Home PSA Set Registry Forum

Follow-up: Cost of grading vs value

This is a follow-up to a thread a little while back attempting to analyze where the break-even points on grading commons, as well as looking at a realistic return on investment.

Below is a report from my database analyzing - for commons only - the cost per card using 60% SMR. These cards are defined as non-stars (not non-HOF) but would include minor and semi-minor stars, as well as high numbers and short prints. The price per card is the sum of SMR * 0.6 divided by the count. Of course so commons go for more and some less, but in looking at recent selling trends (like 1965 PSA 7 commons selling for $4-6 on eBay), these are near the top end of the range. Anyway, the report shows (in green) those years and conditions where the per card value is equal or greater than the grading fee (using the PSA bulk rates). I have seen more and more vintage graded cards selling for less than grading fees and I wanted to know where the break-even points were. But I believe it also helps in looking at the relatively realistic selling points as a measure of how to buy effectively. This is not too much different than the analysis that I and others presented before but I like using a picture better.

Notes:
Sorry about not including 1961, my database is screwed up in that year.
The SMR values all come from PSA which I formatted and imported into my database.
I stopped at 1971 even though I have access to the SMR for later years, I don't have the "type" field assigned to each card (defining star, common, semi, hi#, etc) as I do pre-1972.

image

Comments

  • RipublicaninMassRipublicaninMass Posts: 10,051 ✭✭✭
    Thanks Steve, I found this very interesting. As one would expect, as you go "more" modern, you need better grades just to recoup the grading fees. But notice of the trends. 1957 seems like a real "make it or break it" year. Not surprising since there are so many 57 collectors who define this as the last truly vintage 50's set. phew. Green pops back up in '71 with those damn black borders, seems like everyone already knows how tough even a 7 is in this issue. Again, very interesting!
  • Excellent analysis Buccaneer. I collect 71 Topps and ironically my unscientific pricing for common 7 and 8's was very close to yours. I normally pay $7-$9 for 7's and $16-$21 for 8's. I figure at those price levels it saves me time for searching and submitting raw while allowing the sellers a small profit. Your analysis proves it.
    Good job!image
    Baseball is my Pastime, Football is my Passion
  • Nice job Buccaneer!
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,102 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Impressive spreadsheet, I'm sure it will help out a lot of people.

    But people need to be careful in interpreting the results along the edge between "worth it" and "not worth it". Because what this spreadsheet does not do (and I am not volunteering to, either) is tell you what the cards would have sold for ungraded. For example, the spreadsheet documents that graded near mint cards from the early 60's and from 1971 sell for more than grading fees; but, those same cards will also sell for $1 or so apiece ungraded (on average, as in the spreadsheet). So, all things considered, it is not "worth it" to have those cards graded.


    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Sign In or Register to comment.