 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
02-12-2016, 05:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Always looking for rare Tommy Bridges items. 
|
|
#2
02-12-2016, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#3
02-12-2016, 05:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
and i would expect if it had an "obo" that a side deal woulda been struck just as well, yet a whole lot simpler for a perspective buyer all while eliminating the "are you serious?" factor.
edit: and lest us not forget that we werent talking a strong asking price. we were talking $200K. Last edited by begsu1013; 02-12-2016 at 05:41 PM.
|
|
#4
02-12-2016, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have a few cards where the price it would take to get me to sell them would make many who 'sticker shop' ask if I was serious. I have a three of one card that looks like a six. I will price it like a 5.5 if I ever sell it. You can have your opinion of my price. But it is my price. If you cannot or will not pay it, just do not.
Last edited by MetsBaseball1973; 02-12-2016 at 05:45 PM.
|
|
#6
02-12-2016, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
and for the record, we do not know who or where that price was derived from.
just want to make that clear. but just because this thread doesn't have 500+ replies does not mean people are not conversing about this privately and asking whiskey tango foxtrot, i can assure you. if it didn't involve two guys from this board, people would be having an absolute field day with it publicly. Last edited by begsu1013; 02-12-2016 at 06:20 PM.
|
|
#7
02-12-2016, 06:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The card does look better than 7s that have sold for 200k+, and even some of the 8s that have been selling in the 500k range. I wouldn't be surprised if he got close to that, assuming he can find another collector like himself who doesn't mind paying well over "market value" for the excellent eye appeal of the card. Tough to gauge the added value of a card actually being displayed in a museum.
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others.
|
|
#8
02-12-2016, 06:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree. I will also say that famous Mick looks better than almost every six and most sevens I have seen. Centering is wowza rare. If mine, I price it like it looks instead of what the number is. I would also have to think what it would cost me to replace later with same quality. Sevens > 200k now.
|
|
#9
02-12-2016, 07:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
agreed about the museum part, but i don't think it significantly adds value.
i have to disagree about it looking better than the 7's/8's. maybe one outta that bunch. centering, registration and colors are, indeed, hard to beat but if someone is willing to spend 7/8 money, they will want one near that grade and w/ a pop that is significantly lower. they aren't gonna shell out that 7/8 money for a grade that is near half of that and a pop that is trumped by the number of higher vs lower. again, the card is gorgeous. the 4.5 does not fit and the eye appeal simply blows away the technical grade. no one is arguing that at all. a big question is why hasn't it been submitted for a review? and if it has, that would make me tend to believe that there might be a minute surface wrinkle/issue somewhere that may be barely noticeable in hand, let alone in a scan. a card that has an otherwise flawless appearance and just the hint of a wrinkle or crease is an auto 5. one w/ those corners, the only real flaw that can be seen via scan, would be designated a 4.5. that's the only conclusion that i can derive as to why it's unfairly slabbed that grade. if it hasn't been done so, i would send it in for a reholder, a definite review, and ask about slabbing the label "louisville slugger museum card" or something to that effect. send it off to pwcc and let the market determine it and hopefully get a good bidding war going. but that's me. Last edited by begsu1013; 02-13-2016 at 07:39 AM.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
