Quote from Beckett About PSA Grading and Their Price Guide

lilsun1

This statement was taken from page 71 of the January Basketball Beckett in regards to graded 86/87 Fleer:

"The Wilkins card, which books for $25, is among the toughest of the tough. It also how how out of touch the PSA Sportscard Market Reportan be with regard to true market value. The card books for $1,250 in a PSA 10 - and if you ever have a chance to buy one for that much, jump all over it. According to Tuttle, jump all over it even at 10 times that much."

This from the people who list common Jersey's at $15 when they can be had for under $3 and a Dennis Rodman 98/99 SOTT for 80 that sells for well over 100. Who is really out of touch?


Jeff
edited for spelling

robstar

BECKETT -- SHMECKETT




Rob...

jaxxr

It's difficult to figure a reasonable " Guide " for prices in a small range of card issues , say 1970 to 1980 baseball for example. Eleven years of regular card sets, some test/regional issues, some cereal sets, a few hamburger items, and some more others. Monitoring sales, auctions, the net, and so on is no small task.

Most of us are interested in, or are very familiar with a small number of sets and their prices, as we try to collect them. We might sometimes be more aware of circumstances per certain cards than a month old guide. Both SMR and Beckett try to do so on a much greater scale, and Beckett covers even more ground than SMR. Why any surprise that either will be somewhat out of touch on some sets or individual cards ?

It does seem a bit foolish for Beckett to criticize another guide, estimate, report, survey, Etc., when their own is certainly not completely accurate in full.

Mantlefan

There are 3 of these listed in the Pop report. Seems like 2-3K is a more realistic price. Not the 12.5K that Professor Beckett urges us to "jump all over"!

PROMETHIUS88

i've been thinking about this same issue over the last few days. i don't expect EVERY price in smr to be right up to date, but it is quite unreasonable that some cards with a 1 or 2 pop can be "valued" at what they have in there. my biggest question is how...or why do they put prices on psa 8's...9's..10's that don't have any pop?!?! shouldn't there just be a - (slash) in the spot where there hasn't been a card slabbed in that grade? look at the #4 in the 70-71 topps basketball. pop 2 in psa 8 and nothing higher. smr lists it at $30 in 8 and $65 in a 9. hey, if you have this card in an 8, i'll be HAPPY to pay 150% of smr(9 price)!! anyway, i know smr says that low pop cards will sell for more, but i just don't understand their position on "no" pop cards. anyway, that's my 2 cents for the night!!

braves72078

My feeling on the whole Price Guide issue is simple:

"A card is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, no more and no less."

Since I have been selling on EBAY for the last 5 years I can count on one hand the number of Becketts I have purchased and then usually for the cover.

My 3 cents for the night!!!!

Happy Holidays to everyone !!!!!!

norty

In my opinion, as a dealer, it is Beckett that is completely out of touch on pricing, especially the value of high grade commons from the 50's, 60's and 70's. For example, a great deal of 65 Topps commons book at $2.00 in NM condition. Using Beckett guidelines, a Nm/Mt example should go from 125% to 200% of the Nm price. Thus $4.00 would the top of the line. The PSA 8 price for the same card is $18. Many go for less (though not a lot less) and some go for more. It is clear from the Set Registry that there are collectors who do not believe the SMR for a PSA 8 card is too high.

It also seems ridiculous that a high end common from say 1971 should Beckett at $1.00. That is a crazy number given the difficulties of that issue. As a seller of primarily raw cards, I feel compelled to follow Beckett pricing guidelines due both to competition from other dealers and the expectations of most collectors. Beckett has not raised it's commons prices in YEARS! Given the affect of the graded card market, that is just administrative laziness on their part. They have, however, seen fit to up the dollar value of vintage sets for the first time in ages though this year. (eg 1957 sets went from $7500 to $10,000). Of course all that does is eliminate the dealer break value, drive up the cost of acquisition and ultimately lead to higher card prices for you the collector.

Beckett, it seems to me, is being run on a shoestring (try calling them some time and see if you ever get a real human to talk to). They make almost no effort to keep abreast of pricing changes. They have merely trotted out their grading service as a way to trade on their reputation and try to get a slice of the ever burgeoning graded card market.

braves72078

Well-Said Joe

HECK55

"Administrative Laziness" - - - That's Great! Beckett is almost useless for older/vintage cards and probably more so for the commons. It does seem that SMR is out of touch on low Pop commons esp. vintage. If they tried to put accurate pricing on low Pop commons they might create a nightmare that would never be accurate. Maybe they will work on it and come up with a solution. Rick

brucemo

The Wilkins card is impossible to price, since it is a population rarity. If there are only three of them, that's one more than there were last month. You can't price something that doesn't exist.

Beckett is hardly one to be casting stones. They don't price a lot of modern stuff because it's too scarce due to extreme short-printing, but there is plenty of vintage stuff that they have had prices on for years, which does not exist.

bruce

crazysc

<< <i>In my opinion, as a dealer, it is Beckett that is completely out of touch on pricing, especially the value of high grade commons from the 50's, 60's and 70's. For example, a great deal of 65 Topps commons book at $2.00 in NM condition. Using Beckett guidelines, a Nm/Mt example should go from 125% to 200% of the Nm price. Thus $4.00 would the top of the line. The PSA 8 price for the same card is $18. Many go for less (though not a lot less) and some go for more. It is clear from the Set Registry that there are collectors who do not believe the SMR for a PSA 8 card is too high. >>



1) I think Beckett makes pretty clear that prices are for ungraded cards.

2) How much do you think ungraded 65Ts are worth? Let's say the most ideal customer for it (a set builder who doesn't have it) finds it, and needs it for his set. And it's not a pop scarcity. How much will he pay for it ungraded?

3) What if that customer doesn't exist (every set builder has the card), or the dealer cannot find him. What will that card sell for ungraded?

4) Going to the opposite extreme - isn't $.50 about right for VG '65 "common" commons?

I'm not an apologist for Beckett, but I think all in all, they're not too far off on much of their pricing. You just have to view graded cards as a completely seperate animal. After all, isn't the whole nature of grading that "it's not an 8 until we/PSA says so"??

norty

In response to crazysc:


1) I fully well realize that Beckett's prices are for raw cards. It is,however, the same card whether it is in a holder or raw. That ungraded card is $4.00 raw in NM/Mt and $18.00 graded. Since there is a market for it at $18 that tells me that $4 is too low. Try finding NM/MT commons from the 50's and early to mid 60's. They don't grow on trees. I think high grade NM+ to Mint commons from Vintage sets are worth at least double what they go for. Presumably part of that $18 figure is for the $7 grading fee so the rough market value is $11. Discountiung slightly, double would be $8.00. Several dealers charge at least that but and perhaps they make up for a lack of volume of sales with higher returns.

What is most galling to me though is that NONE OF THE COMMONS PRICES HAVE CHANGED IN YEARS! Are you telling me that market conditions in the card business have been completely stable in vintage cards for years? I don't think so. No, it is Beckett being understaffed and not much caring. If you really want to test your powers of observation, you can look at a Beckett price guide and find errors they made in their price guide in 1990 that are the same in 2003. No one has bothered to correct anything in years. They just slap it in the magazine and ship it out to you every week.

2) See #1 above re: 65's

3) I have found in my travels that customers exist for high grade raw vintage commons. They are happy to see them because they see them so infrequently. Perhaps some years sell better than others and there have been changes in the focus from one particular period to another (last few years more early to mid 70's material selling rather than early to mid 50's). Presuming then that your question about what price for the card if there is no demand is hypothetical, my answer would be that it has no value. The reverse, however, is EXACTLY my point! We HAVE demand, it is just those that structure the pricing within this hobby have not taken it into account in their price guide. If they are truly to serve this industry, they should be ferreting out demand/supply information and incorporating it into their price guide. This would mean that prices can DECREASE too in those years where demand has waned.

4) Regarding lower grade vintage commons, there is a TREMENDOUS supply of that material. $.50 cents may be too high for 1st series 65 Topps cards in Vg/Ex. Since it doesn't command a premium, most dealers can acquire it cheaply and sell it cheaply. The profit margin on lower grade material is very high because the acquisition costs are very low. It just thjat you have to do a tremendous volume to generate any dollars because the cards are selling for $.50 or less each.

My whole point is that it is the higher grade commons (NM+ or better) that are not readily available and the pricing should reflect the scarcity. If the market for high grade graded commons is set by the SMR, then (in my opinion) the market for that exact same card without a plastic encapsulating holder should be the SMR less the cost of grading, with some discounting to encourage buyers to buy the card without the holder.

Sorry for how long this is but these Beckett pricing issues have bugged me for some time.

Buckwheat

I think that the big reason that raw prices are much lower than graded prices for nm/mt is that there is not the overgrading problem. And I am not even talking about intentional overgrading. I bought about 60 nm/mt common cards from a dealer at a show this summer for twice Beckett, plus a half dozen semistar cards. When I got home and looked at them under a magnifier, only about half had a chance for a PSA 8. I sent about 30 in to PSA, and got 2 w/ evidence of trim, 8 PSA 8 and 22 PSA 7.

I admit that I am not a great card grader, but then again, not too many people are. These 8 PSA 8 cards cost me much more than if I had just bought them already graded. To buy an ungraded nm/mt card for $8 less than the graded PSA 8 price would require that I be about 90% certain it will grade PSA 8. That is why I believe that raw cards are priced much lower. I don't think that Beckett puts a lot of time into their price guide, but I also don't know that the prices are all that low.

As for price appreciation, I don't think that raw cards have appreciated over the past 10 years. I have in front of me a 1993 Beckett magazine. It has the following prices on 1961 Topps. complete set high value $5850. MAntle nm high value $450. Maris high value nm $180. High number common $33. Those prices are all very high compared to today's values, even for PSA 7 cards, much less raw cards.

norty

Buckwheat:

Given the premium prices placed on high grade graded cards (presumably driven by scarcity) don't you think it odd that prices for these cards in a raw condition haven't increased from the period (1993) when there was little if any grading?

acowa

Rob,

Anytime you want to rent my 10 X loupe to take to shows...

I can easily cost justify it with just one trip to a show. Now...if I could just spot trimming.


Regards,



Alan

Buckwheat

<< <i>Buckwheat:

Given the premium prices placed on high grade graded cards (presumably driven by scarcity) don't you think it odd that prices for these cards in a raw condition haven't increased from the period (1993) when there was little if any grading? >>



I am not sure if it is odd or not. I think that the prices I gave out of the 1993 Beckett were way too high for todays market. Were they even more out of whack then? Maybe, but I suspect that what has actually happened is that the market then was in a boom with lots of new collectors. The demand has gone down more than the supply. I went to the Richmond show this Sunday,and the place was empty. It used to be that there were lots more shows and lots more crowds. Also, there used to be several card shops around here. Now I don't know of any. Now it could be that the market has just moved to Ebay, or more likely, the number of collectors of baseball cards is stable to declining.

I would love to hear from those of you who have been around awhile.

Virtualizard

Beckett = Guide. "Guide" is the key word. I only use this resource for anything that I am not too familiar with, i.e. - as a guide. I pay no attention to the values attributed to any cards in the guide when I'm buying or selling - just that particular cards in any given set command a premium above others. I buy a card for what I am willing to pay for it. Beckett's guide has some value (although limited), but, it is just a guide - no more, no less.

JEB.

KING KELLOGG

Virtualizard...



JEB...Exactly right on... It's a "guide"...

A tool if you will...One of many tools available to all of us..




Larry

norty

It's a different perspective from the other side of the table where most customers view it as THE "authority" and vote with their feet when you don't basically adhere to it.