goldin auctions and leaf jackie robinson psa 7

[sflayank]

if in wrong category please move
anyone else notice that this psa 7 is missing paper on the reverse
$362,000 for a card that should be graded 1 or 2?
surpassing the last hi price of 78000

[bobbyw8469]

These rises in price are blowing me away. I used to own this card in a '6'. I am dumbfounded. Makes me wish I just held onto everything.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by sflayank

if in wrong category please move
anyone else notice that this psa 7 is missing paper on the reverse
$362,000 for a card that should be graded 1 or 2?
surpassing the last hi price of 78000

It was just nice of PSA to give the card that grade. It helped the owner make a lot of extra cash, the auction house make a lot of extra cash, and the collecting community as a whole by now having a mint Jackie Robinson card it didn't before. A win, win, win for everyone.

[jp1216]

Close up pic:

[A2000]

Still a few weeks left to bid

[sflayank]

thanks for posting the picture

[MattyC]

PSA gives the rest of us “2”’s for that same flaw. Maybe a pro athlete or big submitter like an AH submitted it

[irv]

I am far from being an expert but because the rest of the card looks mint, or very close to it, could the grade of 7 be fair even with that touch of paper loss on the back?

The 52 Topps PSA 9 Jackie is almost at a 1/2 million. (or is it already with the BP?) Real curious to see where this one ends as well.
https://goldinauctions.com/1952_Topp...-LOT77920.aspx

[rats60]

That is a really early grade. I guess that PSA didn't take off for small paper loss on cards then. I was once bidding on a card in a 5 holder until I noticed paper loss on the front. Now it is my understanding that cards with paper loss are PSA 2 or lower.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by irv

I am far from being an expert but because the rest of the card looks mint, or very close to it, could the grade of 7 be fair even with that touch of paper loss on the back?

The 52 Topps PSA 9 Jackie is almost at a 1/2 million. (or is it already with the BP?) Real curious to see where this one ends as well.
https://goldinauctions.com/1952_Topp...-LOT77920.aspx

This 52 PSA 9 Jackie is clearly short and probably on the sides as well compared to my perfectly trimmed one. It's a Maraca Shaker at it's finest, IMHO. Personally, I would stand down. Sure looks nice though.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I've returned slabbed cards to PSA for being trimmed. Not seeing it on this one. At least in an online photo it looks fine to me. Misunderstood I thought you were saying the 4.5 pictured was trimmed.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by MattyC

PSA gives the rest of us “2”’s for that same flaw. Maybe a pro athlete or big submitter like an AH submitted it

Perhaps it's worth noting that PSA and Goldin now share a portion of ownership, under their respective new agreements. Pretty ominous potential for conflict, with seller and grader both now under the same ownership umbrella.

[jad22]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

This 52 PSA 9 Jackie is clearly short and probably on the sides as well compared to my perfectly trimmed one. It's a Maraca Shaker at it's finest, IMHO. Personally, I would stand down. Sure looks nice though.

I prefer the 4.5. It doesn't have that tilting thing going on. The top would drive me nuts.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

This 52 PSA 9 Jackie is clearly short and probably on the sides as well compared to my perfectly trimmed one. It's a Maraca Shaker at it's finest, IMHO. Personally, I would stand down. Sure looks nice though.

Yeah, I can't say one way or another about that 9 as I've heard some cases are just slightly bigger than others.

Your 4.5, however, is a very sweet looking card, Chuck!
Looks under graded to me without seeing the back.

[swarmee]

PSA should actually recall it before the auction ends, because whatever it sells for, they're liable for the difference between that price and a 2 or 2.5 or whatever they give it now.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Perhaps it's worth noting that PSA and Goldin now share a portion of ownership, under their respective new agreements. Pretty ominous potential for conflict, with seller and grader both now under the same ownership umbrella.

Isn't the Chernin Group just a minority investor in CU?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jad22

I prefer the 4.5. It doesn't have that tilting thing going on. The top would drive me nuts.

Same here. The 4.5 has much better eye appeal to my (half-blind at times) eyes.