Thoughts on this 1925 Gehrig

[Rhotchkiss]

In the Heritage auction that closed last night, the Gehrig first pictured below, failed to get a bid at the reserve of $98.4k with buyers premium.

According to VCP, the same exact card, pictured second below in an older SGC flip, sold for $132k (a record for the grade) in a PWCC Premier auction in February of 2022.

Thoughts? Maybe the new flip devalued the card by $40k??!!! (Joke)

[Seven]

I think we're seeing a shift, we've been seeing it IMO.

While blue-chip vintage is still strong, I think people are more hesitant with so many economic uncertainties plaguing the nation at the moment. COVID money is gone, people are fully back to work at this point, we can now travel wherever we want. Combine that with the fact that the country is trying to figure out if we are in a recession already, or heading for one.

With prices of every day goods rising through the roof, something has to give.

[mrreality68]

I saw the card and was watching it and surprised that it did not hit the reserve. The prices of the Rookies for him has been insane.

Just curious if this is just a one off and if when they try and re auction it it will go for higher.

Key Card for a Monster Player.

I do not think it is the economics at play because other top cards are going for some strong prices

As an aside there were a couple of early Gehrig Cards of his that were not Rookie cards but were nice

[sb1]

Possibly because the card and grade don't match and bidders wised up. It is a 1 all day long, not a 3.

[Snapolit1]

Looked nicer in the original case (when I owned it).

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Looked nicer in the original case (when I owned it).

Agree, the bottom right corner looks more jagged now and is missing some paper that was there before.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Agree, the bottom right corner looks more jagged now and is missing some paper that was there before.

+1

I guess you roll the dice when you get something that fragile re-slabbed.

Good thing the seller had a high reserve. But I'm not sure they'll be making their money back any time soon--its in rough shape, even if the flip says its a "3".

[Snapolit1]

Even a side from lower right corner, this is the rare card that lost a lot of eye appeal in the new SGC slab.

Seller is fortunate SGC gave him the same grade.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Even a side from lower right corner, this is the rare card that lost a lot of eye appeal in the new SGC slab.

Seller is fortunate SGC gave him the same grade.

Personally, it's not the slab for me. That bottom right corner is much worse in the new holder. If I were paying 100k for a card, which isn't super rare, I would look at that unfavorably. If it was super rare, that would be another story.
.

[darwinbulldog]

That seems on par for the typical drop in prices across the market since 2022.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

That seems on par for the typical drop in prices across the market since 2022.

Most of the other prices from the same Heritage Auction were quite strong.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Most of the other prices from the same Heritage Auction were quite strong.

Yes and the Joe Jackson prices were extremely strong for the 2 Blankets and the Pennant

[raulus]

I'll go a little contrarian here and suggest that the problem was the reserve. For some reason, when there's a reserve, it spooks bidders, sometimes in major ways. It destroys the flow of the auction. It disrupts those animal spirits with everyone trying to out-stupid each other. That big jump throws people off. All of a sudden, they sit back, reflect, and start to wonder if it's really a good idea to bid that much.

For example, I remember last year there was a nice 1952 Bowman PSA 9 Mays up for auction. The bidding was fast and furious, and got up to $100k or so (plus the juice, natch). A couple of days before the auction closed, the reserve kicked in, and jumped the next required bid up to $200k ($240k with the juice).

At that point, the entire dynamic of the auction changed. Nobody bid on it again. It had been going fast and furious, people bidding left and right. I bet if the reserve had not kicked in, it would have easily sold for more than $200k. But when that reserve kicked in, it probably confused some bidders, and spooked the rest. So it didn't sell, because no one touched it after the reserve kicked in.

A couple months later, the same card comes up at the same auction house. Not just the same grade. The exact same card. I'm thinking that maybe I can score a bargain. This time, no reserve.

Care to guess what happens? People go nuts. No reserve holding anyone back. In the last couple of days, it doubles, and then doubles again. With the juice, it goes for $444k.

Now, you could argue that the difference of a month or two might have made a difference. Since we're talking about late 2021 and early 2022, I would posit that any difference wouldn't be gigantic. Certainly not $200k worth.

For my money, having (or not having) a reserve made all the difference.

If you want to see the card, here's the auction listing where it sold:

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...ription-071515

[charlietheexterminator]

Right now it’s a buyers market. In the recent REA auction, there were numerous cards that went way below what they went for just a few months ago. So, Buy Buy Buy

[Rhotchkiss]

Nicolo, I think you may be on to something. I did not consider the reserve when I started the thread. I thought the market, over-graded, the flip, the auction house (although I would put this card in Heritage every day over PWCC, which is very modern heavy). But I did not consider the reserve. Great Point!


Al C of LOTG is on record time and again stating that reserves inhibit bidding and lots often do worse when there is a reserve. I would love to hear from other AHs about this. Also, in my personal experience, I have purchased two large items that had a reserve -- I paid the reserve price, nothing more, and I felt I got a great deal on both.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by sb1

Possibly because the card and grade don't match and bidders wised up. It is a 1 all day long, not a 3.

Agree with sb1. With that much corner wear, that card should have never been originally graded a 3. Coupled with the extensive foxing, this is not a nice looking example IMHO. To me, it looks like a 1.5 at best.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by sb1

Possibly because the card and grade don't match and bidders wised up. It is a 1 all day long, not a 3.

+1000! Spot on. Card is significantly over-graded. Severe corner rounding merits a 1.5 - 2 assessment at best & add in the foxing/surface soiling and it’s a borderline 1.

[Lorewalker]

The market is not as strong today as it was in early 2022. I am pretty sure this is the 2nd Gehrig rookie I have seen sell in the last 3 months which resulted in a lower price than it had attained in a recent sale. Prior to posting I went to try to find that sale and cannot recall which house had it.

I think the reserve may have turned off some bidders but really when someone wants a card badly enough I think we all know that a reserve is not going to stop them from bidding. However with that said, a reserve is very much like an eBay store listing and I think as collectors most of us prefer to bid and feel like we are more in control of the price we pay.

And lastly...the first sale was a PWCC sale. I will always remain skeptical of their auction results which is why I have not and will not look at their listings.

[sb1]

And on the flip side, of the inaccurate grading issues. Here is one I had graded at the National for a friend. Was expecting a far higher grade than the one received.

I did get a review and was told and I quote "you can't see it through the plastic but there is a small series of wrinkles on the back" and they pointed to the lower left back area. I smiled and took the card and walked back to my table. Pretty sure the clear plastic was not hiding any issues. Have louped it and viewed under various lighting and still can't find the flaw.

That being said, if/when this card were to ever be auctioned it would bring multiples of the grade assigned with the eye appeal being far superior, rather than the eye appeal being so terrible on the one auctioned last night.

[fkm_bky]

That is a STUNNING 2.5! Buy the card not the grade. I'd be a happy man with either, but alas, I'll have none. Way out of my price range.

Bill

Originally Posted by sb1

And on the flip side, of the inaccurate grading issues. Here is one I had graded at the National for a friend. Was expecting a far higher grade than the one received.

I did get a review and was told and I quote "you can't see it through the plastic but there is a small series of wrinkles on the back" and they pointed to the lower left back area. I smiled and took the card and walked back to my table. Pretty sure the clear plastic was not hiding any issues. Have louped it and viewed under various lighting and still can't find the flaw.

That being said, if/when this card were to ever be auctioned it would bring multiples of the grade assigned with the eye appeal being far superior, rather than the eye appeal being so terrible on the one auctioned last night.

[Touch'EmAll]

There is a lot of corner missing on this one, all corners extremely rounded. If this were in a Grade 2 slab, am sure the price would drop a lot, and would be more in line with reality. Tough to get a "3" price for this particular example.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by sb1

possibly because the card and grade don't match and bidders wised up. It is a 1 all day long, not a 3.

+1,001

[Rhotchkiss]

I fully agree the card is over-graded, does not deserve a 3 (maybe not a 2), and the card looks worse in the new slab (the bottom right corner specifically), but if you believe the PWCC sale from February, the card did not receive a bid at the $98.4k reserve amount, which means the same exact card -- a 1925 Lou Gehrig Rookie (71 on combined PSA/SGC Pop repot), has gone down 26% in less than year. I am not sure it is just the market or just the condition/slab, Maybe a combo of both and the reserve...

Or, maybe people just arent keen on Lou anymore

[sb1]

just not a good exemplar for where the market is on '25 Exhibit Gehrig

[Snapolit1]

I do believe in the theory that a reserve can be a real buzz kill. The psychology of auctions is a weird one.

I've listed an item on eBay with a $19.99 opening bid and its crickets for 6 months. . . . then I list it at 99 cents and it sells for $57. Happens all the time.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by raulus

I'll go a little contrarian here and suggest that the problem was the reserve. For some reason, when there's a reserve, it spooks bidders, sometimes in major ways. It destroys the flow of the auction. It disrupts those animal spirits with everyone trying to out-stupid each other. That big jump throws people off. All of a sudden, they sit back, reflect, and start to wonder if it's really a good idea to bid that much.

For example, I remember last year there was a nice 1952 Bowman PSA 9 Mays up for auction. The bidding was fast and furious, and got up to $100k or so (plus the juice, natch). A couple of days before the auction closed, the reserve kicked in, and jumped the next required bid up to $200k ($240k with the juice).

At that point, the entire dynamic of the auction changed. Nobody bid on it again. It had been going fast and furious, people bidding left and right. I bet if the reserve had not kicked in, it would have easily sold for more than $200k. But when that reserve kicked in, it probably confused some bidders, and spooked the rest. So it didn't sell, because no one touched it after the reserve kicked in.

A couple months later, the same card comes up at the same auction house. Not just the same grade. The exact same card. I'm thinking that maybe I can score a bargain. This time, no reserve.

Care to guess what happens? People go nuts. No reserve holding anyone back. In the last couple of days, it doubles, and then doubles again. With the juice, it goes for $444k.

Now, you could argue that the difference of a month or two might have made a difference. Since we're talking about late 2021 and early 2022, I would posit that any difference wouldn't be gigantic. Certainly not $200k worth.

For my money, having (or not having) a reserve made all the difference.

If you want to see the card, here's the auction listing where it sold:

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...ription-071515

Posts like this one are why I wish there was a "LIKE" button!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Nicolo, I think you may be on to something. I did not consider the reserve when I started the thread. I thought the market, over-graded, the flip, the auction house (although I would put this card in Heritage every day over PWCC, which is very modern heavy). But I did not consider the reserve. Great Point!


Al C of LOTG is on record time and again stating that reserves inhibit bidding and lots often do worse when there is a reserve. I would love to hear from other AHs about this. Also, in my personal experience, I have purchased two large items that had a reserve -- I paid the reserve price, nothing more, and I felt I got a great deal on both.

we don't do them and never will.

[BeanTown]

First off it’s a great card no matter what. Not shocked it went for far less money in HA. HA is a very credible AH compared to PWCC which I think is still under a Federal investigation. The bottom right corner got worse on the flip as now it has more paper loss. Completely over graded back then and now. Add the reserve factor to the mix and I think it realized a fair amount for its current state. Scott’s Gehrig is gorgeous and would easily double or triple what the higher graded Gehrig sold for that Ryan showed IMO. Maybe who submits the card makes a difference to I dunno. Lastly, there are two different shades for the 1925 Exhibits which only advanced collectors know about and rarely post about. That could be a factor as well.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Lots of good points, mostly all valid IMHO. I also don't mind seeing that even the 6-figure, high-end cards are not immune to the current state of the hobby/economy. Why shouldn't those with deep pockets take it on the chin as often as those of us common folk who could never afford to play in that arena and have sure seen plenty of our cards dropping throughout 2021 and continuing even more so throughout 2022. As everone is quick to note though, still well ahead of the game pre-2020, assuming that you already owned the cards at that time.

[oldjudge]

Personally, I think the points made above are valid. However, I believe Gehrig cards were overpriced and are now coming back to earth. In my mind Gehrig was only very slightly better than Foxx. There is no reason other than his untimely death that there should be such a large price discrepancy between their cards.

[sb1]

Jay, I think the value is based on popularity only, perhaps due to the illness/death, not due to his on-field performance.

Think of the All-time Yankees by popularity and he easily makes the top 5, where in that order is subject to debate. Obviously, most would pick Ruth at #1 and then you are left with Gehrig, DiMaggio and Mantle to sort out the order. I am not even sure who I would put in the 5th spot, probably Jeter, but Berra would also be in the mix.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I fully agree the card is over-graded, does not deserve a 3 (maybe not a 2), and the card looks worse in the new slab (the bottom right corner specifically), but if you believe the PWCC sale from February, the card did not receive a bid at the $98.4k reserve amount, which means the same exact card -- a 1925 Lou Gehrig Rookie (71 on combined PSA/SGC Pop repot), has gone down 26% in less than year. I am not sure it is just the market or just the condition/slab, Maybe a combo of both and the reserve...

Or, maybe people just arent keen on Lou anymore

Hopefully it means a few of us can get a chance to a get one of those 71 Rookie cards if market and budget permit

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Personally, I think the points made above are valid. However, I believe Gehrig cards were overpriced and are now coming back to earth. In my mind Gehrig was only very slightly better than Foxx. There is no reason other than his untimely death that there should be such a large price discrepancy between their cards.

Price and broad appeal of cards has only part to do with numbers. And in some cases very little. Jackie Robinson prime example. Right now Joe Burrow cards are outselling Terry Bradshaw by 159x. And Zion is probably still outselling Willie Reed. And some Yankee prospect in AA is outselling Mike Schmidt and Gary Carter out together. Times 100.

Gehrig was an amazing player. Best yankeee 1B of all time. But clearly his appeal goes far beyond that.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Personally, I think the points made above are valid. However, I believe Gehrig cards were overpriced and are now coming back to earth. In my mind Gehrig was only very slightly better than Foxx. There is no reason other than his untimely death that there should be such a large price discrepancy between their cards.

Gehrig, the guy who would've been a lock for 600 Home Runs and 3000 hits, if he didn't contract ALS was not just "slightly better" than Foxx.

To quote Joe Posnaski

"But Gehrig’s OPS of 1.080 is third all-time, behind only Ruth and Williams. He hit .340/.447/.632, walked about twice as much as he struck out and led the league at different times in doubles, triples and home runs. His 185 RBIs in 1931 is an American League record, and his 167 runs scored in 1936 is second only to Ruth’s 1921 season, a number even more incredible when you realize Ruth wasn’t on that 1936 team.

At one point or another, Gehrig led the league in just about everything: runs, hits, doubles, triples, home runs, RBIs, walks, batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage and total bases."

He walked more than Foxx, he struck out less than Foxx, He eclipses Foxx in every statistical category other than Home Runs, despite playing 150 games less than him. His Weighted Runs Created +, the statistic that is era and park adjusted, Ranks him as the third greatest offensive force in all of Baseball history behind Ruth and Williams.

Not to mention the consecutive games streak, or the fact that he was a 7 Time World Champion.

The entire market was inflated. Not just Lou.

[Snapolit1]

+1000

Originally Posted by seven

gehrig, the guy who would've been a lock for 600 home runs and 3000 hits, if he didn't contract als was not just "slightly better" than foxx.

To quote joe posnaski

"but gehrig’s ops of 1.080 is third all-time, behind only ruth and williams. He hit .340/.447/.632, walked about twice as much as he struck out and led the league at different times in doubles, triples and home runs. His 185 rbis in 1931 is an american league record, and his 167 runs scored in 1936 is second only to ruth’s 1921 season, a number even more incredible when you realize ruth wasn’t on that 1936 team.

At one point or another, gehrig led the league in just about everything: Runs, hits, doubles, triples, home runs, rbis, walks, batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage and total bases."

he walked more than foxx, he struck out less than foxx, he eclipses foxx in every statistical category other than home runs, despite playing 150 games less than him. His weighted runs created +, the statistic that is era and park adjusted, ranks him as the third greatest offensive force in all of baseball history behind ruth and williams.

Not to mention the consecutive games streak, or the fact that he was a 7 time world champion.

The entire market was inflated. Not just lou.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

And some Yankee prospect in AA is outselling Mike Schmidt and Gary Carter out together. Times 100

It’s nice to see people are placing a premium on sobriety….

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

It’s nice to see people are placing a premium on sobriety….

I see what you did there!


I feel Gerhig is still very underrated, However the exhibit frenzy does nothing for me. Traditionally the pariahs of the hobby are now the hottest things on the planet?

Often overlooked for many decades, they certainly had more upside, but nothing has changed in the last 50 years to make them more desirable. Maybe more people know about them now, but they vastly undersold and historically were not as desirable as the old gum/candy cards. This is boots on the ground fact from the early 90s! Dating myself here I know

The 33 world wide gum cards have much more appeal IMO..that's opinion for those keep tally marks

[Touch'EmAll]

In 1932, Foxx was credited with 58 HRs. Foxx actually did hit 2 more additional HRs in rain shortened games that were then erased from the record books altogether. That would have tied him with Ruth at 60.

Now factor in a special screen that was set up above the regular outfield wall. It has been estimated that Foxx had actually lost as many as 12 HRs in total. Foxx could have ended the season with as many as 70 HRs.

Foxx, not Ruth, would have been the owner of one of the most famous and sacred record in all of sports. What would have been the perception of Foxx if he wasn't so unlucky.

[Touch'EmAll]

At this point, gotta show cards ...

[Chesbro41]

That Gehrig is not much better than mine...

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Foxx, not Ruth, would have been the owner of one of the most famous and sacred record in all of sports.

But he’s not…

Gehrig beats Foxx in all intangibles - he played with Ruth, on America’s baseball team, won 6 championships (someone said), held the record for most consecutive games and was called the Iron Horse (nickname), was a handsome all American boy, and has a disease named after him.

Foxx was an amazing player. But he was a drunk with zero post-baseball accolades; best thing he did was sort of get portrait by Tom Hanks in League of their own.

The biggest stars are known for more than baseball.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

In 1932, Foxx was credited with 58 HRs. Foxx actually did hit 2 more additional HRs in rain shortened games that were then erased from the record books altogether. That would have tied him with Ruth at 60.

Now factor in a special screen that was set up above the regular outfield wall. It has been estimated that Foxx had actually lost as many as 12 HRs in total. Foxx could have ended the season with as many as 70 HRs.

Foxx, not Ruth, would have been the owner of one of the most famous and sacred record in all of sports. What would have been the perception of Foxx if he wasn't so unlucky.

I believe what you say is true. My dad, who was born in 1918 and an intense fan, idolized Ruth, Gehrig and Foxx. I believe the three of them were his three favorite players, all time. My dad lived into the modern era, and I know he thought Gehrig and Foxx the two greatest first basemen, especially Gehrig, being handicapped by being left handed. That is very unnatural for a first baseman. He thought Ruth the greatest single player. When someone would say Ruth was obese, he would say they were only looking at photos or newsreel films at the end of his career or after he quit playing. Dad always said Ruth played spectacularly and lived spectacularly, and it caught up with him. He was quite right.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Chesbro41

That Gehrig is not much better than mine...

Great looking Gehrig

thanks for sharing

Gehrig over Fox as many mentioned above and Fox might have been perceived as even greater if it was not for his drinking problems while Gehrig was seen as the all American Boy who suffered a tragic end.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Personally, I think the points made above are valid. However, I believe Gehrig cards were overpriced and are now coming back to earth. In my mind Gehrig was only very slightly better than Foxx. There is no reason other than his untimely death that there should be such a large price discrepancy between their cards.

Jay - Lou Gehrig is the third greatest hitter in baseball history behind Williams & Ruth, and that counts for an awful lot. Regarding the Foxx comparison, Gehrig’s lifetime batting average is 15 points higher than Foxx (.340 vs. .325) as well as his OPS being 0.41 higher (1.076 vs. 1.035). Over 16/17 years, that’s a significant advantage. Their lifetime homers & RBIs are extremely close). Add in his unfathomable 2,130 consecutive game streak, 6 world championships (not counting 1939), and the fact his career was suddenly cut short while he was still performing at a world class level (he would have hit over 600 homers and knocked in 2,400+ runs), and Gehrig easily gets the nod. Interestingly enough, most people fail to realize that in 1938 (having just turned 35 on 6/13/38), Gehrig was on his way to another one of his incredible campaigns. In early to mid-August, he inexplicably hit a wall, slumping badly including the Fall Classic where he managed only 4 meager singles. While still managing to hit 29 dingers and bat in 114 runs, he would have belted approx. 40 homers and posted 140+ RBIs. No one knew the ill effects of ALS was the reason for his awful final 2-month slump, and the rest is history. Gehrig bests Foxx and is right on the heels of Williams & Ruth. I do believe Foxx is one of the 3 greatest right-handed hitters along with Hornsby & Aaron (Mays & Pujols get honorable mention). Like Hornsby, Double X’s cards are significantly undervalued.

[FrankWakefield]

Buy the card, not the player?

Let's get back to that card. Are you able to hit that card with a black light?

I understand that it's in a holder, professionally graded. All of those corners look uniformly rounded. That uniformity is a bit of a flag for me. I'd want to illuminate it with uv light and see if it fluoresces.

So that is foremost among my "thoughts about that 1925 Gehrig"

[oldjudge]

Joe—I think the comparison is a lot closer than you think. Foxx had 133 more ABs for his career than Gehrig but hit 41 more HRs. He won three MVPs vs Gehrig’s two, he was a better fielder. Gehrig had a slightly higher batting average and more RBI’s, but he played for a lot better team. I agree Gehrig was better but it was pretty close. If Foxx was a Yankee and Gehrig was an Athletic the comparison would probably flip in Fox’s favor.
I was reading a list that was put together in 1994 of the greatest hitters of all time. Here it is:

10. Willie Mays
9. Hank Aaron
8. Joe Jackson
7. Stan Musial
6. Ty Cobb
5. Joe DiMaggio
4. Rogers Hornsby
3. Jimmie Foxx
2. Lou Gehrig
1. Babe Ruth

Oh, there is a reason Williams is not on the list—he put it together.

[Exhibitman]

Setting aside the PEDs the list of the ten most productive hitters in history is incomplete without Barry Bonds.

162.8 WAR (4th all time; 1st all time for position players)
6th all time on base %
8th all time slugging %
5th all time OPS
3rd runs scored
5th total bases
1st walks
1st home runs

But I digress...

The Gehrig is the perfect storm of adverse issues.

--The initial price is a PWCC price so who knows if it is legit
--The card is grossly overgraded. The card corners look to me like they were rounded intentionally. The card should have gotten an A. Buyers with $100K to spend aren't going to be fooled by an overgrade of this magnitude.
--There was a reserve. I agree that reserves depress bidding.

The card Scott posted is typical of my experience with SGC grading Exhibit cards: they knock the snot out of them. Between the full bleed image and the size, a 5 on a prewar Exhibit is a very strong grade. At the 2006 National I purchased a small grouo of really nice fresh-to-the-hobby 1928s and i think the best grade I got out of the lot was a 5.5.

[robertsmithnocure]

Also Foxx benefited greatly by playing in his home ballparks while Gehrig was actually better on the road.

Gehrig had a lifetime road batting average of .351 and an OPS of 1.103 while Foxx batted .306 with an OPS of .966. That is a huge difference.

IMHO, Gehrig was a much better player.

[Gorditadogg]

In order to have a fair, apples to apples comparison of all the great hitters, I adjusted HOFers career stats to reflect what they would have been if they'd slurped up PEDs like Bonds.

Ruth's revised numbers are 1600 homeruns and a .485 batting average. Hank Aaron's are 1425 and .440. Interestingly, Bonds didn't even make the top 100.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Setting aside the PEDs the list of the ten most productive hitters in history is incomplete without Barry Bonds.

162.8 WAR (4th all time; 1st all time for position players)
6th all time on base %
8th all time slugging %
5th all time OPS
3rd runs scored
5th total bases
1st walks
1st home runs

But I digress...

The Gehrig is the perfect storm of adverse issues.

--The initial price is a PWCC price so who knows if it is legit
--The card is grossly overgraded. The card corners look to me like they were rounded intentionally. The card should have gotten an A. Buyers with $100K to spend aren't going to be fooled by an overgrade of this magnitude.
--There was a reserve. I agree that reserves depress bidding.

The card Scott posted is typical of my experience with SGC grading Exhibit cards: they knock the snot out of them. Between the full bleed image and the size, a 5 on a prewar Exhibit is a very strong grade. At the 2006 National I purchased a small grouo of really nice fresh-to-the-hobby 1928s and i think the best grade I got out of the lot was a 5.5.

Unfortunately, you cannot set aside PEDs. Like Clemens when he went to Toronto, Bonds career took off in staggering proportions when he started taking PEDs. Cheating, and there’s no way around it. While both Clemens & Bonds were already future HOFers before PEDs, their extraordinary lifetime numbers are seriously tainted by steroids. For that reason alone, both of them cannot be placed in the top 10 as a pitcher & hitter.