color saturation can also look very different depending on scan settings.

wonkaticket · #4 08-01-2013, 07:15 PM

There is no wrinkle on the card; there are no hidden flaws. The card is accurately graded and could go either way half a grade. The point of showing the card was not to have the card �re-graded� from cyberspace or to beat up on SGC.

The whole point was to say that for me as a collector the price difference between strong NM card and Gem cards is a tough pill to swallow. Even if one had unlimited funds I think the value proposition short of bragging rights is very slim between many cards.I also think the grading science becomes even less of a science and more personal preference, timing and dash of religion between many of these higher grades.

Cardboard Junkie · #5 08-01-2013, 07:26 PM

Please John, no religion. Your Gehrig is a stunning "pack fresh", (as they say) example.

Dave.

#6 08-02-2013, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

There is no wrinkle on the card; there are no hidden flaws. The card is accurately graded and could go either way half a grade. The point of showing the card was not to have the card �re-graded� from cyberspace or to beat up on SGC.

The whole point was to say that for me as a collector the price difference between strong NM card and Gem cards is a tough pill to swallow. Even if one had unlimited funds I think the value proposition short of bragging rights is very slim between many cards.I also think the grading science becomes even less of a science and more personal preference, timing and dash of religion between many of these higher grades.

No doubt. It's pretty much inconceivable to believe there's enough margin between the two cards, aesthetically speaking, to explain a 2.5 difference in technical grade and the cash that may/should or may/should not go along with it. To a lesser extent it reminds me of my 1951 Bowman Willie Mays in PSA 6 that is currently being offered for sale

Iron Horse · #7 08-02-2013, 12:40 AM

If indeed there is a wrinkle which i can not see, then i think based on their standard the card was over graded (ONLY if there is a wrinkle). The only way i can see the 7.5 is that they felt the card was a 9.5 and the wrinkle brought it down to a 7.5.
I do like the color on the 10 assuming it is not over saturated by the scan.
I would love to buy 7.5 cards that look like that any day of the week. Saves me $$$$ & the card looks just as good.
Buy the card and not the grade. That is my rule when purchasing cards.
Again, i am jealous and if you ever grow tired of the card drop me a line

wonkaticket · #8 08-02-2013, 12:54 AM

Ruben, will do.

Once again for all reading I can 100% assure everyone there is no wrinkle. Starting to feel like Schwarzenegger in Kindergarten Cop..."It's not a tumor!"

steve B · #9 08-02-2013, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

There is no wrinkle on the card; there are no hidden flaws. The card is accurately graded and could go either way half a grade. The point of showing the card was not to have the card �re-graded� from cyberspace or to beat up on SGC.

The whole point was to say that for me as a collector the price difference between strong NM card and Gem cards is a tough pill to swallow. Even if one had unlimited funds I think the value proposition short of bragging rights is very slim between many cards.I also think the grading science becomes even less of a science and more personal preference, timing and dash of religion between many of these higher grades.

I wasn't regrading, sorry if it seemed that way.

Your point is a good one. There are differences, but are those differences a nice cars worth, or assuming it gets crazy, a cheap house? I just don't see that.

Steve B

Peter_Spaeth · #10 08-02-2013, 09:52 AM

Back scan from the original auction -- the little mark on the right border doesn't appear to go through to the back.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WTT-1934 Goudey Gehrig BVG 1.5+ cash for your Ruth Goudey 144 or Sports King	frankh8147	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	02-08-2013 12:35 PM
WTB: 1934 Goudey Gehrig #37	Cooper1927	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	7	05-26-2012 09:19 PM
1934 Goudey Lou gehrig FS	vintagerookies51	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	3	08-29-2011 05:52 PM
1939 Playball Gehrig, 1934 Goudey Ruth, and other cards that never were	henson1855	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	28	06-20-2010 12:02 AM
WTB 1934 Goudey Gehrig #37	Chesbro41	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	01-13-2010 08:44 PM