Options
Grading Submission Hall of Fame Entry
maddux69
Posts: 2,130 ✭✭✭✭✭
Checking out PSA’s APR, I was checking the recent sales on 1971 Steve Garvey RCs. I just happened to check the PSA 10s in which it is a Pop 2 and it had two listed sales. I was stunned when looking at the cert #’s, they only have one number separating them and most likely from the same submission. Can anyone think of a submission that is more prolific and in which lightning struck twice? I have had a submission that had two 1984 Topps Tiffany Don Mattingly PSA 10s that sent the population from 15 to 17, but not even close to the dollar value of the Garvey PSA 10s.
1
Comments
Well, again, nowhere nearly as impressive as the Garvey lightning strike, but a year or two ago I submitted 3 1981 Topps Nolan Ryan cards, and 2 of 'em came back 10s. That's at least SOMETHING, ain't it?
A couple observations:
16378853 sold for $8,218.14 in 2010, and then 16378851 sold for more than 3 times as much in 2012, at $25,393.00. I have no idea what they would go for today.
With items like what you point out, it makes me curious enough to look up other certs near the same number to see what else the order may have included. 16378848 and 16378854 are also 1971's. Oddly enough, going lower in cert number, you have to get to more than 100 cards away before you find registered certs, not until 16378738. There is no 16378852 between the two Garvey cards, and no 16378855 either, but from 16378856 on up, the certs pick up with a modern order. I really wonder what the heck happened with all those non-grades in a row? Rejected for sheet cutting, possibly??? Seems unlikely that they would have all been N9'd, and unlikely that they were all cracked, resubbed for higher grades and then subsequently the subber sent the old labels back in for deletion.
I checked the surrounding certs as well, though I didn't get anywhere near 100 away.
I think that they may have minimum grades that were not met, which would most likely point to a high volume submitter...
eBay Store
Greg Maddux #1 Master SetGreg Maddux #2 Basic Set
I wonder if those were crossover attempts?
I don't quite get the point of minimum grades for raw items if you have to pay the same fee whether you get it returned raw for min grade vs. slabbed in a lower grade than you hoped for, unless you don't want to bother cracking out the ones you weren't happy with. It does make sense to me though to go the minimum grade route on raw items if you are a very high volume submitter who has negotiated a fee cost savings for items that don't make min grade.
How do they handle reviews? Could the person have sent in a bunch of Garvey 9s for review and those are the two that got bumped?
Arthur
Not sure about the other unissued cert numbers, but I am definitely willing to bet 16378852 was a Garvey.
...Seems unlikely that they would have all been N9'd, and unlikely that they were all cracked, resubbed for higher grades and then subsequently the subber sent the old labels back in for deletion.
This brings up something I haven't really thought about before. When someone cracks out and resubs a card for a higher grade doesn't that screw up the population report? Wouldn't the person have to let PSA know a certain cert no longer exists? Maybe I just crack out a card and decide to keep it raw because it didn't get the grade I was looking for. If I don't let PSA know I did that the population report will still reflect it as being slabbed. Seems like the population report would get less and less accurate over time. Am I missing something here?
Kris
My 1971 Topps adventure - Davis Men in Black
Nope. You’re not missing anything. This is exactly what happens with the pop report.
You're not missing anything. Some people send in old flips to have them removed from pop report, but vast majority do not. Pop reports are definitely overstated as a result. I for one think fewer people crack cards out than you would infer from reading this board, but there is really no way to know one way or another.