I was featured in this month's Beckett!!!
jmbkb4
Posts: 2,963
Well, not exactly in a flattering way.
Shane Mack I sold was listed in their "financial fallacy" section (at #1) -- haha!
Shane Mack I sold was listed in their "financial fallacy" section (at #1) -- haha!
0
Comments
<< <i>You need to rescan that page!! >>
I know. I don't buy Beckett (haven't since I was kid and my parents bought it for me!) but a friend sent me this scan so I didn't complain.
What are the other two cards (The '97 Showcase and the '86 D Yount)?
Will we ever see a BGS 9.5 listed?
<< <i>Two questions:
What are the other two cards (The '97 Showcase and the '86 D Yount)?
Will we ever see a BGS 9.5 listed? >>
I agree... The "Financial Fallacy" section is always PSA cards. A few months back, one of the cards was a PSA 10 Nolan Ryan. "Who would pay $300 for a 1985 Topps card????"
So, spending $1000 on a card of a player that has never played a game in the majors, just because it's green instead of blue and numbered to 50, and has a sticker with his autograph on it, even though there will be 100 other cards through he course of the season either just like it, or "more limited"... that's not a "financial fallacy?"
Please.
Beckett is nothing but an advertisement, including thier price guide. The prices are there simply to help justify the box/pack prices that manufacturers charge. For a card that "books" at $15-20, I would love to see where that transaction takes place.
Only an idiot would have a message board signature.
<< <i>
<< <i>Two questions:
What are the other two cards (The '97 Showcase and the '86 D Yount)?
Will we ever see a BGS 9.5 listed? >>
I agree... The "Financial Fallacy" section is always PSA cards. A few months back, one of the cards was a PSA 10 Nolan Ryan. "Who would pay $300 for a 1985 Topps card????"
So, spending $1000 on a card of a player that has never played a game in the majors, just because it's green instead of blue and numbered to 50, and has a sticker with his autograph on it, even though there will be 100 other cards through he course of the season either just like it, or "more limited"... that's not a "financial fallacy?"
Please.
Beckett is nothing but an advertisement, including thier price guide. The prices are there simply to help justify the box/pack prices that manufacturers charge. For a card that "books" at $15-20, I would love to see where that transaction takes place. >>
I believe the card went so high because it was perfect in every way......
Overpriced Griffeys
very good assertion.
agreed 110% + some
julen
tgif
RIP GURU
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
Specializing in Certified Autograph Cards, Rookies, Rare Inserts and other quality modern cards! Over 8000 Cards in stock now! Come visit our physical store located at 1210 Main St. Belmar ,NJ
<< <i>The $561 Shane Mack card was graded by PSA? >>
no.. did you read the paragraph?
<< <i>Two questions:
What are the other two cards (The '97 Showcase and the '86 D Yount)?
Will we ever see a BGS 9.5 listed? >>
Hi, I thought the exact same thing. BGS was bragging about their "high standards" when their BGS 10 cards of Bonds were selling for $25,000 -- literally. Remember the days of his 1986 Traded Tiffany in BGS 10 selling for $15K-$25K and BGS 10s of all the rookies selling for over $5,000+++?
Beckett is run by a bunch of tools.
I'm not saying that $560 is ridiculous for a Shane Mack refractor, or $500 is too much for a '91 Donruss Nolan...
My point is that it's only PSA cards that are "financial fallacies"... So, $1,000 for a BGS graded card that has a sticker with Alex Gordon's autograph on it isn't at least, if not more ridiculous?
Again, my point is that Beckett is simply an advertisement. IN ALL FORMS. Of course, shiny cards with stickers and 3 millimeter x 3 millimeter pieces of "Game Used memorabilia" are the greatest things ever. The companies that produce those pay a substantial amount to Beckett every month. Beckett isn't paid to promote PSA, or 1985 Topps. They are just knocking the competition for thier (their own grading company) and thier advertiser's products. If we're buying vintage, we aren't buying new stuff.
It's ashame that the current collector doesn't realize that if there are 400 different versions of a card numbered to 50.... That there are 20,000 cards out there. That isn't "limited."
I think in the long run, this area will be looked at the same as the late 80's, early 90's as far as production. Same amount of cards, just instead of over 5 products, it's spread out over 100 products...
Only an idiot would have a message board signature.
<< <i>
<< <i>The $561 Shane Mack card was graded by PSA? >>
no.. did you read the paragraph? >>
Yeah I read the paragraph. My rhetorical question was to point out that while I'm sure Beckett does bash PSA in their "financial fallacy" segment, in this case, they're only bashing the $561 for the raw Shane Mack.
When you consider a PSA 9 Shane Mack sold last week for $199, it looks like Beckett was right in their assessment.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>
I think in the long run, this area will be looked at the same as the late 80's, early 90's as far as production. Same amount of cards, just instead of over 5 products, it's spread out over 100 products... >>
I don't think this will happen. It may be artificially induced scarcity, but it's scarcity just the same. People who are serious about putting together a master set of a certain player will, IMO, always want to have every recognized variation-- even if other collectors don't think the differences between two variations are all that important.
<< <i>Yeah I read the paragraph. My rhetorical question was to point out that while I'm sure Beckett does bash PSA in their "financial fallacy" segment, in this case, they're only bashing the $561 for the raw Shane Mack. >>
actually, they only bashed the Shane Mack and 3 other cards, one of which is a PSA card, the other two which are not visible. With common sense, you should be able to figure out why the subject of possible anti-PSA bias on the part of Beckett was brought up.
<< <i>
<< <i>Yeah I read the paragraph. My rhetorical question was to point out that while I'm sure Beckett does bash PSA in their "financial fallacy" segment, in this case, they're only bashing the $561 for the raw Shane Mack. >>
actually, they only bashed the Shane Mack and 3 other cards, one of which is a PSA card, the other two which are not visible. With common sense, you should be able to figure out why the subject of possible anti-PSA bias on the part of Beckett was brought up. >>
Beckett bashed the Shane Mack card because they thought $561 for it was a crazy price.
Then we had a few posters who were saying it's standard operating procedure for Beckett to concentrate their "financial fallacy" reports to PSA related items.
My whole "the shane mack card was graded by PSA?" was to get the point of discussion back on track to a raw $561 Shane Mack card. I knew the card was raw.
I didn't think I would have to spell it out for anyone word by word, but:
What relevance does bringing up Beckett's anti-PSA bias stance when we're talking about a RAW Shane Mack card?
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>
What relevance does bringing up Beckett's anti-PSA bias stance when we're talking about a RAW Shane Mack card? >>
umm.. because the Beckett article in question is very relevant to the subject at hand, and a question was asked about that relevant article.
The previous versions of "Financial Fallacy" that I had seen, both featured nothing but PSA graded cards. It struck me both times as nothing more than a opportunity to bash one of thier grading competitors....
Sorry to derail the topic.
Only an idiot would have a message board signature.
<< <i>
<< <i>
What relevance does bringing up Beckett's anti-PSA bias stance when we're talking about a RAW Shane Mack card? >>
umm.. because the Beckett article in question is very relevant to the subject at hand, and a question was asked about that relevant article. >>
Umm....no.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>Umm....no. >>
no what?
<< <i>
<< <i>Umm....no. >>
no what? >>
DBH was answering "no" to this question, one I have posed many times to him:
"DBH, would you please quit obsessively trolling and replying almost exclusively to MY posts?"
His reply, "Ummmm, no."
<< <i>How about this fallacy?
Overpriced Griffeys >>
Mark, excellent point, thanks for sharing.
I'm sure you saw the T-B centering on that one BGS 10 Griffey that had the "10" subgrade for centering -- it wouldn't have been PSA 9, letalone a 10.
<< <i>
DBH was answering "no" to this question, one I have posed many times to him:
"DBH, would you please quit obsessively trolling and replying almost exclusively to MY posts?"
His reply, "Ummmm, no." >>
I was talking to you? Wow..talk about an insecure attention whore.
You're a legend in your own mind, sweetheart. Don't let anyone tell you different!
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>
no what? >>
No, because I asked, "What relevance does bringing up Beckett's anti-PSA bias stance when we're talking about a RAW Shane Mack card?"
Now if we're talking about Beckett slamming high prices paid for PSA graded cards, their anti-PSA bias should be factored into how much faith we put in what they might have to say. But in this case, what bias would they have for calling "silly" a raw Shane Mack card selling for $561?
I bet if we were to poll 100 PSA forum members, 90% of them would say $561 for ANY Mack card would qualify as silly.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>Those financial fallacies are directed directly at PSA....i posted on the becket boards about getting rid of the ridiculous monthly piece---the thread was zapped.....they are becoming more and more of a joke at beckett with each passing day.... >>
Agreed.
Jealousy makes people do some really stupid things.
<< <i>How about this fallacy?
Overpriced Griffeys >>
P.S.
Not a financial fallacy; a financial f*** up
and Shane Mack? lol. about $560 too much for any card with Shane Mack on it
Why would a RAW Shane Mack card for for $561?
I realize your "anti-PSA by Beckett" rhetoric is also interesting and worth discussing ---- but this thread brought up a Shane Mack card.
Was that card really sold raw for over $500?
To who?
And why on earth would someone pay that much?
Seriously, WTF is going on here?
-t
------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
Specializing in Certified Autograph Cards, Rookies, Rare Inserts and other quality modern cards! Over 8000 Cards in stock now! Come visit our physical store located at 1210 Main St. Belmar ,NJ
<< <i>If you have read the financial fallicies, beckett highlights cards that very very few people would be willing to pay that much a premium for. You cannot compare it to a hot rookie or autographe card because they generally do not sell for 1,000's of percent above their raw counterparts... >>
That is an excellent point.
Beckett makes the statement of set builders but fails to mention the possible reason WHY people pay this kind of money for raw cards like this. They would NEVER talk about people paying high prices for raw to fit in their PSA 10 set. We all know that probably no one is building a BGS 9.5 or BGS 10 registry set of 1993 Finest refractors!
No, the card may not be one of the shorter prints but is it a tough grade? I dont know because Im not doing this set.
Maybe a way to bash the competitor without actually mentioning their name because they fear it may CREDIT the strength of PSA???
So, I would say that bringing any of the other grading companies in this conversation is relevant.
I'm sorry.. did i miss something? What the heck did Shane Mack ever do for the game of baseball? I know when i think of baseball, I think Shane Mack---NOT!!
julen
RIP GURU
<< <i>
<< <i>If you have read the financial fallicies, beckett highlights cards that very very few people would be willing to pay that much a premium for. You cannot compare it to a hot rookie or autographe card because they generally do not sell for 1,000's of percent above their raw counterparts... >>
That is an excellent point. >>
Being that Nolan Ryan was in the three cards I see in the scanned page, this is NOT an excellent point; in fact, it makes no sense.
Someone, anyone ... ?
-t
PS If so, why is no one else wondering how and why a RAW Shane Mack went for that much?
------- 1960 Topps Baseball PSA 8+
------- 1985 Topps Hockey PSA 9+
Specializing in Certified Autograph Cards, Rookies, Rare Inserts and other quality modern cards! Over 8000 Cards in stock now! Come visit our physical store located at 1210 Main St. Belmar ,NJ
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If you have read the financial fallicies, beckett highlights cards that very very few people would be willing to pay that much a premium for. You cannot compare it to a hot rookie or autographe card because they generally do not sell for 1,000's of percent above their raw counterparts... >>
That is an excellent point. >>
Being that Nolan Ryan was in the three cards I see in the scanned page, this is NOT an excellent point; in fact, it makes no sense. >>
I don't get what you're saying. Tedh is saying that the reason the Ryan, etc., make this 'financial fallacy' list is because the fact that they've been graded so high means their hammer price is 1000's of % higher than the high book price. Which seems like a good point to me, independent of any argument over 'worth' or 'innate value'. The fact that a $1 card can sell for $500 because it doesn't show any wear under a loupe does seem a little weird, or at least seems like the kind of thing that other people have a right to think of as weird.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If you have read the financial fallicies, beckett highlights cards that very very few people would be willing to pay that much a premium for. You cannot compare it to a hot rookie or autographe card because they generally do not sell for 1,000's of percent above their raw counterparts... >>
That is an excellent point. >>
Being that Nolan Ryan was in the three cards I see in the scanned page, this is NOT an excellent point; in fact, it makes no sense. >>
I don't get what you're saying. Tedh is saying that the reason the Ryan, etc., make this 'financial fallacy' list is because the fact that they've been graded so high means their hammer price is 1000's of % higher than the high book price. Which seems like a good point to me, independent of any argument over 'worth' or 'innate value'. The fact that a $1 card can sell for $500 because it doesn't show any wear under a loupe does seem a little weird, or at least seems like the kind of thing that other people have a right to think of as weird. >>
Oh, I didn't know it was a worthless Nolan Ryan card. I skimmed the posts and thought it referred to worthless players (like Shane Mack!).
In any case, I hope/think the point that most reasonable people can agree on is that Beckett is *predominantly* using its "Financial Fallicies" section to bash PSA graded cards, all the while ignoring the absurd prices people have paid for BGS 10 cards (and continue to pay for them). Their grading standards are all over the place and this attempt to elevate themselves by bashing PSA comes off very Bush league.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If you have read the financial fallicies, beckett highlights cards that very very few people would be willing to pay that much a premium for. You cannot compare it to a hot rookie or autographe card because they generally do not sell for 1,000's of percent above their raw counterparts... >>
That is an excellent point. >>
Being that Nolan Ryan was in the three cards I see in the scanned page, this is NOT an excellent point; in fact, it makes no sense. >>
I don't get what you're saying. Tedh is saying that the reason the Ryan, etc., make this 'financial fallacy' list is because the fact that they've been graded so high means their hammer price is 1000's of % higher than the high book price. Which seems like a good point to me, independent of any argument over 'worth' or 'innate value'. The fact that a $1 card can sell for $500 because it doesn't show any wear under a loupe does seem a little weird, or at least seems like the kind of thing that other people have a right to think of as weird. >>
Oh, I didn't know it was a worthless Nolan Ryan card. I skimmed the posts and thought it referred to worthless players (like Shane Mack!).
In any case, I hope/think the point that most reasonable people can agree on is that Beckett is *predominantly* using its "Financial Fallicies" section to bash PSA graded cards, all the while ignoring the absurd prices people have paid for BGS 10 cards (and continue to pay for them). Their grading standards are all over the place and this attempt to elevate themselves by bashing PSA comes off very Bush league. >>
I think the final irony in all of this is that the Beckett readers will see these prices that PSA cards can sometimes get and will start submitting more to PSA. This has to be the best possible free advertising that PSA could get. If Beckett wants to marginalize PSA they should do their best to ignore CU in their mags-- or, better yet, start a set registry that actually has teeth.
In any case I think it's amazing how far Beckett has fallen in the past four years. Their grading standards have just gotten terrible. I had no idea how bad it had really gotten until I ran into some 2001 Bowman Pujols cards recently in BGS 9 holders, and all of them had visible corner wear-- and by visible I mean visible to the naked eye; none of this 'under a loupe' goofiness.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>SGC has eclipsed BGS in recent years. Any grading company that grades obviously sheet cut OPC cards as original is bound to suffer, and rightfully so... >>
The $561 Shane Mack was 'sold' on eBay tonight (reserve not met) for around $40. This was the original buyer of the infamous Mack card.
Ouch