1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth in Heritage

[gunboat82]

It still chaps my ass that SGC gave that a 3. If the grade doesn't matter, give it the 1 and call it a day. It's not worth the hit to their credibility to pretend that's a 3 on any planet.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

It still chaps my ass that SGC gave that a 3. If the grade doesn't matter, give it the 1 and call it a day. It's not worth the hit to their credibility to pretend that's a 3 on any planet.

Yes, a complete joke. None of us would ever get a "3" if we submitted that card. It's a "1" all day long, and they don't even have the excuse of it being in an older slab.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Yes, a complete joke. None of us would ever get a "3" if we submitted that card. It's a "1" all day long, and they don't even have the excuse of it being in an older slab.

I guess the slogan by AMEX was right. "Membership has it's privileges", at the end of the day. PSA has done the same thing on a few of the recently graded T206 Wagners but no card is more over graded than the T206 Wagner SGC 5, based on my recollection. I think there was a thread on here about it that I cannot find.

The importance of the card...or the person submitting it...should never compromise grading such as it does nor should the value or rarity of said card render the grade unimportant, however, being realistic, I get how this all works.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Yes, a complete joke. None of us would ever get a "3" if we submitted that card. It's a "1" all day long, and they don't even have the excuse of it being in an older slab.

Unless it was a reholder.

[Vintagedeputy]

Looks like a 2 to my eyes, but I’m certainly not a professional grader.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

It still chaps my ass that SGC gave that a 3. If the grade doesn't matter, give it the 1 and call it a day. It's not worth the hit to their credibility to pretend that's a 3 on any planet.

Nobody who buys opinions gives a shit about the "credibility" of who they buy their opinions from.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Nobody who buys opinions gives a shit about the "credibility" of who they buy their opinions from.

Most of those people don't care because they themselves lack the ability to assess a card themselves but you summed it up nicely.

[jchcollins]

PSA, especially a decade or more ago used to routinely overgrade some of the marquee T206 cards, IMO. Not sure if that has changed recently, but even for run of the mill tobacco cards - I've never understood why corners that would probably earn a 3 for postwar cards can somehow get 5's with cards that are more than 100 years old.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Most of those people don't care because they themselves lack the ability to assess a card themselves but you summed it up nicely.

There was recently a YouTube video made by an ostensibly large vintage dealer, complaining about the inconsistencies in PSA's grading and then doing an experiment in which "old" flip / slabs had the cards cracked out, and then the cards were resubmitted raw, where - predictably - they came back with mostly lower or at least inconsistent grades. But the dealer then ruined it by pointing out the flaws on those and other cards and then in attempting to explain why they should have graded higher or lower - within about 10 seconds proved painfully that he didn't have a clue what he was talking about in terms of how grading works.

This kind of thing always gives me stomach pain, because yes PSA DOES have legit issues with their grading scale and process. But now, a full generation plus into slabs and grading being a thing - there are so many in the hobby who have either forgotten or just no longer care how to grade themselves, that at times it seems we are just helpless to do anything about that which would frustrate us.

[rand1com]

3 is generous, 1 is harsh IMO.

Looks like what would generally be graded 1.5/2 even in today's environment IMO.

As others have stated, it will likely be a NO SALE due to a reserve not met.

Still a very cool rare card.

I would much rather have it over the Jordan/Kobe Logoman even at the same price provided I had $12 Mil to spend on either of them.

[brunswickreeves]

With new collector money in the market owning the most expensive modern card, maybe the Ruth seller is seeing if this vintage card could be new highest vintage card sold, and flip it for a $5MM profit…wouldn’t be a shabby ROI for 2 years. More than many will ever make in a lifetime.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

There was recently a YouTube video made by an ostensibly large vintage dealer, complaining about the inconsistencies in PSA's grading and then doing an experiment in which "old" flip / slabs had the cards cracked out, and then the cards were resubmitted raw, where - predictably - they came back with mostly lower or at least inconsistent grades. But the dealer then ruined it by pointing out the flaws on those and other cards and then in attempting to explain why they should have graded higher or lower - within about 10 seconds proved painfully that he didn't have a clue what he was talking about in terms of how grading works.

This kind of thing always gives me stomach pain, because yes PSA DOES have legit issues with their grading scale and process. But now, a full generation plus into slabs and grading being a thing - there are so many in the hobby who have either forgotten or just no longer care how to grade themselves, that at times it seems we are just helpless to do anything about that which would frustrate us.

PSA has moved the goal posts but so has SGC only to a lessor extent. I think with the advent of grading, a vast majority of collectors defer to the number on the label and never or no longer can assess a card's condition or make any determination as to whether the card in the holder has been altered. It only muddies the water when these two companies do favors for insiders and over grade their cards for whatever reason.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

PSA has moved the goal posts but so has SGC only to a lessor extent. I think with the advent of grading, a vast majority of collectors defer to the number on the label and never or no longer can assess a card's condition or make any determination as to whether the card in the holder has been altered. It only muddies the water when these two companies do favors for insiders and over grade their cards for whatever reason.

I know there were problems in the early 1990's which led many to think professional grading was a good thing, but remember in the 80's when price magazines came with "condition guides" and every book sold about cards had at least some section explaining how to grade cards? Yes, there were inconsistencies and people who didn't get it even back then, but the point was there was at least some attempt to get collectors on the same page as to how to assess a card's condition. Yes, it was rudimentary and far less refined than today's 10 point scale complete with half grades - but back in the day I bet you most collectors could differentiate a poor card from a VG card from a NM one. Today the nuances are completely out the window. If I had a dollar for every eBay seller or YouTube egghead I've run across who doesn't understand how to compute centering properly or, much less - doesn't understand centering scales and how they work with professional grades - well, then I'd have a lot more money to spend on my collection.

It's a shame we've thrown out the middle knowledge with the bathwater. People today seem to be either generally very competent with grading - or they know absolutely nothing about it and rely on PSA to do everything for them.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

It still chaps my ass that SGC gave that a 3. If the grade doesn't matter, give it the 1 and call it a day. It's not worth the hit to their credibility to pretend that's a 3 on any planet.

Don't they grade "on the curve," though, according to the issue? I thought fragile cards like T-205s, subject to easy chipping, or cards like these released under treacherous circumstances, were granted leniency when it came to the numbers. No?

[BRoberts]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Don't they grade "on the curve," though, according to the issue? I thought fragile cards like T-205s, subject to easy chipping, or cards like these released under treacherous circumstances, were granted leniency when it came to the numbers. No?

No.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by BRoberts

No.

Right. The seemingly "generous" grades on T205 cards really aren't that at all. All cards of that vintage which have border wear/edge chipping are graded the same.

It just shows up more on the T205 set because of the gold borders. White bordered cards experience the same exact "chipping", but it's not as visible.
The white inner layer underneath the surface just doesn't show up as visibly against white borders as it does with gold (or black, in the case of 1971 Topps).

[MJRaider]

I was fortunate to see this in person earlier this month in Baltimore. Hopefully the new buyer will keep it on loan at the museum.

[Jewish-collector]

Here's the back story:

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...ng-back-story/

[bcbgcbrcb]

Who cares, 1 or 3, at least I get a second chance at this one. Now all I have to do is get everyone who lives in my condominium complex to agree to take out a second mortgage on their unit and forward the proceeds to me. Then I think I have a real shot at it vs. Mr. Wonderful.

Who knows, maybe one day, it will be worth even more than the MJ/Kobe patch auto card. Those are truly rare, you know.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Don't they grade "on the curve," though, according to the issue? I thought fragile cards like T-205s, subject to easy chipping, or cards like these released under treacherous circumstances, were granted leniency when it came to the numbers. No?

No, not with any grader worth their salt anyway. Whether a card was made in 2025, 1925, or 1887 - all should be graded on the same scale and with the same scrutiny. Beckett with their BVG service grades obviously easier, and walked right up to the line of what you suggest with saying that they grade vintage with a nod to "how the cards were made" - suggesting without actually coming out and saying that they grade easier.

In practice you will see some cards that are given exemptions or passes on certain things (centering on the '54 Topps Banks, for example) as a matter of course, but this should be rare.