Nice pickup - the '72 in a 9 *never* sold below $1,000 prior to the summer of 2003, but then suddenly dipped down into the $650-$800 range in the Fall and has consistently stayed in that ballpark since then ...
Considering the last public sale of a '71 PSA 9 was around $6,600, I think the seller of this one made out ok. There wasn't even a single 9 graded less than 3 years ago, and now 3 9s and 1 infamous 10 exist. The next couple that get graded and sold will likely end up at least a grand lower ...
Got the 1957 Mantle PSA 9 and the 1958 Mantle PSA 9 for below SMR. Considering the price for the PSA 8 1957 Hal Naragon, I'm very happy. I know Naragon's a rare card [pop18], but there are only 16 1958 Mickey Mantle cards in PSA 9!
<< <i>wolfbear the trick is dont show her how much you spent tonight show her how much you made when your auctions end WOLF HAS A NICE 63 NITSCHKE UP ON EBAY NOW CHECK IT OUT !!!!! BY the way i lost the 67 philly Sayers at the last sec but did grab a couple cards i could use. (I THINK ) >>
Art, I was the high bidder on the 67 Sayer most of the auction...
You just cost me a few hundred dollars in the last sec...
No hard feelings here, thats the way these thing's work.
joker , when was that 71 rose 9 sold at 6600? I don't remember that one. I know chris renard has one , I know what the one in the superior auction was bought for but do not know about the third which I am guessing is the one you are referring to for 6600
As far as that Fisk bid, and its seemingly unrelated price to the eBay number, remember point number 5 under Superior's Terms and Conditions:
"SSA, its principals, members and affiliated...blah blah blah." I am referring to the Conflict of Interest paragraph.
It is quite likely that the $1,820 bid on Fisk is nothing than a shill bid by one of the above "principals, members, etc". Maybe their sole purpose was to set some sort of artificial market value. Maybe they (or a close friend) own four or five 72 Fisks, and plan to stick them on eBay in April - and proclaim the Superior hammer price as the "true market value!" The card in the auction is highly unlikely to ever change possession.
I agree with Nick that it is quite disturbing that Superior allows the seller as well as Superior employees and their families to make bids. Why not just say "shilling is allowed" and leave it at that.
Comments
Considering the last public sale of a '71 PSA 9 was around $6,600, I think the seller of this one made out ok. There wasn't even a single 9 graded less than 3 years ago, and now 3 9s and 1 infamous 10 exist. The next couple that get graded and sold will likely end up at least a grand lower ...
Robert
Always looking for 1957 Topps BB in PSA 9!
<< <i>wolfbear the trick is dont show her how much you spent tonight show her how much you made when your auctions end
Art,
I was the high bidder on the 67 Sayer most of the auction...
No hard feelings here, thats the way these thing's work.
Sorry for the repeat thread, I'm new at this...
"SSA, its principals, members and affiliated...blah blah blah." I am referring to the Conflict of Interest paragraph.
It is quite likely that the $1,820 bid on Fisk is nothing than a shill bid by one of the above "principals, members, etc". Maybe their sole purpose was to set some sort of artificial market value. Maybe they (or a close friend) own four or five 72 Fisks, and plan to stick them on eBay in April - and proclaim the Superior hammer price as the "true market value!" The card in the auction is highly unlikely to ever change possession.
Lot 31 might be nothing but a swindle.
Be careful out there!
Nick
Always looking for 1957 Topps BB in PSA 9!
Nick