<< <i>another pic for sharper. ties him with lott for his career. this season i think makes him a lock for hof. man the packers have had some great safeties over the last 20 years.
bulter sharper collins
nice run in the draft for sure. >>
I don't think there is such a thing as a ''lock'' Safety for the HOF. Tell that to Steve At-water and Leroy Butler..Or Darren Woodson and John Lynch in the next few years when they aren't being elected...And what about active players Brian Dawkins? Ed Reed? Polamalu?
Sharper will be a candidate, but how does it get in over any of the players above who had better overall careers at the same position is beyond me....If i were a betting man, I'd say odds are against him. He has however improved his stock from a 10% chance guy to maybe a 20% chance guy..But based on the fact that Safeties simply don't get elected very often, I can't see the committee going in the completely opposite direction and electing 4-5-6 different Safeties for the HOF from the same era...It is a proven fact that INT totals are meaningless to the voters...
He's a lock for the Packers HOF at least....lol
Jason >>
Agreed, he will make it into the Packer HOF. Jason is correct though on the position of Safety. Butler is getting no love, nor is At-water. Lynch will get some looks and in my guess will get in ahead of Butler, At*** and Sharper. But Dawkins and Reed are better than all of the above so Lynch better get in soon.
Agreed, he will make it into the Packer HOF. Jason is correct though on the position of Safety. Butler is getting no love, nor is At-water. Lynch will get some looks and in my guess will get in ahead of Butler, At*** and Sharper. But Dawkins and Reed are better than all of the above so Lynch better get in soon. >>
Lynch's first nomination will be for the Class of 2013, so he's got 3 years before he even makes the ballot. I think his career is fairly similar to At-water..Lots of Pro Bowls, considered a hard hitter, has a Super Bowl Ring...And At-water isn't even making the top 25, and he's had 6 chances already to get there! I have Lynch as a 50-50 shot. Reed, Polamalu and Dawkins, IMO will likely end up as the Safeties with the best shot. Reed and Polamalu still need to get more top notch (not injured) seasons under their belts first. If either retired today, I don;t think they'd get in. Just not long enough careers just yet, but each are certainly headed that way.
The one knock on Dawkins? No Super Bowl rings...Team of the Decade will be announced in January. My guess for the first team Safeties: Dawkins and Reed. Should help their case, but if you look at the other teams of the decades, there are Safeties on each of them (60s-90s) who made All Decade First Team who never and still haven't gotten in.
For the record, there are exactly 7 pure Safeties in the HOF. The last of which retired in 1980...3 are from the 50's, 2 from the 60's and 2 from the 70's...I think getting 3 who primarily played in this decade is probably the best case scenario, with less being much more likely. I don;t know if we'll ever get one from the 80's, and Butler, Lynch and Darren Woodson are the 90's guys with a shot. I think At-water is no longer likely to be elected. I guess get run over by Okoye was too much to overcome..lol..Butler needs to at LEAST make the top 25 semifinals in the next 2 years or you can write off his chances as well...
Your top 10 Safeties this decade based on total number of All-Pro votes this decade (2000-2009):
Ed Reed, 184 Brian Dawkins, 118 Troy Polamalu, 105 Bob Sanders, 71 John Lynch, 70 Darren Sharper, 56 Rodney Harrison, 44 Roy Williams, 37 Rod Woodson, 33 Adrian Wilson, 31
Reed, Dawkins, Polamalu and Wilson could get some of the 100 available votes (50 votes x 2 Safety positions) this year, but 50 is the most one player can receive be being a unanimous selection on each of the 50 voters ballots. That being said, your top 3 this decade based on All-Pro voting are going to be Reed, Dawkins and Polamalu...Not Sharper or Wilson...Woodson and Lynch were primarily 90's guys of course.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
The RC cards that are going to be used for this set (from the last decade) are just a big jumbled mess IMO.....
Was it just my imagination, or did i read somewhere that only one card company now has the exclusive rights for NFL cards? Im thinking upper deck? Anyway, I'm hopeing that is the case. Maybe have only 1 base rookie card? That would definalty simplify the process.
<< <i>The RC cards that are going to be used for this set (from the last decade) are just a big jumbled mess IMO.....
Was it just my imagination, or did i read somewhere that only one card company now has the exclusive rights for NFL cards? Im thinking upper deck? Anyway, I'm hopeing that is the case. Maybe have only 1 base rookie card? That would definalty simplify the process.
Dave >>
We will have a message board discussion to vote and select which cards we want for any players in questions...Some are questionable, but quite a few, we've actually already identified on the Future HOF RC set. Once the team is announced, we will vote here on which cards we want before I submit the request to add the 2000 Team of the Decade set to the Registry. Keep in mind, the set I will request we be in line with the other decade sets, meaning FIRST TEAM selections only. Just the best of the best players....
Jason
EDITED AT ADD: All-Decade Team will be announced on Jan. 27th.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Cards with the protective coating (Brian Dawkins). Do you prefer the card with or without? I prefer without. I know you can get PSA 10's with the coating but I want to know if you can damage the card by removing the coating. And if there is a standard way to do it.
Cards with the protective coating (Brian Dawkins). Do you prefer the card with or without? I prefer without. I know you can get PSA 10's with the coating but I want to know if you can damage the card by removing the coating. And if there is a standard way to do it. >>
I prefer without as well just visually it looks better. I don't collect many of these type cards, but I've never noticed a price difference between coating and no coating.
As far as removing it, there's always a chance of damaging the card. But a Dawkins ungraded is probably $1, so if it's that big of a deal to you the risk factor is pretty low.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Personally, I'm very sad to see Upper Deck become the football card company. Topps Chrome was very collectible. I stopped buying their cards when the premium cards became 1/2 rookies to a box in 1998. It is these premium card we will be talking about for this set, not the base cards. We have already settled on the $900 1998 UD SP Manning and the $1200 2000 UD SP Brady. While these guys are great players, I can't justify playing the same price for these cards in PSA 9 as I paid for a 1958 PSA 8 Jim Brown.
I think we still need to look at these numbered cards for the HOF sets. It is crazy to pay 5-6 times what you have to for other future HOF RC like Jerry Rice, Emmit Smith and Barry Sanders.
Happy New Year, fellas. I sincerely hope that your yule tide was completely gay and wish you all the best for 2010.
My wife & I spent the last few weeks vacationing in the Southwestern US, one of our best vacations lately. Besides taking in Saguaro National Park in Arizona, the Imperial Sand Dunes in Cali., a Las Vegas show, and the best of San Diego, etc., I met up with a fellow Football HOF Rookies collector for the first time - Jasen C.
Being a far-flung Alaskan, I'm relatively isolated from most collectors and it was a real treat to meet you in person, Jasen. Thanks for making my wife & I feel so welcome. It was a surprise bonus to see your threshold-of-a-family-heirloom-quality collection of Football HOF Rookies (and 1935 National Chicles) in-person. There's not a weak card in the bunch! I wish a young guy like me could afford some of those. I hope to meet other fellow Registrants while travelling in the future.
So we got back to Anchorage recently and sorted through the normal bevy of accumulated junk mail. There's one new purchase that I'm certainly not treating as junk mail. It wasn't easy to land this one. My new purchase for this Registry to kick off 2010 is below. I sure won't make the mistake of placing this piece of "mail" in the same place I "filed" those 2.9% introductory APR credit card offer envelopes.
There are other new buys and a newly "review-bumped" card to post in coming weeks when I sort them out and get the scans up. Happy New Decade. -Keith
Thanks Yak and Dave, I'm appreciate of the comments on my fresh Doaker. That is most kind. The former custodian of the Doaker has a lot of hobby experience, and he let me know that he feels it is "hands down" as he put it, the best Doak Walker RC that exists (or "has seen" - one or the other). Personally, I don't have the experience to know that myself. In fact, the artifact was submitted at the last National Show for PSA 8.5 consideration. When the bump was not granted, the sentiment was that "It probably would have been if the card were a common". Again, I don't have the experience to say that myself though.
I'm mildly disappointed that my scanner shows some sort of disembodied dotted or hatching pattern across the Doaker's face, neck, hand, football, and right bicep. Those thoroughly stupid dots aren't really there, of course.
I'm mildly disappointed that my scanner shows some sort of disembodied dotted or hatching pattern across the Doaker's face, neck, hand, football, and right bicep. Those thoroughly stupid dots aren't really there, of course. >>
Keith, look for an option to "De-screen" your scan. Should be somewhere in your scanner options, same place where you would change resolution, etc. That fixed the "chain link fence" look on my old HP scanner.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> In fact, the artifact was submitted at the last National Show for PSA 8.5 consideration. When the bump was not granted, the sentiment was that "It probably would have been if the card were a common". >>
As all the other guys have said...that Walker is amazing! Congrats on the great pick-up.
Something you wrote makes me shake my head because I hear this kind of thing all the time. If there seems to be collusion and impropriety on the grading companies part...why do people continue to support and use them? It is no secret that I am an SGC guy. My collection is mixed, but I prefer them. You don't hear the criticisms like this about the black label .....in fact you almost always hear about their great accuracy and consistency. Not looking for a PSA/SGC argument...just wondering why people continue to "put up" with this nonsense.
<< <i> In fact, the artifact was submitted at the last National Show for PSA 8.5 consideration. When the bump was not granted, the sentiment was that "It probably would have been if the card were a common". >>
As all the other guys have said...that Walker is amazing! Congrats on the great pick-up.
Something you wrote makes me shake my head because I hear this kind of thing all the time. If there seems to be collusion and impropriety on the grading companies part...why do people continue to support and use them? It is no secret that I am an SGC guy. My collection is mixed, but I prefer them. You don't hear the criticisms like this about the black label .....in fact you almost always hear about their great accuracy and consistency. Not looking for a PSA/SGC argument...just wondering why people continue to "put up" with this nonsense. >>
Personally, I dislike the way SGC grades centering. They are way too light on how they subtract centering from a cards overall grade. Just my opinion. They also don't grade as many cards as PSA so I would assume they employ fewer graders which (should) mean fewer inconsistencies.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
The real issue...at least the one mentioned by Weinhold.. is not inconsistency....numbers of graders...centering issues etc., its the idea that a certain company is purposely manipulating grades to limit the population of a card. This has also been brought up in the 55 topps thread as well....that certain high grade, low pop cards are purposely being held back to reserve the scarcity of a card.
Big Fish A has the only card graded as a 9...so grading company ensures that no other 9's appear.....we have heard this before numerous times. Conspiracy theory..maybe...but if so , its a problem.
Inconsistency..collusion....either way ....makes me go black.
<< <i> In fact, the artifact was submitted at the last National Show for PSA 8.5 consideration. When the bump was not granted, the sentiment was that "It probably would have been if the card were a common". >>
As all the other guys have said...that Walker is amazing! Congrats on the great pick-up.
Something you wrote makes me shake my head because I hear this kind of thing all the time. If there seems to be collusion and impropriety on the grading companies part...why do people continue to support and use them? It is no secret that I am an SGC guy. My collection is mixed, but I prefer them. You don't hear the criticisms like this about the black label .....in fact you almost always hear about their great accuracy and consistency. Not looking for a PSA/SGC argument...just wondering why people continue to "put up" with this nonsense. >>
I think the comment your reffering to is maybe because a "Common" is not looked at under a microscope as much as a card like that is, if that card had gotten the bump it would have vaulted its notoriety into the stratosphere, I bet the grader erred on the side of caution for that reason. Its funny though because Ive owned worse looking cards than that in 8.5 holders
The Bump game is very similar to NFL football, there is ZERO rhyme or reason to the outcome more often than not.
Big Fish A has the only card graded as a 9...so grading company ensures that no other 9's appear.....we have heard this before numerous times. Conspiracy theory..maybe...but if so , its a problem.
Inconsistency..collusion....either way ....makes me go black. >>
Yeah, that's what all the little fish say..lol
Seriously though, are there big fish fighting over ultra rare high grade SGC cards? If there is, I would venture to guess you'd hear the same theories. Again, with the MUCH larger populations of PSA cards and PSA collectors, there are going to be more cases of anything you want to theorize about. Not that any of the above couldn't happen..Sure it could. But that goes for any grading company. To think otherwise would be a bit naive to the world we live in.
Just my opinions of course, I do not claim to be an expert on card company conspiracy theories. Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>The real issue...at least the one mentioned by Weinhold.. is not inconsistency....numbers of graders...centering issues etc., its the idea that a certain company is purposely manipulating grades to limit the population of a card. This has also been brought up in the 55 topps thread as well....that certain high grade, low pop cards are purposely being held back to reserve the scarcity of a card.
Big Fish A has the only card graded as a 9...so grading company ensures that no other 9's appear.....we have heard this before numerous times. Conspiracy theory..maybe...but if so , its a problem.
Inconsistency..collusion....either way ....makes me go black. >>
Its not big fish trying to limit the pop of a card, its big grader trying to do that. The head grader at the unnamed grading company hates, hates hates seeing high end cards leave his shop, so there is an internal program where every high end card has to cross his desk for review prior to leaving.
Ive heard there are 11 graders at unnamed company, only 3 at black label company and alot less turnover so the grading is much more consistent
Im not a big fan of the centering issue with SGC either, an SGC 88 may or may not be centered nicely.... Same could be said for PSA, but if they get bad they get the qualifier. I think the vintage cards like chicles and mayo's look alot better in SGC, but PSA fetches alot more money in most instances. Oh well.....
<< <i> so there is an internal program where every high end card has to cross his desk for review prior to leaving. >>
Personally, I prefer this over the alternative. Sometimes less is more, and if i were the head grader, i would do the exact same thing. Nothing makes for worse publicity than an overgraded high dollar card. Undergraded keeps the re-subs coming in and actually keeps values up as collectors will pay more for cards that are believed to be high end for the grade. Overgraded simply hurts the value of all PSA cards in all holders.
So bravo to PSA if they are erring on the side of caution, i wish they would do the same with all their cards and not just the high dollar ones. Of course, that just isn't practical based on the number of cards they grade and the cost of their service. Grading fees would probably need to double as they hire 10 ''head graders'' to be card nazi's.
I'll take undergraded every day rather than overgraded.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I prefer accurately and consistently graded over under and over! >>
I think the problem with that is "accuracy'' is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone has different opinions on specific card grades, to include graders and grading companies. Card grading (by ANY company) is not an exact science, in fact far from it. If you trust your own eyes more than you trust that of the grading companies, then you may be better off collecting raw. Will be much cheaper and every card you own will be ''accurately'' graded in your eyes.
If anyone suggests that any single grading company that exists today is 100% dead on with every single card they grade, they are either naive or delusional. That company does not exist and will never exist so long as humans are doing the grading.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
You would have to be naive or delusional to think that this 52 large Otto Graham card isn't OC. It must not be though, because PSA didn't give it a qualifier. I don't need a qualifier on the label to tell me that this card is seriously OC.
As I stated before, I did not want to turn the previous post into a PSA /SGC battle....I have hundreds of both SGC and PSA in my collection.
And Jason, I do not believe any grading companies get it right 100% of the time...but I do expect them to get it right ALMOST all of the time.
<< <i>You would have to be naive or delusional to think that this 52 large Otto Graham card isn't OC. It must not be though, because PSA didn't give it a qualifier. I don't need a qualifier on the label to tell me that this card is seriously OC.
As I stated before, I did not want to turn the previous post into a PSA /SGC battle....I have hundreds of both SGC and PSA in my collection.
And Jason, I do not believe any grading companies get it right 100% of the time...but I do expect them to get it right ALMOST all of the time. >>
Ryan, I see your point but Im almost positive this card was submitted and requested in the sub Form "NO QUALIFIERS" PSA allows that, had that not been requested it would have been given the "OC" tag.
The head grader at the unnamed grading company hates, hates hates seeing high end cards leave his shop, so there is an internal program where every high end card has to cross his desk for review prior to leaving.
Ive heard there are 11 graders at unnamed company, only 3 at black label company and alot less turnover so the grading is much more consistent
J-Sizzle: Thanks for your input there. I didn't know these things. ----------------------------------
if that card had gotten the bump it would have vaulted its notoriety into the stratosphere
Perk-dizzle: That would be fine by me! ----------------------------------
just wondering why people continue to "put up" with this nonsense.
Big Daddy: Of course it's because of the more comprehensive, better developed Registry. Just wanted to state the obvious for the less engaged reader. I hear what you're saying with your concerns. Note that I also like SGC, and have an SGC Registry because their cards present well and they have a steady grading eye. The only reason I have more PSA than SGC cards is due to the above reason. ----------------------------------
J-Peeps, thank you for the suggestion. I don't seem to have the option to de-screen. To that end, I have a better scan of the Doaker to share courtesy of Mint State (thanks, Rick). I don't mean to toot my own horn here, but - card in hand, the corners are of jaw-dropping sharpness.
<< <i>You would have to be naive or delusional to think that this 52 large Otto Graham card isn't OC. It must not be though, because PSA didn't give it a qualifier. I don't need a qualifier on the label to tell me that this card is seriously OC.
As I stated before, I did not want to turn the previous post into a PSA /SGC battle....I have hundreds of both SGC and PSA in my collection.
And Jason, I do not believe any grading companies get it right 100% of the time...but I do expect them to get it right ALMOST all of the time. >>
Ryan, I see your point but Im almost positive this card was submitted and requested in the sub Form "NO QUALIFIERS" PSA allows that, had that not been requested it would have been given the "OC" tag. >>
Just sent memory lane all my $300 + cards for the super bowl aution so bid often please lol.
Also still have all the lower $ stuff so if anyone needs anything drop me a line.
Weinhold that is 1 sweet looking Doak THANKS TO ALL WHO HAVE BOUGHT SOMETHING FROM ME or even those who made inquires have a few cards on hold for a few of you so no fears they are glad to be staying at home with the hof rc crew
<< <i> Ryan, I see your point but Im almost positive this card was submitted and requested in the sub Form "NO QUALIFIERS" PSA allows that, had that not been requested it would have been given the "OC" tag. >>
------------------------------------------------------------------ Obviously that is what was done, but my point is that SGC is criticized for not putting qualifiers on their labels, yet PSA gives the option not to put them on them anyway.
If you request No Qualifiers, the card will be given only the highest grade that its centering justifies; i.e., it would still have to have PSA 5 quality centering to get a PSA 5. That one looks ugly, though I'm not about to measure and count pixels to see if it meets the standard.
Meanwhile, I just received a '66 Philly Bob Brown PSA 7 and it's registered to someone else. I doubt it's by the seller, as the other 3 cards from him aren't tied up anywhere.
Now that this year's baseball HOF class has been announced, it's time to focus on the 2010 football HOF inductees. The 15 modern finalists will be announced on Friday. Here's my guess:
In: Emmitt, Rice, Carter, Sharpe, Tagliabue, Grimm, Dent, Dawson, Kennedy, Randle, Brown, Guy, A. Williams, Reed and Tasker
Out: Craig, Branch, Coryell, TD, Greene, Doleman, Hayes, Haley, Jackson and Modell
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
<< <i>Now that this year's baseball HOF class has been announced, it's time to focus on the 2010 football HOF inductees. The 15 modern finalists will be announced on Friday. Here's my guess:
In: Emmitt, Rice, Carter, Sharpe, Tagliabue, Grimm, Dent, Dawson, Kennedy, Randle, Brown, Guy, A. Williams, Reed and Tasker
Out: Craig, Branch, Coryell, TD, Greene, Doleman, Hayes, Haley, Jackson and Modell >>
<< <i>You would have to be naive or delusional to think that this 52 large Otto Graham card isn't OC. It must not be though, because PSA didn't give it a qualifier. I don't need a qualifier on the label to tell me that this card is seriously OC.
As I stated before, I did not want to turn the previous post into a PSA /SGC battle....I have hundreds of both SGC and PSA in my collection.
And Jason, I do not believe any grading companies get it right 100% of the time...but I do expect them to get it right ALMOST all of the time. >>
I don't think that there's anything wrong or inaccurate with regard to the grade on the Otto Graham. Submitted to SGC, it would grade an SGC 60/5 EX based upon the condition presented. Had it been requested, I could've seen this card in a PSA 7 (OC), which, in effect, is the same net grade as a PSA 5. Is the card off center? Absolutely, but the balance of the characteristics present as at least Near Mint if not bordering on NM-MT.
Jerry Rice Emmitt Smith Richard Dent Russ Grimm Shannon Sharpe Cris Carter John Randle Dermontti Dawson Andre Reed Ray Guy Paul Tagliabue Cortez Kennedy Tim Brown Lester Hayes Art Modell
In that order...lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>The final 15 is tomorrow night isn't it? Not friday
dave >>
Tomorrow they will be finalized, but not sure if they will be released to the public until Friday. NFL Network is supposed to be announcing them live on Friday. So, much like the Pro Bowl selections, they will probably try and keep them secret until the Friday show...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
For the first time ever, the exclusive announcement of finalists for the Pro Football Hall of Fame’s Class of 2010 will be announced during the NFL Network’s program “Pro Football Hall of Fame: Road to Canton.” The show first airs on Friday, Jan. 8 at 4:00 p.m. ET. The program reairs at 9:00 p.m. ET that evening and again on Saturday Jan. 9 at 2:00 a.m. ET and 8:00 a.m. ET.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
<< <i>Just curious....how long before the Registry set is updated with the newly inducted HOFers? >>
Usually 2-4 weeks after the announcement of who has been selected.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
On a side note, I am in the market for a PSA 9 '84 Craig and a PSA 9 '90 AP Kennedy (both nicely centered) if anyone has one or both for sale.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>another pic for sharper. ties him with lott for his career. this season i think makes him a lock for hof. man the packers have had some great safeties over the last 20 years.
bulter
sharper
collins
nice run in the draft for sure. >>
I don't think there is such a thing as a ''lock'' Safety for the HOF. Tell that to Steve At-water and Leroy Butler..Or Darren Woodson and John Lynch in the next few years when they aren't being elected...And what about active players Brian Dawkins? Ed Reed? Polamalu?
Sharper will be a candidate, but how does it get in over any of the players above who had better overall careers at the same position is beyond me....If i were a betting man, I'd say odds are against him. He has however improved his stock from a 10% chance guy to maybe a 20% chance guy..But based on the fact that Safeties simply don't get elected very often, I can't see the committee going in the completely opposite direction and electing 4-5-6 different Safeties for the HOF from the same era...It is a proven fact that INT totals are meaningless to the voters...
He's a lock for the Packers HOF at least....lol
Jason >>
Agreed, he will make it into the Packer HOF. Jason is correct though on the position of Safety. Butler is getting no love, nor is At-water. Lynch will get some looks and in my guess will get in ahead of Butler, At*** and Sharper. But Dawkins and Reed are better than all of the above so Lynch better get in soon.
<< <i>
Agreed, he will make it into the Packer HOF. Jason is correct though on the position of Safety. Butler is getting no love, nor is At-water. Lynch will get some looks and in my guess will get in ahead of Butler, At*** and Sharper. But Dawkins and Reed are better than all of the above so Lynch better get in soon. >>
Lynch's first nomination will be for the Class of 2013, so he's got 3 years before he even makes the ballot. I think his career is fairly similar to At-water..Lots of Pro Bowls, considered a hard hitter, has a Super Bowl Ring...And At-water isn't even making the top 25, and he's had 6 chances already to get there! I have Lynch as a 50-50 shot. Reed, Polamalu and Dawkins, IMO will likely end up as the Safeties with the best shot. Reed and Polamalu still need to get more top notch (not injured) seasons under their belts first. If either retired today, I don;t think they'd get in. Just not long enough careers just yet, but each are certainly headed that way.
The one knock on Dawkins? No Super Bowl rings...Team of the Decade will be announced in January. My guess for the first team Safeties: Dawkins and Reed. Should help their case, but if you look at the other teams of the decades, there are Safeties on each of them (60s-90s) who made All Decade First Team who never and still haven't gotten in.
For the record, there are exactly 7 pure Safeties in the HOF. The last of which retired in 1980...3 are from the 50's, 2 from the 60's and 2 from the 70's...I think getting 3 who primarily played in this decade is probably the best case scenario, with less being much more likely. I don;t know if we'll ever get one from the 80's, and Butler, Lynch and Darren Woodson are the 90's guys with a shot. I think At-water is no longer likely to be elected. I guess get run over by Okoye was too much to overcome..lol..Butler needs to at LEAST make the top 25 semifinals in the next 2 years or you can write off his chances as well...
Your top 10 Safeties this decade based on total number of All-Pro votes this decade (2000-2009):
Ed Reed, 184
Brian Dawkins, 118
Troy Polamalu, 105
Bob Sanders, 71
John Lynch, 70
Darren Sharper, 56
Rodney Harrison, 44
Roy Williams, 37
Rod Woodson, 33
Adrian Wilson, 31
Reed, Dawkins, Polamalu and Wilson could get some of the 100 available votes (50 votes x 2 Safety positions) this year, but 50 is the most one player can receive be being a unanimous selection on each of the 50 voters ballots. That being said, your top 3 this decade based on All-Pro voting are going to be Reed, Dawkins and Polamalu...Not Sharper or Wilson...Woodson and Lynch were primarily 90's guys of course.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
But, I would hold off right now. Those things were 99 cents 3 months ago and are going at HUGE prices right now.
Was it just my imagination, or did i read somewhere that only one card company now has the exclusive rights for NFL cards? Im thinking upper deck? Anyway, I'm hopeing that is the case. Maybe have only 1 base rookie card? That would definalty simplify the process.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>The RC cards that are going to be used for this set (from the last decade) are just a big jumbled mess IMO.....
Was it just my imagination, or did i read somewhere that only one card company now has the exclusive rights for NFL cards? Im thinking upper deck? Anyway, I'm hopeing that is the case. Maybe have only 1 base rookie card? That would definalty simplify the process.
Dave >>
We will have a message board discussion to vote and select which cards we want for any players in questions...Some are questionable, but quite a few, we've actually already identified on the Future HOF RC set. Once the team is announced, we will vote here on which cards we want before I submit the request to add the 2000 Team of the Decade set to the Registry. Keep in mind, the set I will request we be in line with the other decade sets, meaning FIRST TEAM selections only. Just the best of the best players....
Jason
EDITED AT ADD: All-Decade Team will be announced on Jan. 27th.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Cards with the protective coating (Brian Dawkins). Do you prefer the card with or without? I prefer without. I know you can get PSA 10's with the coating but I want to know if you can damage the card by removing the coating. And if there is a standard way to do it.
<< <i>Hey guys,
Cards with the protective coating (Brian Dawkins). Do you prefer the card with or without? I prefer without. I know you can get PSA 10's with the coating but I want to know if you can damage the card by removing the coating. And if there is a standard way to do it. >>
I prefer without as well just visually it looks better. I don't collect many of these type cards, but I've never noticed a price difference between coating and no coating.
As far as removing it, there's always a chance of damaging the card. But a Dawkins ungraded is probably $1, so if it's that big of a deal to you the risk factor is pretty low.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I think we still need to look at these numbered cards for the HOF sets. It is crazy to pay 5-6 times what you have to for other future HOF RC like Jerry Rice, Emmit Smith and Barry Sanders.
I RECEIVED A FEW EMAILS ABOUT LISTING CARDS FOR SALE HERE.
HOF ROOKIES AND FUTURE HOF ROOKIES FOR SALE
ALL PRICES DELIVERED
THE NUMBER AVAILABLE IS IN THE PARENTHESES
$600 - 1955 BOWMAN # 42 JOHN HENRY JOHNSON PSA 9 NQ- HOFER
$600 - 1959 TOPPS # 155 JIM TAYLOR P SA 9 NQ - HOFER
$600 - 1960 TOPPS # 56 FOREST GREGG PSA 9 NQ - HOFER
$2,000 - 1961 FLEER # 215 DON MAYNARD PSA 10 - HOFER
$550 - 1970 TOPPS # 59 ALAN PAGE PSA 10 - HOFER
$700 - 1970 TOPPS # 90 O.J. SIMPSON PSA 9 NQ - HOFER
$150 - 1973 TOPPS # 341 JIM LANGER PSA 10 - HOFER
$1,500 - 1973 TOPPS # 343 JACK YOUNGBLOOD PSA 10 - HOFER
$550 - 1975 TOPPS # 12 MEL BLOUNT PSA 10 - HOFER
$1,550 - 1975 TOPPS # 367 DAN FOUTS PSA 10 - HOFER
$3,750 - 1978 TOPPS # 315 TONY DORSETT PSA 10 - HOFER
$2,500 - 1979 TOPPS # 390 EARL CAMPBELL PSA 10 - HOFER
$100 - 1979 TOPPS # 411 DONNIE SHELL PSA 9 NQ - FUTURE HOFER
$250 - 1981 TOPPS # 194 ART MONK PSA 10 - HOFER
$2,000 - 1981 TOPPS # 316 DAN HAMPTON PSA 10 - HOFER
$250 - 1982 TOPPS # 51 ANTHONY MUNOZ PSA 10 - HOFER
$350 - 1982 TOPPS # 434 LAWRENCE TAYLOR PSA 10 - HOFER
$1,250 - 1982 TOPPS # 486 RONNIE LOTT PSA 10 - HOFER
$350 - 1983 TOPPS # 294 MARCUS ALLEN PSA 10 - HOFER
$35 - 1983 TOPPS # 356 GARY ANDERSON PSA 10 - HOFER
$1,400 - 1984 TOPPS # 63 JOHN ELWAY PSA 10 - HOFER
$300 - 1984 TOPPS # 111 HOWIE LONG PSA 10 - HOFER
$700 - 1984 TOPPS # 123 DAN MARINO PSA 10 - HOFER
$350 - 1984 TOPPS # 280 ERIC DICKERSON PSA 10 - HOFER
$100 - 1984 TOPPS # 286 JACKIE SLATER PSA 10 - HOFER
$225 - 1984 TOPPS # 380 DARRELL GREEN PSA 10 - HOFER
$365 - 1985 TOPPS # 251 WARREN MOON PSA 10 - HOFER
1986 TOPPS # 154 SEAN LANDETA PSA 9
$2,500 - 1986 TOPPS # 161 JERRY RICE PSA 10 - FUTURE HOFER
1988 TOPPS # 300 KEVIN GREENE PSA 10 - FUTURE HOFER
1989 PRO SET # 235 RANDALL MCDANIEL PSA 10 - HOFER
$20 - 1989 SCORE # 109 BRUCE MATTHEWS PSA 10 - HOFER
$20 - 1989 SCORE # 211 THURMAN THOMAS PSA 10 - HOFER (2)
$25 - 1989 SCORE # 246 DEION SANDERS PSA 10 - FUTURE HOFER
$65 - 1989 SCORE # 270 TROY AIKMAN PSA 10 - HOFER
1989 SCORE SUPP # 408S DERMONTTI DAWSON PSA 10 - FUT HOFER
1989 TOPPS TRADED # 115T GREG LLOYD PSA 10
1990 SCORE SUPP # 65T JUNIOR SEAU PSA 10
1990 SCORE SUPP # 68T CORTEZ KENNEDY PSA 10
1990 SCORE SUPP # 101T EMMITT SMITH PSA 10 - FUTURE HOFER
1991 PRO SET # 835 JOHN RANDLE PSA 10 - FUTURE HOFER (2)
1991 STADIUM CLUB # 60 RICKY WATTERS PSA 10
1991 STADIUM CLUB # 94 BRETT FAVRE PSA 10 - FUTURE HOFER (CHIPPED HOLDER - ON SIDE DOES NOT EFFECT CARD)
1992 COLLECTOR'S EDGE # 228 JIMMY SMITH PSA 10
1993 BOWMAN # 421 WILLIE ROAF - FUTURE HOFER
1994 SP # 3 MARSHALL FAULK PSA 10 - FUTURE HOFER
1995 SP # 103 DERRICK BROOKS PSA 10 - FUTURE HOFER
1996 BOWMAN'S BEST # 164 RAY LEWIS PSA 10 - FUTURE HOFER
1997 PACIFIC PHILA # 199 ADAM VINATIERI PSA 10 - FUT HOFER (CHIPPED HOLDER - ON TOP FRONT DOES NOT EFFECT CARD)
1997 SP AUTHENTIC # 1 ORLANDO PACE PSA 10 - FUTURE HOFER
EMAIL MADMANDREAMER@AOL.COM FOR AVAILABILITY AND SCANS
------------
BOBBY ORR
THE BEST THERE WAS!
THE BEST THERE EVER WILL BE!
------------
My wife & I spent the last few weeks vacationing in the Southwestern US, one of our best vacations lately. Besides taking in Saguaro National Park in Arizona, the Imperial Sand Dunes in Cali., a Las Vegas show, and the best of San Diego, etc., I met up with a fellow Football HOF Rookies collector for the first time - Jasen C.
Being a far-flung Alaskan, I'm relatively isolated from most collectors and it was a real treat to meet you in person, Jasen. Thanks for making my wife & I feel so welcome. It was a surprise bonus to see your threshold-of-a-family-heirloom-quality collection of Football HOF Rookies (and 1935 National Chicles) in-person. There's not a weak card in the bunch! I wish a young guy like me could afford some of those. I hope to meet other fellow Registrants while travelling in the future.
So we got back to Anchorage recently and sorted through the normal bevy of accumulated junk mail. There's one new purchase that I'm certainly not treating as junk mail. It wasn't easy to land this one. My new purchase for this Registry to kick off 2010 is below. I sure won't make the mistake of placing this piece of "mail" in the same place I "filed" those 2.9% introductory APR credit card offer envelopes.
There are other new buys and a newly "review-bumped" card to post in coming weeks when I sort them out and get the scans up. Happy New Decade. -Keith
Marc, you have some great cards listed. Do you have scans of the cards listed ?
Just let me know.
Marc
------------
BOBBY ORR
THE BEST THERE WAS!
THE BEST THERE EVER WILL BE!
------------
Thanks for sharing. Happy New year to all!
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
I'm mildly disappointed that my scanner shows some sort of disembodied dotted or hatching pattern across the Doaker's face, neck, hand, football, and right bicep. Those thoroughly stupid dots aren't really there, of course.
<< <i>
I'm mildly disappointed that my scanner shows some sort of disembodied dotted or hatching pattern across the Doaker's face, neck, hand, football, and right bicep. Those thoroughly stupid dots aren't really there, of course. >>
Keith, look for an option to "De-screen" your scan. Should be somewhere in your scanner options, same place where you would change resolution, etc. That fixed the "chain link fence" look on my old HP scanner.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> In fact, the artifact was submitted at the last National Show for PSA 8.5 consideration. When the bump was not granted, the sentiment was that "It probably would have been if the card were a common". >>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As all the other guys have said...that Walker is amazing! Congrats on the great pick-up.
Something you wrote makes me shake my head because I hear this kind of thing all the time. If there seems to be collusion and impropriety on the grading companies part...why do people continue to support and use them? It is no secret that I am an SGC guy. My collection is mixed, but I prefer them. You don't hear the criticisms like this about the black label .....in fact you almost always hear about their great accuracy and consistency. Not looking for a PSA/SGC argument...just wondering why people continue to "put up" with this nonsense.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>
<< <i> In fact, the artifact was submitted at the last National Show for PSA 8.5 consideration. When the bump was not granted, the sentiment was that "It probably would have been if the card were a common". >>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As all the other guys have said...that Walker is amazing! Congrats on the great pick-up.
Something you wrote makes me shake my head because I hear this kind of thing all the time. If there seems to be collusion and impropriety on the grading companies part...why do people continue to support and use them? It is no secret that I am an SGC guy. My collection is mixed, but I prefer them. You don't hear the criticisms like this about the black label .....in fact you almost always hear about their great accuracy and consistency. Not looking for a PSA/SGC argument...just wondering why people continue to "put up" with this nonsense. >>
Personally, I dislike the way SGC grades centering. They are way too light on how they subtract centering from a cards overall grade. Just my opinion. They also don't grade as many cards as PSA so I would assume they employ fewer graders which (should) mean fewer inconsistencies.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Big Fish A has the only card graded as a 9...so grading company ensures that no other 9's appear.....we have heard this before numerous times. Conspiracy theory..maybe...but if so , its a problem.
Inconsistency..collusion....either way ....makes me go black.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>
<< <i> In fact, the artifact was submitted at the last National Show for PSA 8.5 consideration. When the bump was not granted, the sentiment was that "It probably would have been if the card were a common". >>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As all the other guys have said...that Walker is amazing! Congrats on the great pick-up.
Something you wrote makes me shake my head because I hear this kind of thing all the time. If there seems to be collusion and impropriety on the grading companies part...why do people continue to support and use them? It is no secret that I am an SGC guy. My collection is mixed, but I prefer them. You don't hear the criticisms like this about the black label .....in fact you almost always hear about their great accuracy and consistency. Not looking for a PSA/SGC argument...just wondering why people continue to "put up" with this nonsense. >>
I think the comment your reffering to is maybe because a "Common" is not looked at under a microscope as much as a card like that is, if that card had gotten the bump it would have vaulted its notoriety into the stratosphere, I bet the grader erred on the side of caution for that reason. Its funny though because Ive owned worse looking cards than that in 8.5 holders
The Bump game is very similar to NFL football, there is ZERO rhyme or reason to the outcome more often than not.
<< <i>
Big Fish A has the only card graded as a 9...so grading company ensures that no other 9's appear.....we have heard this before numerous times. Conspiracy theory..maybe...but if so , its a problem.
Inconsistency..collusion....either way ....makes me go black. >>
Yeah, that's what all the little fish say..lol
Seriously though, are there big fish fighting over ultra rare high grade SGC cards? If there is, I would venture to guess you'd hear the same theories. Again, with the MUCH larger populations of PSA cards and PSA collectors, there are going to be more cases of anything you want to theorize about. Not that any of the above couldn't happen..Sure it could. But that goes for any grading company. To think otherwise would be a bit naive to the world we live in.
Just my opinions of course, I do not claim to be an expert on card company conspiracy theories.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>The real issue...at least the one mentioned by Weinhold.. is not inconsistency....numbers of graders...centering issues etc., its the idea that a certain company is purposely manipulating grades to limit the population of a card. This has also been brought up in the 55 topps thread as well....that certain high grade, low pop cards are purposely being held back to reserve the scarcity of a card.
Big Fish A has the only card graded as a 9...so grading company ensures that no other 9's appear.....we have heard this before numerous times. Conspiracy theory..maybe...but if so , its a problem.
Inconsistency..collusion....either way ....makes me go black. >>
Its not big fish trying to limit the pop of a card, its big grader trying to do that. The head grader at the unnamed grading company hates, hates hates seeing high end cards leave his shop, so there is an internal program where every high end card has to cross his desk for review prior to leaving.
Ive heard there are 11 graders at unnamed company, only 3 at black label company and alot less turnover so the grading is much more consistent
Im not a big fan of the centering issue with SGC either, an SGC 88 may or may not be centered nicely.... Same could be said for PSA, but if they get bad they get the qualifier. I think the vintage cards like chicles and mayo's look alot better in SGC, but PSA fetches alot more money in most instances. Oh well.....
<< <i> so there is an internal program where every high end card has to cross his desk for review prior to leaving. >>
Personally, I prefer this over the alternative. Sometimes less is more, and if i were the head grader, i would do the exact same thing. Nothing makes for worse publicity than an overgraded high dollar card. Undergraded keeps the re-subs coming in and actually keeps values up as collectors will pay more for cards that are believed to be high end for the grade. Overgraded simply hurts the value of all PSA cards in all holders.
So bravo to PSA if they are erring on the side of caution, i wish they would do the same with all their cards and not just the high dollar ones. Of course, that just isn't practical based on the number of cards they grade and the cost of their service. Grading fees would probably need to double as they hire 10 ''head graders'' to be card nazi's.
I'll take undergraded every day rather than overgraded.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>I prefer accurately and consistently graded over under and over! >>
I think the problem with that is "accuracy'' is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone has different opinions on specific card grades, to include graders and grading companies. Card grading (by ANY company) is not an exact science, in fact far from it. If you trust your own eyes more than you trust that of the grading companies, then you may be better off collecting raw. Will be much cheaper and every card you own will be ''accurately'' graded in your eyes.
If anyone suggests that any single grading company that exists today is 100% dead on with every single card they grade, they are either naive or delusional. That company does not exist and will never exist so long as humans are doing the grading.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Quest for Jim Brown
I think I have another deal coming up shortly to add some more HOF Rookies to the trade.
As I stated before, I did not want to turn the previous post into a PSA /SGC battle....I have hundreds of both SGC and PSA in my collection.
And Jason, I do not believe any grading companies get it right 100% of the time...but I do expect them to get it right ALMOST all of the time.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>You would have to be naive or delusional to think that this 52 large Otto Graham card isn't OC. It must not be though, because PSA didn't give it a qualifier. I don't need a qualifier on the label to tell me that this card is seriously OC.
As I stated before, I did not want to turn the previous post into a PSA /SGC battle....I have hundreds of both SGC and PSA in my collection.
And Jason, I do not believe any grading companies get it right 100% of the time...but I do expect them to get it right ALMOST all of the time. >>
Ryan, I see your point but Im almost positive this card was submitted and requested in the sub Form "NO QUALIFIERS" PSA allows that, had that not been requested it would have been given the "OC" tag.
Ive heard there are 11 graders at unnamed company, only 3 at black label company and alot less turnover so the grading is much more consistent
J-Sizzle: Thanks for your input there. I didn't know these things.
----------------------------------
if that card had gotten the bump it would have vaulted its notoriety into the stratosphere
Perk-dizzle: That would be fine by me!
----------------------------------
just wondering why people continue to "put up" with this nonsense.
Big Daddy: Of course it's because of the more comprehensive, better developed Registry. Just wanted to state the obvious for the less engaged reader.
I hear what you're saying with your concerns. Note that I also like SGC, and have an SGC Registry because their cards present well and they have a steady grading eye. The only reason I have more PSA than SGC cards is due to the above reason.
----------------------------------
J-Peeps, thank you for the suggestion. I don't seem to have the option to de-screen. To that end, I have a better scan of the Doaker to share courtesy of Mint State (thanks, Rick). I don't mean to toot my own horn here, but - card in hand, the corners are of jaw-dropping sharpness.
<< <i>
<< <i>You would have to be naive or delusional to think that this 52 large Otto Graham card isn't OC. It must not be though, because PSA didn't give it a qualifier. I don't need a qualifier on the label to tell me that this card is seriously OC.
As I stated before, I did not want to turn the previous post into a PSA /SGC battle....I have hundreds of both SGC and PSA in my collection.
And Jason, I do not believe any grading companies get it right 100% of the time...but I do expect them to get it right ALMOST all of the time. >>
Ryan, I see your point but Im almost positive this card was submitted and requested in the sub Form "NO QUALIFIERS" PSA allows that, had that not been requested it would have been given the "OC" tag. >>
Also still have all the lower $ stuff so if anyone needs anything drop me a line.
Weinhold that is 1 sweet looking Doak THANKS TO ALL WHO HAVE BOUGHT SOMETHING FROM ME or even those who made inquires have a few cards on hold for a few of you so no fears they are glad to be staying at home with the hof rc crew
Pete
PF
<< <i> Ryan, I see your point but Im almost positive this card was submitted and requested in the sub Form "NO QUALIFIERS" PSA allows that, had that not been requested it would have been given the "OC" tag. >>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously that is what was done, but my point is that SGC is criticized for not putting qualifiers on their labels, yet PSA gives the option not to put them on them anyway.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
Meanwhile, I just received a '66 Philly Bob Brown PSA 7 and it's registered to someone else. I doubt it's by the seller, as the other 3 cards from him aren't tied up anywhere.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
In:
Emmitt, Rice, Carter, Sharpe, Tagliabue, Grimm, Dent, Dawson, Kennedy, Randle, Brown, Guy, A. Williams, Reed and Tasker
Out:
Craig, Branch, Coryell, TD, Greene, Doleman, Hayes, Haley, Jackson and Modell
<< <i>Now that this year's baseball HOF class has been announced, it's time to focus on the 2010 football HOF inductees. The 15 modern finalists will be announced on Friday. Here's my guess:
In:
Emmitt, Rice, Carter, Sharpe, Tagliabue, Grimm, Dent, Dawson, Kennedy, Randle, Brown, Guy, A. Williams, Reed and Tasker
Out:
Craig, Branch, Coryell, TD, Greene, Doleman, Hayes, Haley, Jackson and Modell >>
My guess:
Emmitt, Rice, Carter, Tagliabue, Guy, Sharpe.
<< <i>You would have to be naive or delusional to think that this 52 large Otto Graham card isn't OC. It must not be though, because PSA didn't give it a qualifier. I don't need a qualifier on the label to tell me that this card is seriously OC.
As I stated before, I did not want to turn the previous post into a PSA /SGC battle....I have hundreds of both SGC and PSA in my collection.
And Jason, I do not believe any grading companies get it right 100% of the time...but I do expect them to get it right ALMOST all of the time. >>
I don't think that there's anything wrong or inaccurate with regard to the grade on the Otto Graham. Submitted to SGC, it would grade an SGC 60/5 EX based upon the condition presented. Had it been requested, I could've seen this card in a PSA 7 (OC), which, in effect, is the same net grade as a PSA 5. Is the card off center? Absolutely, but the balance of the characteristics present as at least Near Mint if not bordering on NM-MT.
Emmitt Smith
Richard Dent
Russ Grimm
Shannon Sharpe
Cris Carter
John Randle
Dermontti Dawson
Andre Reed
Ray Guy
Paul Tagliabue
Cortez Kennedy
Tim Brown
Lester Hayes
Art Modell
In that order...lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>The final 15 is tomorrow night isn't it? Not friday
dave >>
Tomorrow they will be finalized, but not sure if they will be released to the public until Friday. NFL Network is supposed to be announcing them live on Friday. So, much like the Pro Bowl selections, they will probably try and keep them secret until the Friday show...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
2010 finalists to be announced Friday
For the first time ever, the exclusive announcement of finalists for the Pro Football Hall of Fame’s Class of 2010 will be announced during the NFL Network’s program “Pro Football Hall of Fame: Road to Canton.” The show first airs on Friday, Jan. 8 at 4:00 p.m. ET. The program reairs at 9:00 p.m. ET that evening and again on Saturday Jan. 9 at 2:00 a.m. ET and 8:00 a.m. ET.
But boy, take a look at the right edge. If I didnt know better, i'd think there was a rubberband mark on the right edge. Did PSA miss this one??
Link
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>Just curious....how long before the Registry set is updated with the newly inducted HOFers? >>
Usually 2-4 weeks after the announcement of who has been selected.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Brown, Carter, Coryell, Craig, Dawson, Dent, Grimm, Haley, Jackson, Kennedy, Randle, Reed, Rice, Sharpe and Smith.
Given the boot were:
Branch, Davis, Doleman, Greene, Guy, Hayes, Modell, Tagliabue, Tasler and Williams.
On a side note, I am in the market for a PSA 9 '84 Craig and a PSA 9 '90 AP Kennedy (both nicely centered) if anyone has one or both for sale.