1954 Aaron GAI 9 - Mint Crossover possibility?
natetrook
Posts: 613 ✭✭✭
This auction by Legacy just ended. GAI-9 Aaron RC for $7950.
SMR on a 9 is $17,500. Would anyone dare to crack this puppy and resubmit raw?
Anyone think it would come back trimmed? How safe is GAI for a card of this caliber?
Nate
54 Aaron RC GAI-9
SMR on a 9 is $17,500. Would anyone dare to crack this puppy and resubmit raw?
Anyone think it would come back trimmed? How safe is GAI for a card of this caliber?
Nate
54 Aaron RC GAI-9
0
Comments
GAI 9.5
I'd love to buy that card in a seven or eight.
I was at National watching a GAI grader look at cross-over cards submitted in PSA holders and arbitrarily bump them up .5 grades. I was thinking to myself, who in their right mind would take a perfectly good PSA holdered card and cross it to GAI? Ridiculous.
So, an answer to your question, in my opinion, it is highly likely the Aaron card is trimmed/filed/shaved/altered in some way, as well as a large percentage of high-end high-dollar cards in GAI holders. If you owned a Hank Aaron rookie that looked like a PSA 9, which SMR's at $17,500 and would sell for somewhere in that vicinity, you'd submit the card to PSA first and foremost, and if they holdered it as an 8, you'd crack it and send it back 10-20 times to try for that 9 before you gave up that fight, especially on a card that looks like this one. If the card finally wound up in a GAI 9 holder because PSA wouldn't grade it better than an 8 after multiple attempts, then I can understand it, but I doubt that's the case with many of the high-end high-dollar cards in their holders.
<< <i>Here's my take on GAI... Cards in their holders are considerably less valuable than cards in PSA holders of the exact same grade. You're much better off with a PSA 8 than a GAI 8.5. I don't want to equate them to PRO, but I believe they are only a small step ahead of them. They have a little bit of credibility, you see lots of their cards in dealer cases at shows, but they don't seem to sell. You can see this trend exists in all the big auctions too. I would never purchase a valuable card in a GAI holder, and I'd be unlikely to purchase even a cheaper card in one of their holders without being able to inspect it and measure the card for fear of getting a trimmed card. I think they grade tons of trimmed material and I don't think they will be around much longer because they have only a single real line of business (no coins, stamps, comics), which will basically crush the value of any card in their holders.
I was at National watching a GAI grader look at cross-over cards submitted in PSA holders and arbitrarily bump them up .5 grades. I was thinking to myself, who in their right mind would take a perfectly good PSA holdered card and cross it to GAI? Ridiculous.
So, an answer to your question, in my opinion, it is highly likely the Aaron card is trimmed/filed/shaved/altered in some way, as well as a large percentage of high-end high-dollar cards in GAI holders. If you owned a Hank Aaron rookie that looked like a PSA 9, which SMR's at $17,500 and would sell for somewhere in that vicinity, you'd submit the card to PSA first and foremost, and if they holdered it as an 8, you'd crack it and send it back 10-20 times to try for that 9 before you gave up that fight, especially on a card that looks like this one. If the card finally wound up in a GAI 9 holder because PSA wouldn't grade it better than an 8 after multiple attempts, then I can understand it, but I doubt that's the case with many of the high-end high-dollar cards in their holders. >>
GAI = the people that started and worked for years at PSA. Did they become dumbasses when they walked across the street. If you have no faith in GAI, you should have less faith in PSA.
<< <i>On a related note, how much would you pay someone to crack the card for you with the guarantee that if it was damaged he would pay you the full purchase price for the card. Kind of like cracking insurance. I'd be scared to death to crack that thing and would probably pay a decent price to have someone else do so with the guarantee. >>
I think cracking that card would be a thrill of a lifetime. And one of these days I am going to crack a mid four figure card just for the sheer hell of it.
<< <i>Edit - it's just not worth the fight. >>
aw, thats no fun!
Now, if anyone can afford to gamble and send it in to PSA raw, it's Legacy. If it comes back PSA 8, they have a $3,000 card. If it comes back 9, they have a $17,500 card. Therefore, I think it is quite possible they made that attempt as well, perhaps with an arrangement with Rocchi and Baker that it would go back in its GAI 9 holder if the attempt failed and GAI agreed that it was still the same 9 card in their view.
That last part is pure speculation and may be wrong, but I am quite certain about the first part -- that it has been to PSA for crossover in that GAI 9 holder more than once. It would defy logic and be just plain stupid if it had not. And Legacy ain't stupid. $10K below SMR? They settled for that because they had to.
Just one collector's opinion, one who owns mostly PSA, but prefers SGC. Don't throw your tomatoes, it's only cardboard in the end.
Oh, and to jrdolan: a very good hypothesis.
To the few GAI police who haunt this forum - it's a joke...it was only a joke - LOL.
Seriously it does of course look like a nice card but I don't think it has any chance at a PSA 9.
Steve
<< <i>perhaps with an arrangement with Rocchi and Baker that it would go back in its GAI 9 holder if the attempt failed and GAI agreed that it was still the same 9 card in their view.
...
That last part is pure speculation and may be wrong,... >>
Why would GAI make that deal? "Sure, take a high profile out of our holder, give it to our main competitor and industry leader, if they don't give you the same grade we'll guarantee you the same grade we originally gave it." GAI has *nothing* to gain from the deal.
Regardless, wouldn't it be fascinating to see the crossover results from the big auction houses over the years?
Do you really believe they would destroy their integrity by grading trimmed cards? Do you think Mike Baker, who is widely regarded as one of the forefathers of grading and one of the most consistent and accurate graders in the industry just went insane and decided to make a buck? Doubtful.
I'm not the GAI police, in fact I own 4 GAI graded cards and probably close to 1000 PSA graded cards. I've made in person submissions to GAI at shows and I've spent time talking with them and it's always been a good experience. I just find it interesting that members here have personally cracked and resubmitted cards from GAI with great success and yet at seemingly every opportunity there are others who come out and bash them like they were PRO. If cracked GAI cards start coming back altered and "missing elbows" or "missing shoes" like a few BGS counterparts or some PRO examples, then I'll line up with you to bash them. Until then, I've seen little to nothing to make me believe they are anything like PRO.
It is true their stuff does not sell as high as a PSA counterpart, there are several reasons for that and all have been discussed a hundred times and there is nothing to argue about. PSA sells better. But this notion that somehow this card is severely overgraded without being able to see it in person seems a bit hasty IMO.
Just my .02
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
To answer your question, I don't know if this card is a PSA 9, it's very tough to tell from a scan. I do believe though that there are high end cards that end up in other holders for many other reasons beside "PSA wouldn't grade it that high". Maybe the guy that had it graded appreciates Baker's opinion, maybe it's a family friend, maybe the guy had some horrible experience with PSA and refuses to use them, maybe he doesn't want to pay a membership fee... I have no idea, maybe the guy submitted it at the nationals and thought the $5 pre-grade was a good deal, it came back a 9, he holdered it and was told what it might fetch at auction...he walked down the aisle to a big auction house, they gave him an upfront payment and waited for the rest when it sold. Isn't that a possibility?
Despite what we might all think, not everyone knows of PSA, not everyone knows they are, or could be leaving money on the table by not using them. Personally, I could sit here and make the same argument for modern cards that aren't in a BGS holder. I'll tell you, I AM leaving money on the table by owning a PSA 10 copy of a modern card and not having it in a BGS 9.5 or 10 holder. If I posted about all my PSA 10's on the Beckett board would they say that "BGS probably rejected it and PSA gave it a 10"
I just think we can look at things from a bit of a different perspective sometimes and sometimes, things can be taken at face value and there isn't some underlying conspiracy or secret society we need to crack into to unlock the mysteries of card grading.
Anything is always possible. I just think sometimes with the other grading companies, particularly GAI, we tend to treat them like our sister's ex-boyfriend. We don't like them cuz our preferred company doesn't like them. Even though our sister my be the one that caused them to go away and not the other way around.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
<< <i>envoy, so do you think this card is a psa 9. I personnally did not equate GAI to PRO and do not think the card is SEVERLY overgraded but I have no doubt in my mind that this card has been sent to PSA a few times , probably out of the holder and it would not grade a 9. It probably came back an 8 2-3 times and since it was such a high end example it went to GAI next where it got the 9. The same happened with the GAI Bobby Orr rookie that Mile High had. It went to psa and got an 8 , Mile high thought the card was mint worthy and they sent it to GAI and it got the 9. is it severly overgraded , NO , is it a Mint example , in the eyes of Mile High and GAI it was but not PSA . was it close to a 9 in PSA's eyes, maybe but they took the conservative route and went with the 8. >>
a76123948912384 said they were a small step ahead of PRO.. heh..
But all that being said, I would like to see more strong competition to PSA - competition is good for the consumer. To me, SGC is a strong competitor. GAI is a competitor but I feel not a real strong competitor.
Steve
It's very possible that the dealer never even laid hands on the card, let alone trimmed it.
One scenario is the dealer bought an 8 that was high end and didn't want to risk thousands of dollars by cracking it out. So, instead, he sends it to a grading company that's more likely to bump a card up a full grade in its holder. (I don't know if that's the case with GAI, but that's the impression I've gotten from little tidbits here and there). After that, I agree that the dealer would try to cross it from a GAI 9 to a PSA 9, but we all know that's not going to happen regardless of what the card looks like.
I also doubt legacy expected the auction to end this low. Personally, I would never start an auction around 40%-50% of SMR. Experience has taught me that it's better to either start it out low and let a lot of bidders get involved OR start it at the price you want. If it had been a PSA card, the starting price might not have mattered, but with GAI that's a killer IMO.
Just to clarify though, I did not equate GAI to PRO. I do, however, think that GAI is not nearly the business of PSA or SGC. The bottom line is that their holders are tougher to sell for what the cards are really worth. Several months ago I submitted some very nice $50-200 cards to GAI when they set up shop at a local show. They were very pleasant to deal with, I had a conversation with Mike Baker as he was there grading the cards and they were not busy. He graded my cards fairly, no complaints there. But, when I went to sell them, it was impossible to get good value for the cards. I had to spam auction titles just to get traffic, I sold a gorgeous 1981 Fleer Rose which would have been a PSA 10 that GAI graded 9.5 for only $47. Same deal on several other cards. It soured me on GAI. The consumer confidence & credibility is just not high enough, and I think GAI could wind up in trouble if the card grading market goes south for a prolongued period of time, as they have no other business to fall back on, while PSA & SGC have coins as a huge revenue producer, and Beckett has their publications.
A side note as to why I am suspect of some cards in their holders, I have watched several of their graders on multiple occasions actually examine and grade the cards and saw a ruler used exactly one time. As trained of an eye as one may have who sees thousands of cards a day, I don't think it's possible to look at the edges of a card as the sole way of detecting trimming or filing.
-Josh
<< <i>Well, if I'm running a grading company, one of the first things I'm gonna make sure of when it comes to the holder is to make darn sure that it looks fine in a scan since a lot of my customers would be buying from scans off the internet. >>
Well then I think you would be the only one. I think that PSA,BGS,SGC,etc... don't give one thought about how their cards will look when being sold on Ebay. If the card is graded correctly and put in a secure holder they did their job. I'm sure they don't have somebody scanning cards to make sure they look just right for you to buy off of Ebay. So what happens if it looks nice but then somebody uses a cheap scanner that produces a blurry image or does the old digital camera trick. Who's fault is that??
Everyone understands what a bad scan is. The point was that if the plastic in the GAI slab is making a scan appear skewed compared to the same scan of a PSA or SGC slab, then that would be quite stupid on the part of GAI to overlook an obvious need. Maybe to you this need is not obvious.
Actually if it's true that the plastic in their slabs is not skewing the scans, then there would be the much worse problem of what to me appears to be a fair number of seemingly trimmed cards being graded by GAI - others have noticed this also.
GAI Grade PSA Grade
1957 T Clemente No grade, erased border Not holdered, altered (no explanation)
1957 T Colavito 6 6
1957 T Mantle 6.5 6
1957 T Kluzewski 6.5 7
1963 T NL HR Ldrs. Trimmed Trimmed
1968 T Carew Trimmed 7
In three cases, the grades (or lack thereof) were the same. The PSA grade was harsher with the Mantle, but better with the Kluzewski. PSA graded the Carew card that Mike felt was trimmed.
This thread really goes to why we grade cards to begin with. If it is to provide an accurate assessment of the card's condition, then by my experience (and others that I know), GAI does a reasonable job. So does SGC and so does PSA. Mistakes are of course made by all three, but the grading standards are reasonably close. In my experience here, GAI was actually harder on my cards.
However, if we grade cards to increase their resale value, then PSA is king. We all know that. Whether resale values of GAI and SGC graded material ever catch up to PSA remains to be seen. That seems to be the beef of those that were equating GAI with PRO (a woefully incorrect comparison, by the way). I don't think you can fault GAI for lower resale values of their cards, and I'm not sure they care. If they grade cards correctly, the result will speak for itself.
As for me, I trust PSA, GAI, and SGC graded product, and will buy all three. I submit to both PSA and GAI, and trust their analysis. But I must admit, I don't generally get cards graded for resale purposes. Those that play that game are probably going to be disappointed going with anyone other than PSA.
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>My #1 fan has arrived I can see. I don't think pandrews has missed a chance to jump on me yet since I've been here, although, that's part of the enjoyment I get from posting on these boards. It's all in good fun though, and my opinion is only my opinion, not gospel. >>
glad you enjoy it..
i'm trying really hard right now to abstain from providing more enjoyment..
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>A761506 is a poor version of yours truly.
actually DBH, would PSA really like their name used to promote GAI cards?
SGC NGC and CGC are not one company. they are under an umbrella with different presidents etc. They do not share in revenue. Each is a seperate entity.
gai does have somthing else to fall back, they do grade packs.
SD
I submitted a few GAI cards to PSA. One of them went from 4.5 to 5 (1933 World Wide Gum Moe Berg). Every other card stayed the same or lower. The most expensive being a 1933 Goudey 158 Moe Berg GAI 8 that went into a PSA 7 holder...you can see the scan of my card in my registry set. It sure looks like an 8 to me when I got it. But now that I have a few more PSA 8s, I can see that this Berg is a high-end 7 and doesn't really deserve to be in the class with my other 8s.
I think that means it was the first 9 graded by them, not the first aaron rc graded.
Wasn't Rocchi a high ranking member of pcgs at one point? I wonder why they haven't gone into coins?
I probably would not buy an Aaron RC unless the card were encapsulated in a PSA holder however. Why this one isn't mystifies me, assuming that it would meet PSA's criteria for a "9"... it may not after all, tuff to tell from the scan.
<< <i>Does anyone else find it interesting that this particular Aaron rookie--one of the FINEST looking in the world, just happened to be the first Aaron rookie graded by GAI? >>
I find it interesting that one of the FINEST looking Aaron rookies in the world sold for $10,000 below market value. And it's all about the holder. That's not slamming GAI or pimping PSA, it's stating market reality. And the reality is that if that card was in a PSA 9 holder, Legacy would have put it in high-profile auction and it would have approached $20K with the buyer's premium. Instead it sold for 45% of SMR on eBay, even with a seller that has a history of fetching astronomical prices in the Global Yard Sale.
Being involved a long time in the hobby, but being relatively new to the grading phenomenon (less than 2 years), I find it interesting that there is apparently a lot of variance in how cards are graded. Most of the standards espoused by the major graders are pretty similar to one another, yet there is a good amount of variance in how companies would view the same card submitted to them, and there's incredible variance in resale value. The grading companies can't control the latter, but they can control the former. In the end, it all comes down to whether the card's owner believes the card is graded accurately. If it is, the grading company will gain acceptance. If not, then it won't. It would be a shame if other grading companies such as GAI and SGC (BVG has already mortally wounded itself) go away because the market needs a credible alternative to PSA, if for no other reason than to keep them honest.
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>With all the available technology, why doesn't someone start a company that grades cards sans the human element. That is, a computer checks for centering, creases, and other imperfections? >>
This has been discussed here numerous times over the years, and I believe that there was(is?) a company that tried this. It's an interesting idea, but perhaps the biggest reason why this WILL NOT ever really become widespread is that as you remove the human factor from grading cards, you go full bore into turning this hobby into a faceless, soulless, entity, driven ONLY by economics. Some would argue that this is already the case, but the reality is that as long as humans are the primary entities evaluating the cards, the hobby will retain the emotional impact that it vitally needs to survive.
And, further, I don't want some machine telling me of a three-atom long crease on the surface that my eyes will NEVER, EVER be able to see. If a human can't see it, then, by golly, it just isn't worth worrying about!
<< <i>
you go full bore into turning this hobby into a faceless, soulless, entity, driven ONLY by economics. Some would argue that this is already the case, but the reality is that as long as humans are the primary entities evaluating the cards, the hobby will retain the emotional impact that it vitally needs to survive.
>>
Humans would still run the grading card companies, as I wasn't proposing an AI run hobby run by an electronic Joe O.
I don't see how human graders are contributing to the emotional impact of the hobby. Some would argue that grading has actually hurt the hobby (a separate thread needed for this one.) Most of the scrutiny around grading centers around the human element. A machine would at least be consistent and personal motives will come less into play.
Give me a sophisticated computerized grading mechanism anyday over a pair of tired, subjective, human eyes.
And I think it fails for the simple, same reason it would fail in baseball - the subjectivity and interpretation are actually an important part of the process. Grading guidelines, much like the "strikezone", are just a guide, with plenty of room (and need) for interpretation on a case by case basis. Correct and consistent interpretation are the key, but computerized consistency would not always be correct, if that makes any sense..
If a human can't see it, then, by golly, it just isn't worth worrying about!
That's right on the money. The argument doesn't need to go much further than that...