Restored Honus Wagner at SCP Auctions

[Leon]

Originally Posted by brob28

Agreed, no way that is a 7 in my mind.

That is one of the worst looking Goudey Ruth 144s I have seen. And after juice it's already over 30k? Maybe it's a registry thing because I wouldn't pay 5k for it unless it was to flip. I couldn't own it and look at it everyday. My last one wasn't quite up to snuff so I upgraded and it looked tons better than this 7, it was a 4. That is one ugly card to me. From their write up-

" GEM MINT reverse and pin point sharp corners give this example a 9/10 in the eye appeal department in our view."

Whomever "our" is certainly isn't a collector. Because of the sharp corners and great looking back I would give it a 2, at best.


As for the Wagner. Ugh..... what the heck? I agree they should return the make up they put on him. I honestly think I liked it better unrestored. It looks fake now.,
.

[SteveS]

I am convinced that other than true, diehard collectors, people are buying the holder and not the card. I absolutely believe that if PSA were ever to do an April Fool's joke and issue an empty holder with a flip that says, "T206 Honus Wagner Invisible Gem-Mt 10," there would be a bidding frenzy on it.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by SteveS

I am convinced that other than true, diehard collectors, people are buying the holder and not the card. I absolutely believe that if PSA were ever to do an April Fool's joke and issue an empty holder with a flip that says, "T206 Honus Wagner Invisible Gem-Mt 10," there would be a bidding frenzy on it.

Congratulations! You have just described an NFT.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Congratulations! You have just described an NFT.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by Leon

That is one of the worst looking Goudey Ruth 144s I have seen. And after juice it's already over 30k? Maybe it's a registry thing because I wouldn't pay 5k for it unless it was to flip. I couldn't own it and look at it everyday. My last one wasn't quite up to snuff so I upgraded and it looked tons better than this 7, it was a 4. That is one ugly card to me. From their write up-

" GEM MINT reverse and pin point sharp corners give this example a 9/10 in the eye appeal department in our view."

Whomever "our" is certainly isn't a collector. Because of the sharp corners and great looking back I would give it a 2, at best.


As for the Wagner. Ugh..... what the heck? I agree they should return the make up they put on him. I honestly think I liked it better unrestored. It looks fake now.,
.

Totally agree Leon. Fading is just not a priority for the TPG's in my experience. Having recently put together my '33 Goudey set, and having vivid colors near or at the top of my personal list of what's important to me on that set, I found that grades were mostly independent of fading/color saturation/whatever you care to call it. It bothers me much more than rounded corners, and presented a significant challenge to me as I built my set.

Good excuse for me to show off my #144 SGC 2 once again. I challenge the 7, stamp and all!

[brob28]

Originally Posted by chadeast

Totally agree Leon. Fading is just not a priority for the TPG's in my experience. Having recently put together my '33 Goudey set, and having vivid colors near or at the top of my personal list of what's important to me on that set, I found that grades were mostly independent of fading/color saturation/whatever you care to call it. It bothers me much more than rounded corners, and presented a significant challenge to me as I built my set.

Good excuse for me to show off my #144 SGC 2 once again. I challenge the 7, stamp and all!

I can't agree more Chad, I'd take your 2 over that "7" anyday, BTW, nice card!

[JustinD]

As long as it's clearly labeled as restored, I don't have a problem in the world with it. However, I admit I collect "Authentic" cards with no qualms.

Actually interested in the final hammer on this as it will be telling on the overall temperature of collectors on the owners choice to have it worked on.