Options
Molitor/Trammell BVG 9.5
peterredshoes
Posts: 98
Auction Link
Looks like a fairly solid card. My knee-jerk response to it visually is that the PSA 10s I've seen have looked just a tiny bit nicer, but that it's as good or better than just about every 9 I've seen--this is mainly a reaction to the centering, I think. Closer inspection suggests the centering is probably better than I gave credit for on first peek.
It will be interesting to see what the card goes for. I'm predicting that it will not hit the ~$1500 level of PSA 10s and SGC 98s that have come up in the last couple years, but I certainly could be wrong.
While I'm thinking about it, what are graders looking for in determining the "surface" subgrade? It's the theoretical weakness on this one, having received a 9, but I find that surface issues are difficult to observe in scans because you can't be 100% sure of the actual color quality. For example, I've seen pictures of Molitor/Trammell rookies that appeared to have more vivid color (most noticable in the red border), but I can never decide how much of that is the scan and how much is the card.
Other thoughts?
Peter G.
Looks like a fairly solid card. My knee-jerk response to it visually is that the PSA 10s I've seen have looked just a tiny bit nicer, but that it's as good or better than just about every 9 I've seen--this is mainly a reaction to the centering, I think. Closer inspection suggests the centering is probably better than I gave credit for on first peek.
It will be interesting to see what the card goes for. I'm predicting that it will not hit the ~$1500 level of PSA 10s and SGC 98s that have come up in the last couple years, but I certainly could be wrong.
While I'm thinking about it, what are graders looking for in determining the "surface" subgrade? It's the theoretical weakness on this one, having received a 9, but I find that surface issues are difficult to observe in scans because you can't be 100% sure of the actual color quality. For example, I've seen pictures of Molitor/Trammell rookies that appeared to have more vivid color (most noticable in the red border), but I can never decide how much of that is the scan and how much is the card.
Other thoughts?
Peter G.
Always looking for PSA 9 or better Alan Trammell basic set cards. Visit my Trammell card web site at "www.trammellcards.com"
0
Comments
Aside from my usual anti-Beckett rant, I would be concerned that the surface grade on all 4 of the cards pictured are lower than the other subgrades. Much lower, in 3 of the cases. As I have painfully learned and others will tell you, that usually indicates a sheet-cut card that PSA will treat as a trimmed card and refuse to cross over.
loth
I haven't paid super-close attention to Beckett grading, mainly because I dislike that there are multiple advertised standards (BVG for older cards, BGS for newer, BCCG for a what I would call a back-of-the-envelope grade), to say nothing of how their standards are or are not evolving over time. Still, I can't resist poking my nose at the auctions for high grade Trammells by any of the major grading services.
With regard to premiums, it's hard to say. My guts tell me that in order for there to be a consistent, distinguishable premium that there would need to be a consistent and distinguishable difference in the cards themselves as well as the holders. Given the slight gray area that exists within a given grade presently this strikes me as unlikely. However, the kind of subtle differences in prices that result from subtle differences in appearance between cards of a given grade also correlating somewhat with the evolution of the holder seems possible. To take an example that's familiar to me, I've begun to notice that better-centered PSA 9 Molitor/Trammell rookies seem to, on average, require slightly higher winning bids on eBay. So while I can envision a trend like that involving a correlation to holder age or holder design in addition to the one in actual card appearance, it's difficult for me to imagine a clear price difference developing based solely on the holder itself.
As to actual pursuit of the card, bidding is well on its way out of my price range. Regardless of that, my conservative nature would inhibit me from attempting to cross something with that dollar amount involved, even if the sheet issue were not at play.
Peter G.
peterredshoes -- The surface of the card is the same surface that it left the factory with. The edges, corners and centering can all be tuned-up at a later date.
There has been a good bit of speculation (evidence?) that sheet cut and/or trimmed cards end up in BVG/BGS holders. Many/most of these cards have very strong centering/edges/corners subgrades but with a significantly lower surface subgrade.
This is one of the best centered Tram/Molitor rookies that I have seen; which lends credence to the sheet cut theory. Personally, I also wouldn't take the risk attempting to cross it over. With my luck, the screwdriver would slip and I'd cut the card in half, or when I submitted it it would come back as trimmed. I would like to see a bigger scan of it. Nice find Peter!
I'd be interested in what the 78 collectors think of this card.
Also, what do you guys look for to spot sheet cut cards. AND, aren't they all sheet cut
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
N162
Jim
<< <i>I'm also curious to hear why the surface would be lower for sheet cut cards... >>
Simple. Until you cut up the sheet, there are no edges or corners to get worn, so the surface is the only part that can be damaged. Sheet surfaces are tough to keep mint due to their sheer size -- you can't just stick them in penny sleeves and toploaders, so when you cut them up the centering, corners and edges are perfect, but the surface has 27 years of wear on it.
Exactly!
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
What I really learned, though, is this: the actual amount of information about a card's border as communicated in typical sized scans is quite limited, but the human eye is pretty good at sifting through that information. Consider these three PSA 9s along with our BVG 9.5 card:
PSA 9 Image #1
PSA 9 Image #2
PSA 9 Image #3
As you'll see if you look, one of these is pretty badly centered top/bottom, one has a mild smudge in the "oo" area, but other than that they all have pretty similar features. But even on the worst-centered copy, the difference in border width between top and bottom is a whopping four pixels (four to eight). So while it's obvious that the card's off-center, if somebody asked you whether it was 70/30, 65/35, or even 60/40, you really wouldn't have enough data to determine reliably which of the three it was.
Another bit of entertainment turned out to be looking at the cards in their cropped, holderless state, which I needed to determine the relative size of each image. I couldn't help but think that, brightness levels aside, the cards look a lot more similar when they've got no numbers dangling off of them.
Anyway, hope this is entertaining info. If nothing else it's probably a solid exercise in demonstrating the limitations of scans even beyond the obvious issues in evaluating color.
Peter G.