I think Grimm, Dean, Tippett and Zimmerman are the only 4 with no real hope of induction this year. Then again, what do I know?
I'd bet my Sayers 9 that at least one of the Senior finalists gets in, but I can't even hazard a guess as to how that will play out - so I won't.
"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 think Grimm, Dean, Tippett and Zimmerman are the only 4 with no real hope of induction this year. Then again, what do I know?
I'd bet my Sayers 9 that at least one of the Senior finalists gets in, but I can't even hazard a guess as to how that will play out - so I won't. >>
I'll take that bet...My $5 vs. your Sayers 9..lol
I wouldn't discount anyone this year..Both Dean and Tippett made the final 10 last year, Grimm made the final 10 two years ago...I think only 2 of the spots are certain, and 2 more are near locks..That leaves the one modern wildcard. As we get closer there should be some grumblings from a few of the voters about possible sleepers/favorites...That being said Wehrli was way out of left field last year, I never heard a peep about anyone planning on pushing his induction at all..Yet he still made the final cut and then got the 80%. I think whichever modern 5 make the final cut this year, all of them will get in. UNLESS, both Seniors (who are voted on separately and before the modern guys) get in, some of the voters might feel like their charity votes were already given there and won't bless off on whoever the 5th Modern guy is..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.
"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."
$2500 is probably right. Maybe a little higher. I have to ask though, where is the rest of his left shoe? < cough > (his right foot, left shoe when facing him)
I would take Monk, CC, Kuechenberg, Green Randall McDaniel and one of the Sr's.
Frank i disagree i think 2 skins at 1 time kind of a trend like the cowboys but i say Monk and Green.
Nothing but love here Art It's not that I don't think Monk and Grimm aren't worthy. I just feel if the voters approach the ballot the way I would, they would spread their votes around. My thinking would be " How can the the 3rd best WR on the ballot (Monk, behind Carter and Reed), be better than the best punter (R. Guy) Imagine if Green, Monk, and Grimm all made it in 1 year!! (and they are all deserving). We'd have to surgically remove your smile.
I always liked Andre Reed. In response to your post noting that Monk was the 3rd best wr behind Carter and Reed, I went to look at all their stats again. I found Andre's website.... He sure thinks he belongs in the HOF. In fact, from his "Official Website" he expected to be inducted in 2005.
"The future Hall of Famer was drafted in the fourth round by the Buffalo Bills where he had an immediate impact during his rookie year with 48 receptions for 637 yards and 4 touchdowns. With improving numbers during the next few years, Andre earned his first of seven pro-bowl selections in 1988. The rest of his career speaks for itself. He went on to set nearly every Buffalo Bills receiving record and ensure his place in the NFL Hall of Fame. "
CANTON BOUND
"Andre will be eligible for induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame beginning in 2005. Presently, there are 15 modern-era wide-receivers in the Hall of Fame and Andre’s numbers compare very favorably to the top 10 modem-era running backs enshrined in Canton. "
...not sure why you'd compare your numbers to moderan-era "running backs", but then again, probably a typo.
Not to debate who was better between the two, but Art Monk definitely has more support/backing for induction than Reed at this point. He's waited longer, he retired the all-time receptions leader, etc, etc. Monk will go in before Reed simply because he has been such a polarizing vote (your either 100% for or 100% against) Monk getting in...
Here an interesting HOF election trend that may give us some insight as to what might happen next month..
In the last 25 years, the number of times modern candidates who played predominantly the same position went in together: 4 1- 2005 QB's(Marino and Young)..Two 1st ballot locks 2- 2001 OT's (Jackie Slater and Ron Yary)..Slater was 1st ballot 3- 1990 LB's (Ted Hendricks and Jack Lambert)..Lambert was 1st ballot 4- 1985 QB's (Namath and Staubach)..Staubach was 1st ballot
As you can see, it doesn't happen often, and when it does it has included a first ballot guy. Carter and Green are this years first ballot guys, so It's possible but not likely that Art Monk OR Andre Reed (not both) could still get in. That doesn't bode well for Fred Dean, Richard Dent (DEs)...Randy Gradishar, Derrick Thomas, Andre Tippett (LBs)...Bob Kuechenberg, Randall McDaniel and Russ Grimm (OGs)...Basically you can pick your top guy from each of those groups and they have the best shot, but at no time in the past 25 years have 2 candidates who weren't HOF locks SPLIT VOTES and still get in...
This leaves Ray Guy, Gary Zimmerman as the only players who are definitively the TOP player eligible from their position. Zimmerman is also the ONLY currently eligible HOFer who was selected to TWO All-Decade teams (80s-2nd team, 90s-1st team) that isn't yet in the HOF.
Based on these findings, I have to think the modern class will look something like this:
--Cris Carter --Darrell Green --One of the OGs (I think Kuechenberg, he's been so close for the last 6 years and this is his last shot as a modern --One of the LBs (Thomas has been the closest the last 3 years in a row, but Tippett also made the cut to the final 10 (11 last year) as well..Gradishar is in his last year as a modern --5th modern coming from either one of the DEs, or Guy, Zimmerman, Tagliabue (Dent and Dean were final 11 guys last year as well before splitting votes)
I don't think Monk or Reed will get in, simply based on the fact that comparisons to Carter, Carter will get the strong majority of WR vote.
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 was debating how I felt about Randall McDaniel vs. Russ Grimm and thought Grimm might get in over him just on name recognition and having played for a marquee Washington team during the 80's. I know very little about Kuechenberg quite honestly. I really would like to see McDaniel get in, I think he absolutely deserves it. It will certainly be interesting.
Next vote is to get in to the HOF correct, and that takes place on Feb 2, the day before the Super Bowl. No other "cuts" left at this point?
<< <i>I was debating how I felt about Randall McDaniel vs. Russ Grimm and thought Grimm might get in over him just on name recognition and having played for a marquee Washington team during the 80's. I know very little about Kuechenberg quite honestly. I really would like to see McDaniel get in, I think he absolutely deserves it. It will certainly be interesting.
Next vote is to get in to the HOF correct, and that takes place on Feb 2, the day before the Super Bowl. No other "cuts" left at this point? >>
Correct. During the HOF committee meeting on 2 Feb, they will cut the 15 modern candidate to 10, then again to 5. Those 5 will be voted YES/NO and whichever of those 5 get 80% of the vote (36 of 44) will be selected for induction. This year, the Senior candidates are voted on totally separate from the modern candidates. Previously, they were lumped in with the modern cuts as they cut the finalists to 10 and then 6. The only way that Senior candidates will have any bearing on the modern candidates is the class minimum. If both Senior's get in, then a minimum of 2, max of 5 moderns will also get in. If no Seniors get elected, then a minimum of 4, maximum of 5 modern candidates will get the nod.
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.
Brady's foot being cut off is just the way the card was made, no? That's the way every Brady SP card I've seen looks.
"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."
Wow....I am so Pisse d off right now because of PSA's new bombshell of half point grading....How do you'll feel? It really sours the hobby for me and I may have to re-think my collection........
I'm really not a fan of it either Dave. I won't be sending any cards in for bumps.
"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'm trying to look at the bright side, but based on the cost of sending cards in for bumps, I don't think will be worth it value wise except on super expensive type cards. The market already self corrects for high end cards in the grade, based on eye appeal.
PSA was always so ANTI half grades I just don't get the decision...I do like the fact that they won't have a 9.5..Most PSA 10's are probably 9.5ish anyway..Its rare I see a card with absolutely perfect centering and zero flaws...
I don't think this will make me sell off or get out of collecting. I still enjoy the hobby too much for that.
I guess I'll have something to do this weekend..Look through my collection for anything that might be worthy of a half grade and see how much it would cost to send them in...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.
In other words, "Beckett is kicking our butt on grading the newer stuff, so we had to find a new way to generate revenue from all the old stuff we already graded."
In other words, "Beckett is kicking our butt on grading the newer stuff, so we had to find a new way to generate revenue from all the old stuff we already graded." >>
Beckett blows...
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>Jason - now is a good time to be happy that the SMR is way low on many FB HOF rookies.
Nick >>
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
If anyone plans on re-subbing, you'll save a bundle based on the jacked up SMR...
Good point..lol..I've been looking for as many positives in this as I can. I've been collecting this set for 8+ years now and really don't have a desire to get out. Best case is that PSA reconsiders and scraps thew half point idea..But if they don't, gotta find some positives to keep from being too ticked off about it...
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'm really not that upset....as a matter of fact, I think the decision not to assign a 9.5 great is a GREAT idea. Kudos to PSA...I think that it's a great move on their part.
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
<< <i>I'm really not that upset....as a matter of fact, I think the decision not to assign a 9.5 great is a GREAT idea. Kudos to PSA...I think that it's a great move on their part. >>
As a primarily PSA 9 and 10 collector, I'd have been pretty pissed if they were going with 9.5's. They opted not to because there's already two mint designations, and I definitely think that was the right call.
"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."
You know, one of the big things that pisses me off is that I cracked out that SGC 92 Bob Brown and sold it as a PSA 8. I'm confident that would have went to an 8.5 and would have been the highest graded.....GRrrrrr
I've been looking through my collection for possible .5 upgrades and what it would cost me to have them re-done. I think alot of guys might be making a bigger deal of this issue than need be. I agree it's a major change, and no I'm not completely sold on the idea yet. BUT, my collections is fairly substantial I think. I mean, not million dollar, but on THIS set only a couple of guys above me on the Registry you know...lol
Being honest, there aren't THAT many cards (PSA 8's and below) in my collection that would be worthy of sending in for the half grade bump. It's not like you have to send every card in your collection. As long as the flip stays the same, there will be no difference between a straight 8 graded now and a straight 8 graded 2 months from now. Why would anyone grab every PSA 8 and below they own and send it in? Look closely at your cards first and then determine which card you feel are "high end" and only send those in. For me, I've sent in quite a few review subs or pop and re-submits so this really isn't much different than what I was already doing. Except now, maybe I get an 8 to an 8.5 rather than a 9. It also means, if my grading eye is good, that I won't get as many back in the same grade either.
I guarantee, there isn't a collector out there who owns more than 50%+ "high end" for the grade cards..I know alot of guys like to THINK that all their cards are "high end" but if you examine them under the right condidtions, and measure the centering to the millimeter, the truth will come out.
If anyone in the set is getting out, dumping there set, whatever...Let me know. I'm gonna stick with it and make the best of it.
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.
Yeah, I'm too far in it to get out now. I'm in for the long haul, but I am unsure as to what i'm going to do with the cards I have now. I'm collecting so I can pass all these cards down to my kids when they are old enough.......
<< <i>You know, one of the big things that pisses me off is that I cracked out that SGC 92 Bob Brown and sold it as a PSA 8. I'm confident that would have went to an 8.5 and would have been the highest graded.....GRrrrrr
Dave >>
Dave, in fariness you already got a premium selling price on the Brown card because it was/is high end for the grade. When you sold, you listed a picture in the SGC 8.5 holder and you got MUCH MORE than the typical PSA 8 Bob Brown. Probably right about what an 8.5 would sell for.
What was your profit margin on that? How much you paid vs. how much you sold???lolol
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.
True.....I paid $200 for it and sold for $825.....I can't complain.....It one of the few times I've sent an email to an ebay seller to end the auction early. Same with the hinkle...paid $200 as well..
I can't say that I like or dislike this change. I'm still taking it in. Yes, I agree that it devalued 9's for the guys that build (and spend substantial sums of money to) achive 9.0+ sets. Why spend $500 on a PSA 8 low pop common or $10k on that PSA 9 when you can have an 8.5 for $1500 and only be behind the PSA 9 card by .5? At least with full grade jumps there was a gap to be made, with a .5 difference, it's barely a puddle. That being said, I will go through my Vikings and HOF sets and pull out the cards I sent in for full grade bumps before, that didn't make it, and try again for a .5 bump. Out of all of my cards, I sent in 13 that I thought should have made it. I've upgraded quite a few cards since then, so I'll have to try again but I don't expect that number to change much, so what's my total cost? A couple hundred bucks max. Now for guys like Davalilo that have 25,000 cards, all in PSA 8 or better...I can't wait to read his post. There are going to be some great arguments for, and against this change, its inevitable. It'll probably take 18 months for the market to fully absorb it and see how cards actually sell and are accepted.
Glad I don't have a bunch of team sets to do this with too.
LINE # CERT # CARD CARD CO. CARD # CARD NAME VARIETY GRADE 1 03311770 1935 NATIONAL CHICLE 24 CLARKE HINKLE N/A 6 Cracked from a PSA 2 holder 2 03311771 1948 BOWMAN 81 MARSHALL GOLDBERG N/A 4 Bought raw off ebay 2 03311772 1948 BOWMAN 81 MARSHALL GOLDBERG N/A 7 Bought raw private deal 3 03311773 1951 BERK ROSS 1-11 BOB COUSY N/A 5 4 03311774 1963 FLEER 47 LEN DAWSON N/A 7 This was bought as PSA 7, cracked to try for 8, came back a 6, recracked and back to a 7 5 03311775 2001 TOPPS CHROME 250 REGGIE WAYNE ROOKIE REFRACTOR 8 Dont' know what I missed on this one.. Thought had 50/50 shot of getting a 10
Date Received: 01/03/2008 Date of Grades Posted: 01/14/2008 Date Shipped: 01/14/2008
I don't think the change is negative at all. And the way it's been presented, should give us more accurate grading. I think that's what we all want and this 1/2 grade change is a step in the right direction
Being new to collecting this set, I look for it as a chance to pick up some cards more affordably at least hopefully. On a side note, I have worked my way up to 55th on the list with 5 or 6 more on the way. I know I can't hang with the big dogs yet, but significant progress has been made. Thanks to all who have helped!
1957 TOPPS 15 JACK BUTLER N/A 6 (Expected a 7) 1959 TOPPS 4 MAX McGEE N/A 7 (Expected a 9, maybe an 8, certainly not a 7) You can shave with this thing. 1952 BOWMAN 127 OLLIE MATSON N/A 4 (Spoken for) This and the Lary were both raw purchases from Bill Henderson described as "Ex Mt+" 1952 BOWMAN 140 YALE LARY N/A 4 (Going in my HOF set til I find a PSA 6 or 7) 2001 TOPPS CHROME 221 LaDAINIAN TOMLINSON ROOKIE REFRACTOR 8 2001 TOPPS CHROME 221 LaDAINIAN TOMLINSON ROOKIE REFRACTOR 9 (Nice since I just sold my other PSA 9)
Date Received: 01/07/2008 Date of Grades Posted: 01/17/2008 Date Shipped: 01/17/2008
I'm now down to needing only 14 cards to finish my set after adding a PSA 7 Alworth. Here is my current list of needs. Most of you know I am picky about centering so let me know if you have any of these centered in the grade I want.
1933 GOUDEY SPORTS KINGS HAROLD (RED) GRANGE PSA 4 1933 GOUDEY SPORTS KINGS JIM THORPE PSA 4 1935 NATIONAL CHICLE KEN STRONG PSA 5 1935 NATIONAL CHICLE CLIFF BATTLES PSA 5 1935 NATIONAL CHICLE ALBERT (TURK) EDWARDS PSA 5 1935 NATIONAL CHICLE BRONKO NAGURSKI PSA 5........I'll have to settle for a 1 or 2 for this one...LOL 1948 BOWMAN CLYDE (BULLDOG) TURNER PSA 5-6 1948 LEAF LEO NOMELLINI PSA 5 1950 BOWMAN Y.A. TITTLE PSA 6 1950 BOWMAN TONY CANADEO PSA 6 1952 BOWMAN OLLIE MATSON PSA 6....and I want the large 1955 TOPPS ALL AMERICAN WILBUR (FATS) HENRY PSA 7 1957 TOPPS BART STARR PSA 7 1962 TOPPS FRAN TARKENTON PSA 7
After getting these, I wil need to make tons of upgrades. I would rather try to focus my $ to finish the set, and then upgrade but I guess it depends on what cards come my way.
Let me know if you have any, nice centered copies of the above cards... I guess I'm going to have to consider half grades now as well...
Dave, it might be a good move for you to sell any .5 upgrades you get, bank that profit and re-purchase the straight grades that meet your minimum grade goals.
I'm sure I will be doing that if when a good sell or trade offer comes my way for any .5's I might get down the road. For me, the half grades won;t change my collecting goals at all.
It will still be PSA 7s for 1933-1948, PSA 8s for 1950-1969, PSA 9s for 1970-1987, and PSA 10's for all the new stuff. The half grades will be a luxury, but not a necessity for me. To me, a 7.5 is still a 7, just a nicer one..And a PSA 8.5 is still a PSA 8, just a nicer one. Of course eye appeal will always play a part and I always bid in my price range depending on how nice the card presents itself. Half grades won;t change that for me either. This is why I have somewhat embraced the idea. I've got 47 cards I will be sending in on the $13 special at the end of the month to see if any will get the new .5 bumps. I will be shocked if at least 25% (about 12) of them don;t bump. These are all HOF RCs, and all are valued between $100 and $500 in SMR. One or two bumps of these will cover the cost of grading fees, and any of the others will just be added value to my collection.
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 don't think the change is negative at all. And the way it's been presented, should give us more accurate grading. I think that's what we all want and this 1/2 grade change is a step in the right direction >>
yes more accurate grading would be good, but they need more improvement than the 0.5 scale. what do i mean you ask? well if they could be so accurate to a 0.5 scale then there should be bumps form 6-8, 7-9, 5-10. card resubmitted should only go back an fort between 6-7, 8-9 etc. so i dont see how 0.5 will make for more accurate grading. it seems to me that each grader has their own scale. the scale should be the same for modern and vintage cards. a 9 is a 9 if made in 1905 or 2008.
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>Dave, it might be a good move for you to sell any .5 upgrades you get, bank that profit and re-purchase the straight grades that meet your minimum grade goals. >>
That's a good idea, but I still don't know how I'm going to pick the cards I want to "resubmit". I was looking through a handful of cards that are "nice for the grade", but my only problem is that I think they are worthy of full grade bumps and not just half (so do I crack all of them?)......Here are some of my potential resubs...
Dave, based on the scans, all except the Hutson look like strong regrade candidates. My over/under on when I will pop and resub a card is typically $500. If its worth $500 or more, I won't pop it, simply because I HAVE had cards that I popped from a PSA holder that came back altered or lower graded the 2nd time. You'll have to determine at what level of loss you are willing to handle. Because that can and will happen.
I think the l/r centering for the Hutson is outside PSA 8 standards, but the unknown variable here are the new .5 designations. Until we get a chance to see a large sampling of .5 graded cards, we won't know how PSA is grading them.
The 47 cards I am sending in are all going in as reviews. Too many big $$ cards to be popping them all, and I don't want to pay for double shipping home..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.
Anybody have an extra PSA 9 '85 Dent card lying around? For a high pop card, I hardly ever see it.
"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>Dave, it might be a good move for you to sell any .5 upgrades you get, bank that profit and re-purchase the straight grades that meet your minimum grade goals.
I'm sure I will be doing that if when a good sell or trade offer comes my way for any .5's I might get down the road. For me, the half grades won;t change my collecting goals at all.
It will still be PSA 7s for 1933-1948, PSA 8s for 1950-1969, PSA 9s for 1970-1987, and PSA 10's for all the new stuff. The half grades will be a luxury, but not a necessity for me. To me, a 7.5 is still a 7, just a nicer one..And a PSA 8.5 is still a PSA 8, just a nicer one. Of course eye appeal will always play a part and I always bid in my price range depending on how nice the card presents itself. Half grades won;t change that for me either. This is why I have somewhat embraced the idea. I've got 47 cards I will be sending in on the $13 special at the end of the month to see if any will get the new .5 bumps. I will be shocked if at least 25% (about 12) of them don;t bump. These are all HOF RCs, and all are valued between $100 and $500 in SMR. One or two bumps of these will cover the cost of grading fees, and any of the others will just be added value to my collection.
Jason >>
Jason,
I agree with you that the half-grades shouldn't (and don't, for me) change your collecting goals for the set. Unfortunately, it will affect the populations available on the straight grades, which may end up increasing the price of the straight grades simply due to decreased supply. I didn't plan on sending in any of mine for regrading for the bumps, simply b/c I plan on keeping them for my set and I don't care if my Jim Brown RC is a 7 or a 7.5. However, I am reconsidering based on your analysis of getting the bump, selling and purchasing back the straight grade. I guess I haven't decided on that yet. I suppose in the final analysis, I don't mind if they would do half-grades for, say, 1980-current cards, in order to more accurately grade the newer stuff and stay competitive with BGS (I know your feelings on them from your reply, but the fact is PSA is losing the grading war on newer stuff), but I don't think they should have applied the half-grades to the older stuff. Just my opinion, which will get you a regrade if you throw in $13.
You may be right on the newer stuff. I don't own a card newer than 2001 so I don't really track that market. For the most part anything new graded less than PSA 10 that isn't an autograph/jersey/game used type card is almost worthless anyway. There are a few exceptions for some of the individually number cards like Tom Brady. Do BGS 9s sell for more than PSA 9 SP Authentic Brady? Whats the population (number graded) by BGS on that card? I don;t think BGS has the market cornered because they are better. Simply that its cheaper for them to grade your cards (especially when you factor in the PSA membership fee) and that probably makes more sense to send them lower value cards. I would venture to guess the demographic who sends all their cards to BGS is probably under 25 years old.
For me, the vintage is exactly where I would like to see the half grades. That is where the greatest upgrade value lies. Why would anyone send in a card that sells for $10 in PSA 8 and $25 in PSA 9 to try and get an 8.5? You won't get your grading fees back. The cards worth sending in are the ones that are $300, $500, $1500...You get a bump on one of those and you will see a large increase in value. Conservatively, a 25% increase on $1,000 card will net you $250. You get your grading fees back and then some if/when you ever decide to sell.
Here's one I'm sending in..It's in the $35 grading pile because of the SMR value. How much will this be worth if it comes back an 8.5? I would guess 2K+ EASY... Its worth it to me in the long run. Yes PSA makes money, they are a business, that is their #1 goal. But it can also make the collector money when it comes time to sell.
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 Unitas rc is gorgeous...mine is almost as nice. I need to sort through my cards and pull the better ones for regrade. I bet that I have 20+ in my HOF rc set that are borderline upgrades....
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
Just checking to see if any of you guys are going to the Super Bowl card show & NFL Experience. I live in Las Vegas so I will probably make the drive down for Saturday. Is the Hall of Fame announcement open to the public? I'd really like to see the announcement live. Let me know if any of you guys will be there, would be nice to meet some of you guys in person.
Some interesting insight inside the HOF meeting. This argument used for Wehrli last year will be strong selling points for Kuechenberg and Gradishar this year...
St. Louis Post-Dispatch February 10, 2007 Media Views: Writer assisted on Wehrli’s Hall bid Dan Caesar
Usually journalists are covering stories, not being part of them.
But that wasn’t the case last weekend when Post-Dispatch sports columnist and KSLG (1380 AM) sports talk show co-host Bernie Miklasz was doing both.
Miklasz, representing St. Louis in the meeting of 40 media members who cover pro football, was making the pitch for Roger Wehrli to the voters who were selecting this year’s Pro Football Hall of Fame class.
“I don’t think I’ve ever had a happier day in sportswriting,†Miklasz said. “My stomach was doing flips. I was just really fired up. It was an absolute thrill to pull this off.†Advertisement Howard Balzer was one of the voters and was in the room.
“His presentation was very measured; it was done well,†said Balzer, also of KSLG. “It was a big factor, certainly. And it helped that guys came in with open minds. Who knows what swayed it, but he presented a strong case.â€
Making the case
Miklasz did extensive research on Wehrli’s career, including gaining testimonials from former standout quarterbacks Roger Staubach and Sonny Jurgensen, personnel guru Ron Wolf and former Raiders coach and longtime NFL broadcaster John Madden.
Miklasz also had statistical information that was augmented by Cardinals executive Greg Gladysiewski, who has been with the club since its St. Louis days. Gladysiewski came up with a gem, the fact that in the 1970s half of Wehrli’s interceptions either stopped the foe on a drive in which it could have tied the game or taken the lead, or gave the Big Red the ball in a spot in which they could tie or take the lead.
Miklasz said he also stressed that there were only seven pure cornerbacks in the Hall, that it was an underrepresented position, and that Wehrli had very little help from standout pass rushers. He said only once did the Cardinals have a defensive lineman make a Pro Bowl, let alone the Hall of Fame, in his 14-year career.
“The only guy to be a Pro Bowler was somebody named ‘Brooks’ and I made the point I don’t even know who he is, I never heard of him,†Miklasz said. “People laughed, but I think I scored big points with that. Plus, they wouldn’t throw at him because he was so good.â€
Even though Miklasz was armed with the testimonials and stats, he still had to make a winning presentation.
“It’s almost like a lawyer’s closing argument,†he said. “You can’t just write a speech and drone on, because people fall asleep. You also can’t come on too strong and brow-beat people, because that backfires. And you can’t rely only on stats. You have to make it interesting, throw some humor in.â€
He said he had a wee-hours brainstorm before the voting, writing out his presentation in longhand until nearly 5 a.m. — two hours before he had to be at the meeting. It worked, as his oration helped Wehrli survive the first cut, from 17 candidates to 10 (which actually became 11 because of a voting tie). But because only a maximum of six candidates make the Hall, Miklasz had to keep campaigning.
Round 2
The second presentation runs only about 90 seconds, and Miklasz went last because the candidates are discussed alphabetically. Among those ahead of Wehrli were the two players nominated by the senior committee, and Miklasz said the voters were told, “If you don’t vote them in now, they’ll fade away.â€
(Both, Gene Hickerson and Charlie Sanders, ended up being elected.)
“I saw people in the room nodding,†Miklasz said. “So I thought, ‘I’m going to appeal to the same logic because it looks like it’s going over pretty well.’ So I said, ‘Listen, this is Roger Wehrli’s last chance (to make it in conventional voting). You obviously think enough of him to make him one of the finalists, so let’s think about this logically. If you don’t vote him in today he goes to the senior committee, where he either will fade away — which you don’t want because you think enough of him to put him in the final 11 — or if he doesn’t fade away, the senior committee is going to nominate him two or three years from now and he’s going to take the place of another deserving senior.’
“I said, ‘Think about this logically. What’s the point of rejecting him now when we can take care of him now and take care of other players later?’ I saw people nodding, and some told me later that was a great closing argument and it tipped the balance for them.â€
This isn’t the first time a local media member has been involved in getting a former Cardinals player into the Hall. Jack Buck lobbied hard for Dan Dierdorf, who finally made it in 1996, and Jackie Smith, who was elected in 1994. Buck was so mad after Smith had narrowly missed the previous year that he threw a clipboard across a room when Smith missed out.
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.
It starts with a simple question: is this candidate among the best of his generation at his particular position or skill? For instance, was he the best quarterback at any point in his career? Was he the second best? Was he the third best? Do the statistics reflect this? Does the voting of his peers and coaches for the Pro Bowl reflect that? Does the voting of the media for All-Pro teams show that? Does his standing in history compared with others at the position indicate he belongs?
Then next question in my formula is: did he have an impact on the game? Was he a player that opponents had to account for? Did his ability force his team to become creative in how he was used, or were opponents forced to create new schemes and styles in an attempted to stop him? Was he so good at his skill or position that rules were created because of him?
The final question is this: did he have an impact on his team? Did he elevate the play of those around him? Did he push the entire franchise to the heights of professional football? Did he perform in big games? Was he part of a championship team?
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.
Comments
Carter
Green
Kuechenberg
D. Thomas
Guy
I think Grimm, Dean, Tippett and Zimmerman are the only 4 with no real hope of induction this year. Then again, what do I know?
I'd bet my Sayers 9 that at least one of the Senior finalists gets in, but I can't even hazard a guess as to how that will play out - so I won't.
<< <i>I am going with:
Carter
Green
Kuechenberg
D. Thomas
Guy
I think Grimm, Dean, Tippett and Zimmerman are the only 4 with no real hope of induction this year. Then again, what do I know?
I'd bet my Sayers 9 that at least one of the Senior finalists gets in, but I can't even hazard a guess as to how that will play out - so I won't. >>
I'll take that bet...My $5 vs. your Sayers 9..lol
I wouldn't discount anyone this year..Both Dean and Tippett made the final 10 last year, Grimm made the final 10 two years ago...I think only 2 of the spots are certain, and 2 more are near locks..That leaves the one modern wildcard. As we get closer there should be some grumblings from a few of the voters about possible sleepers/favorites...That being said Wehrli was way out of left field last year, I never heard a peep about anyone planning on pushing his induction at all..Yet he still made the final cut and then got the 80%. I think whichever modern 5 make the final cut this year, all of them will get in. UNLESS, both Seniors (who are voted on separately and before the modern guys) get in, some of the voters might feel like their charity votes were already given there and won't bless off on whoever the 5th Modern guy is..lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Brady rookie
<< <i>How high will it go??
Brady rookie >>
$2500 is probably right. Maybe a little higher. I have to ask though, where is the rest of his left shoe? < cough > (his right foot, left shoe when facing him)
I would take Monk, CC, Kuechenberg, Green Randall McDaniel and one of the Sr's.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
Nothing but love here Art
It's not that I don't think Monk and Grimm aren't worthy. I just feel if the voters approach the ballot the way I would, they would spread their votes around. My thinking would be " How can the the 3rd best WR on the ballot (Monk, behind Carter and Reed), be better than the best punter (R. Guy)
Imagine if Green, Monk, and Grimm all made it in 1 year!! (and they are all deserving). We'd have to surgically remove your smile.
"The future Hall of Famer was drafted in the fourth round by the Buffalo Bills where he had an immediate impact during his rookie year with 48 receptions for 637 yards and 4 touchdowns. With improving numbers during the next few years, Andre earned his first of seven pro-bowl selections in 1988. The rest of his career speaks for itself. He went on to set nearly every Buffalo Bills receiving record and ensure his place in the NFL Hall of Fame. "
CANTON BOUND
"Andre will be eligible for induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame beginning in 2005. Presently, there are 15 modern-era wide-receivers in the Hall of Fame and Andre’s numbers compare very favorably to the top 10 modem-era running backs enshrined in Canton. "
...not sure why you'd compare your numbers to moderan-era "running backs", but then again, probably a typo.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
Here an interesting HOF election trend that may give us some insight as to what might happen next month..
In the last 25 years, the number of times modern candidates who played predominantly the same position went in together: 4
1- 2005 QB's(Marino and Young)..Two 1st ballot locks
2- 2001 OT's (Jackie Slater and Ron Yary)..Slater was 1st ballot
3- 1990 LB's (Ted Hendricks and Jack Lambert)..Lambert was 1st ballot
4- 1985 QB's (Namath and Staubach)..Staubach was 1st ballot
As you can see, it doesn't happen often, and when it does it has included a first ballot guy. Carter and Green are this years first ballot guys, so It's possible but not likely that Art Monk OR Andre Reed (not both) could still get in. That doesn't bode well for Fred Dean, Richard Dent (DEs)...Randy Gradishar, Derrick Thomas, Andre Tippett (LBs)...Bob Kuechenberg, Randall McDaniel and Russ Grimm (OGs)...Basically you can pick your top guy from each of those groups and they have the best shot, but at no time in the past 25 years have 2 candidates who weren't HOF locks SPLIT VOTES and still get in...
This leaves Ray Guy, Gary Zimmerman as the only players who are definitively the TOP player eligible from their position. Zimmerman is also the ONLY currently eligible HOFer who was selected to TWO All-Decade teams (80s-2nd team, 90s-1st team) that isn't yet in the HOF.
Based on these findings, I have to think the modern class will look something like this:
--Cris Carter
--Darrell Green
--One of the OGs (I think Kuechenberg, he's been so close for the last 6 years and this is his last shot as a modern
--One of the LBs (Thomas has been the closest the last 3 years in a row, but Tippett also made the cut to the final 10 (11 last year) as well..Gradishar is in his last year as a modern
--5th modern coming from either one of the DEs, or Guy, Zimmerman, Tagliabue (Dent and Dean were final 11 guys last year as well before splitting votes)
I don't think Monk or Reed will get in, simply based on the fact that comparisons to Carter, Carter will get the strong majority of WR vote.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Next vote is to get in to the HOF correct, and that takes place on Feb 2, the day before the Super Bowl. No other "cuts" left at this point?
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
<< <i>How high will it go??
Brady rookie >>
Why are they always inner bagged?
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
<< <i>I was debating how I felt about Randall McDaniel vs. Russ Grimm and thought Grimm might get in over him just on name recognition and having played for a marquee Washington team during the 80's. I know very little about Kuechenberg quite honestly. I really would like to see McDaniel get in, I think he absolutely deserves it. It will certainly be interesting.
Next vote is to get in to the HOF correct, and that takes place on Feb 2, the day before the Super Bowl. No other "cuts" left at this point? >>
Correct. During the HOF committee meeting on 2 Feb, they will cut the 15 modern candidate to 10, then again to 5. Those 5 will be voted YES/NO and whichever of those 5 get 80% of the vote (36 of 44) will be selected for induction. This year, the Senior candidates are voted on totally separate from the modern candidates. Previously, they were lumped in with the modern cuts as they cut the finalists to 10 and then 6. The only way that Senior candidates will have any bearing on the modern candidates is the class minimum. If both Senior's get in, then a minimum of 2, max of 5 moderns will also get in. If no Seniors get elected, then a minimum of 4, maximum of 5 modern candidates will get the nod.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I think all of my 2000 SP Authentic Rc's are in baggies. The cards were cut slightly larger, so they were bagged rather than in the regular holder.
DAve
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
My initial reaction was WHAT THE F!@#$!!!!
I'm trying to look at the bright side, but based on the cost of sending cards in for bumps, I don't think will be worth it value wise except on super expensive type cards. The market already self corrects for high end cards in the grade, based on eye appeal.
PSA was always so ANTI half grades I just don't get the decision...I do like the fact that they won't have a 9.5..Most PSA 10's are probably 9.5ish anyway..Its rare I see a card with absolutely perfect centering and zero flaws...
I don't think this will make me sell off or get out of collecting. I still enjoy the hobby too much for that.
I guess I'll have something to do this weekend..Look through my collection for anything that might be worthy of a half grade and see how much it would cost to send them in...lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Why are they always inner bagged?
I think all of my 2000 SP Authentic Rc's are in baggies. The cards were cut slightly larger, so they were bagged rather than in the regular holder. >>
Thanks Frank.
I'm shocked about the .5 scale also...
In other words, "Beckett is kicking our butt on grading the newer stuff, so we had to find a new way to generate revenue from all the old stuff we already graded."
<< <i>Introducing PSA Half Grades - More Precise Grading for Your Cards
In other words, "Beckett is kicking our butt on grading the newer stuff, so we had to find a new way to generate revenue from all the old stuff we already graded." >>
Beckett blows...
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.
<< <i>Jason - now is a good time to be happy that the SMR is way low on many FB HOF rookies.
Nick >>
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
If anyone plans on re-subbing, you'll save a bundle based on the jacked up SMR...
Good point..lol..I've been looking for as many positives in this as I can. I've been collecting this set for 8+ years now and really don't have a desire to get out. Best case is that PSA reconsiders and scraps thew half point idea..But if they don't, gotta find some positives to keep from being too ticked off about it...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>I'm really not that upset....as a matter of fact, I think the decision not to assign a 9.5 great is a GREAT idea. Kudos to PSA...I think that it's a great move on their part. >>
As a primarily PSA 9 and 10 collector, I'd have been pretty pissed if they were going with 9.5's. They opted not to because there's already two mint designations, and I definitely think that was the right call.
dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Being honest, there aren't THAT many cards (PSA 8's and below) in my collection that would be worthy of sending in for the half grade bump. It's not like you have to send every card in your collection. As long as the flip stays the same, there will be no difference between a straight 8 graded now and a straight 8 graded 2 months from now. Why would anyone grab every PSA 8 and below they own and send it in? Look closely at your cards first and then determine which card you feel are "high end" and only send those in. For me, I've sent in quite a few review subs or pop and re-submits so this really isn't much different than what I was already doing. Except now, maybe I get an 8 to an 8.5 rather than a 9. It also means, if my grading eye is good, that I won't get as many back in the same grade either.
I guarantee, there isn't a collector out there who owns more than 50%+ "high end" for the grade cards..I know alot of guys like to THINK that all their cards are "high end" but if you examine them under the right condidtions, and measure the centering to the millimeter, the truth will come out.
If anyone in the set is getting out, dumping there set, whatever...Let me know. I'm gonna stick with it and make the best of it.
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>You know, one of the big things that pisses me off is that I cracked out that SGC 92 Bob Brown and sold it as a PSA 8. I'm confident that would have went to an 8.5 and would have been the highest graded.....GRrrrrr
Dave >>
Dave, in fariness you already got a premium selling price on the Brown card because it was/is high end for the grade. When you sold, you listed a picture in the SGC 8.5 holder and you got MUCH MORE than the typical PSA 8 Bob Brown. Probably right about what an 8.5 would sell for.
What was your profit margin on that? How much you paid vs. how much you sold???lolol
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 can't say that I like or dislike this change. I'm still taking it in. Yes, I agree that it devalued 9's for the guys that build (and spend substantial sums of money to) achive 9.0+ sets. Why spend $500 on a PSA 8 low pop common or $10k on that PSA 9 when you can have an 8.5 for $1500 and only be behind the PSA 9 card by .5? At least with full grade jumps there was a gap to be made, with a .5 difference, it's barely a puddle. That being said, I will go through my Vikings and HOF sets and pull out the cards I sent in for full grade bumps before, that didn't make it, and try again for a .5 bump. Out of all of my cards, I sent in 13 that I thought should have made it. I've upgraded quite a few cards since then, so I'll have to try again but I don't expect that number to change much, so what's my total cost? A couple hundred bucks max. Now for guys like Davalilo that have 25,000 cards, all in PSA 8 or better...I can't wait to read his post. There are going to be some great arguments for, and against this change, its inevitable. It'll probably take 18 months for the market to fully absorb it and see how cards actually sell and are accepted.
Glad I don't have a bunch of team sets to do this with too.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
LINE # CERT # CARD CARD CO. CARD # CARD NAME VARIETY GRADE
1 03311770 1935 NATIONAL CHICLE 24 CLARKE HINKLE N/A 6 Cracked from a PSA 2 holder
2 03311771 1948 BOWMAN 81 MARSHALL GOLDBERG N/A 4 Bought raw off ebay
2 03311772 1948 BOWMAN 81 MARSHALL GOLDBERG N/A 7 Bought raw private deal
3 03311773 1951 BERK ROSS 1-11 BOB COUSY N/A 5
4 03311774 1963 FLEER 47 LEN DAWSON N/A 7 This was bought as PSA 7, cracked to try for 8, came back a 6, recracked and back to a 7
5 03311775 2001 TOPPS CHROME 250 REGGIE WAYNE ROOKIE REFRACTOR 8 Dont' know what I missed on this one.. Thought had 50/50 shot of getting a 10
Date Received: 01/03/2008
Date of Grades Posted: 01/14/2008
Date Shipped: 01/14/2008
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
On a side note, I have worked my way up to 55th on the list with 5 or 6 more on the way. I know I can't hang with the big dogs yet, but significant progress has been made.
Thanks to all who have helped!
Bob...
1957 TOPPS 15 JACK BUTLER N/A 6 (Expected a 7)
1959 TOPPS 4 MAX McGEE N/A 7 (Expected a 9, maybe an 8, certainly not a 7) You can shave with this thing.
1952 BOWMAN 127 OLLIE MATSON N/A 4 (Spoken for) This and the Lary were both raw purchases from Bill Henderson described as "Ex Mt+"
1952 BOWMAN 140 YALE LARY N/A 4 (Going in my HOF set til I find a PSA 6 or 7)
2001 TOPPS CHROME 221 LaDAINIAN TOMLINSON ROOKIE REFRACTOR 8
2001 TOPPS CHROME 221 LaDAINIAN TOMLINSON ROOKIE REFRACTOR 9 (Nice since I just sold my other PSA 9)
Date Received: 01/07/2008
Date of Grades Posted: 01/17/2008
Date Shipped: 01/17/2008
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
1933 GOUDEY SPORTS KINGS HAROLD (RED) GRANGE PSA 4
1933 GOUDEY SPORTS KINGS JIM THORPE PSA 4
1935 NATIONAL CHICLE KEN STRONG PSA 5
1935 NATIONAL CHICLE CLIFF BATTLES PSA 5
1935 NATIONAL CHICLE ALBERT (TURK) EDWARDS PSA 5
1935 NATIONAL CHICLE BRONKO NAGURSKI PSA 5........I'll have to settle for a 1 or 2 for this one...LOL
1948 BOWMAN CLYDE (BULLDOG) TURNER PSA 5-6
1948 LEAF LEO NOMELLINI PSA 5
1950 BOWMAN Y.A. TITTLE PSA 6
1950 BOWMAN TONY CANADEO PSA 6
1952 BOWMAN OLLIE MATSON PSA 6....and I want the large
1955 TOPPS ALL AMERICAN WILBUR (FATS) HENRY PSA 7
1957 TOPPS BART STARR PSA 7
1962 TOPPS FRAN TARKENTON PSA 7
After getting these, I wil need to make tons of upgrades. I would rather try to focus my $ to finish the set, and then upgrade but I guess it depends on what cards come my way.
Let me know if you have any, nice centered copies of the above cards... I guess I'm going to have to consider half grades now as well...
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
I'm sure I will be doing that if when a good sell or trade offer comes my way for any .5's I might get down the road. For me, the half grades won;t change my collecting goals at all.
It will still be PSA 7s for 1933-1948, PSA 8s for 1950-1969, PSA 9s for 1970-1987, and PSA 10's for all the new stuff. The half grades will be a luxury, but not a necessity for me. To me, a 7.5 is still a 7, just a nicer one..And a PSA 8.5 is still a PSA 8, just a nicer one. Of course eye appeal will always play a part and I always bid in my price range depending on how nice the card presents itself. Half grades won;t change that for me either. This is why I have somewhat embraced the idea. I've got 47 cards I will be sending in on the $13 special at the end of the month to see if any will get the new .5 bumps. I will be shocked if at least 25% (about 12) of them don;t bump. These are all HOF RCs, and all are valued between $100 and $500 in SMR. One or two bumps of these will cover the cost of grading fees, and any of the others will just be added value to my collection.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I don't think the change is negative at all. And the way it's been presented, should give us more accurate grading. I think that's what we all want and this 1/2 grade change is a step in the right direction >>
yes more accurate grading would be good, but they need more improvement than the 0.5 scale. what do i mean you ask? well if they could be so accurate to a 0.5 scale then there should be bumps form 6-8, 7-9, 5-10. card resubmitted should only go back an fort between 6-7, 8-9 etc. so i dont see how 0.5 will make for more accurate grading. it seems to me that each grader has their own scale. the scale should be the same for modern and vintage cards. a 9 is a 9 if made in 1905 or 2008.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>Dave, it might be a good move for you to sell any .5 upgrades you get, bank that profit and re-purchase the straight grades that meet your minimum grade goals.
>>
That's a good idea, but I still don't know how I'm going to pick the cards I want to "resubmit". I was looking through a handful of cards that are "nice for the grade", but my only problem is that I think they are worthy of full grade bumps and not just half (so do I crack all of them?)......Here are some of my potential resubs...
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
I think the l/r centering for the Hutson is outside PSA 8 standards, but the unknown variable here are the new .5 designations. Until we get a chance to see a large sampling of .5 graded cards, we won't know how PSA is grading them.
The 47 cards I am sending in are all going in as reviews. Too many big $$ cards to be popping them all, and I don't want to pay for double shipping home..lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Dave, it might be a good move for you to sell any .5 upgrades you get, bank that profit and re-purchase the straight grades that meet your minimum grade goals.
I'm sure I will be doing that if when a good sell or trade offer comes my way for any .5's I might get down the road. For me, the half grades won;t change my collecting goals at all.
It will still be PSA 7s for 1933-1948, PSA 8s for 1950-1969, PSA 9s for 1970-1987, and PSA 10's for all the new stuff. The half grades will be a luxury, but not a necessity for me. To me, a 7.5 is still a 7, just a nicer one..And a PSA 8.5 is still a PSA 8, just a nicer one. Of course eye appeal will always play a part and I always bid in my price range depending on how nice the card presents itself. Half grades won;t change that for me either. This is why I have somewhat embraced the idea. I've got 47 cards I will be sending in on the $13 special at the end of the month to see if any will get the new .5 bumps. I will be shocked if at least 25% (about 12) of them don;t bump. These are all HOF RCs, and all are valued between $100 and $500 in SMR. One or two bumps of these will cover the cost of grading fees, and any of the others will just be added value to my collection.
Jason >>
Jason,
I agree with you that the half-grades shouldn't (and don't, for me) change your collecting goals for the set. Unfortunately, it will affect the populations available on the straight grades, which may end up increasing the price of the straight grades simply due to decreased supply. I didn't plan on sending in any of mine for regrading for the bumps, simply b/c I plan on keeping them for my set and I don't care if my Jim Brown RC is a 7 or a 7.5. However, I am reconsidering based on your analysis of getting the bump, selling and purchasing back the straight grade. I guess I haven't decided on that yet. I suppose in the final analysis, I don't mind if they would do half-grades for, say, 1980-current cards, in order to more accurately grade the newer stuff and stay competitive with BGS (I know your feelings on them from your reply, but the fact is PSA is losing the grading war on newer stuff), but I don't think they should have applied the half-grades to the older stuff. Just my opinion, which will get you a regrade if you throw in $13.
For me, the vintage is exactly where I would like to see the half grades. That is where the greatest upgrade value lies. Why would anyone send in a card that sells for $10 in PSA 8 and $25 in PSA 9 to try and get an 8.5? You won't get your grading fees back. The cards worth sending in are the ones that are $300, $500, $1500...You get a bump on one of those and you will see a large increase in value. Conservatively, a 25% increase on $1,000 card will net you $250. You get your grading fees back and then some if/when you ever decide to sell.
Here's one I'm sending in..It's in the $35 grading pile because of the SMR value. How much will this be worth if it comes back an 8.5? I would guess 2K+ EASY... Its worth it to me in the long run. Yes PSA makes money, they are a business, that is their #1 goal. But it can also make the collector money when it comes time to sell.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
The Unitas rc is gorgeous...mine is almost as nice. I need to sort through my cards and pull the better ones for regrade. I bet that I have 20+ in my HOF rc set that are borderline upgrades....
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
February 10, 2007
Media Views: Writer assisted on Wehrli’s Hall bid
Dan Caesar
Usually journalists are covering stories, not being part of them.
But that wasn’t the case last weekend when Post-Dispatch sports columnist and KSLG (1380 AM) sports talk show co-host Bernie Miklasz was doing both.
Miklasz, representing St. Louis in the meeting of 40 media members who cover pro football, was making the pitch for Roger Wehrli to the voters who were selecting this year’s Pro Football Hall of Fame class.
“I don’t think I’ve ever had a happier day in sportswriting,†Miklasz said. “My stomach was doing flips. I was just really fired up. It was an absolute thrill to pull this off.†Advertisement
Howard Balzer was one of the voters and was in the room.
“His presentation was very measured; it was done well,†said Balzer, also of KSLG. “It was a big factor, certainly. And it helped that guys came in with open minds. Who knows what swayed it, but he presented a strong case.â€
Making the case
Miklasz did extensive research on Wehrli’s career, including gaining testimonials from former standout quarterbacks Roger Staubach and Sonny Jurgensen, personnel guru Ron Wolf and former Raiders coach and longtime NFL broadcaster John Madden.
Miklasz also had statistical information that was augmented by Cardinals executive Greg Gladysiewski, who has been with the club since its St. Louis days. Gladysiewski came up with a gem, the fact that in the 1970s half of Wehrli’s interceptions either stopped the foe on a drive in which it could have tied the game or taken the lead, or gave the Big Red the ball in a spot in which they could tie or take the lead.
Miklasz said he also stressed that there were only seven pure cornerbacks in the Hall, that it was an underrepresented position, and that Wehrli had very little help from standout pass rushers. He said only once did the Cardinals have a defensive lineman make a Pro Bowl, let alone the Hall of Fame, in his 14-year career.
“The only guy to be a Pro Bowler was somebody named ‘Brooks’ and I made the point I don’t even know who he is, I never heard of him,†Miklasz said. “People laughed, but I think I scored big points with that. Plus, they wouldn’t throw at him because he was so good.â€
Even though Miklasz was armed with the testimonials and stats, he still had to make a winning presentation.
“It’s almost like a lawyer’s closing argument,†he said. “You can’t just write a speech and drone on, because people fall asleep. You also can’t come on too strong and brow-beat people, because that backfires. And you can’t rely only on stats. You have to make it interesting, throw some humor in.â€
He said he had a wee-hours brainstorm before the voting, writing out his presentation in longhand until nearly 5 a.m. — two hours before he had to be at the meeting. It worked, as his oration helped Wehrli survive the first cut, from 17 candidates to 10 (which actually became 11 because of a voting tie). But because only a maximum of six candidates make the Hall, Miklasz had to keep campaigning.
Round 2
The second presentation runs only about 90 seconds, and Miklasz went last because the candidates are discussed alphabetically. Among those ahead of Wehrli were the two players nominated by the senior committee, and Miklasz said the voters were told, “If you don’t vote them in now, they’ll fade away.â€
(Both, Gene Hickerson and Charlie Sanders, ended up being elected.)
“I saw people in the room nodding,†Miklasz said. “So I thought, ‘I’m going to appeal to the same logic because it looks like it’s going over pretty well.’ So I said, ‘Listen, this is Roger Wehrli’s last chance (to make it in conventional voting). You obviously think enough of him to make him one of the finalists, so let’s think about this logically. If you don’t vote him in today he goes to the senior committee, where he either will fade away — which you don’t want because you think enough of him to put him in the final 11 — or if he doesn’t fade away, the senior committee is going to nominate him two or three years from now and he’s going to take the place of another deserving senior.’
“I said, ‘Think about this logically. What’s the point of rejecting him now when we can take care of him now and take care of other players later?’ I saw people nodding, and some told me later that was a great closing argument and it tipped the balance for them.â€
This isn’t the first time a local media member has been involved in getting a former Cardinals player into the Hall. Jack Buck lobbied hard for Dan Dierdorf, who finally made it in 1996, and Jackie Smith, who was elected in 1994. Buck was so mad after Smith had narrowly missed the previous year that he threw a clipboard across a room when Smith missed out.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
It starts with a simple question: is this candidate among the best of his generation at his particular position or skill? For instance, was he the best quarterback at any point in his career? Was he the second best? Was he the third best? Do the statistics reflect this? Does the voting of his peers and coaches for the Pro Bowl reflect that? Does the voting of the media for All-Pro teams show that? Does his standing in history compared with others at the position indicate he belongs?
Then next question in my formula is: did he have an impact on the game? Was he a player that opponents had to account for? Did his ability force his team to become creative in how he was used, or were opponents forced to create new schemes and styles in an attempted to stop him? Was he so good at his skill or position that rules were created because of him?
The final question is this: did he have an impact on his team? Did he elevate the play of those around him? Did he push the entire franchise to the heights of professional football? Did he perform in big games? Was he part of a championship team?
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I will probably end up dumping the PSA 7 Goldberg. Not a very pretty 7 IMO....
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!