What If ? Beckett started a registry
dpfitzell
Posts: 144
What is everybodys thoughts on Bgs starting a registry. For fun lol
hi to all
Collecting Jordan graded cards,
Jordan #d cards,
Wanted: Bill Quackenbush cards
Collecting Jordan graded cards,
Jordan #d cards,
Wanted: Bill Quackenbush cards
0
Comments
Will BGS grade pre-war?
Arthur
<< <i>What is everybodys thoughts on Bgs starting a registry. For fun lol >>
Too little, too late.
Too bad there are no "Spinal Tap the Movie" cards out there. The thrill of getting an "11" from GEM would be worth more than any 93 refractor. Try not to use too much brain juice on this one. You either get it or you don't.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>Too bad there are no "Spinal Tap the Movie" cards out there. The thrill of getting an "11" from GEM would be worth more >>
Arthur
Collecting Jordan graded cards,
Jordan #d cards,
Wanted: Bill Quackenbush cards
Here are some of the leaders of various random sets:
T206 set leader at 7.2% completion
1952 Topps leader at 4.7% completion
1953 Topps leader at 20% completion
1954 Topps leader at 30% completion. He seems upset about the change of labels and that they no longer include sub-grades on BVG cards.
1960 Topps leader with 17.1% completion
This guy is the leader for 1975 and 1978 Topps and has a pretty nice 1986-87 Fleer Basketball set as well. Average grades above 9 in all three.
EDIT:
Here's one I missed:
1948 Bowman 100% completion, average grade 5.59.
<< <i>Beckett does have one here. >>
Cool!
I heard next they'll be gettin' indoor plumbing all around!
<< <i>
<< <i>Beckett does have one here. >>
Cool!
I heard next they'll be gettin' indoor plumbing all around!
That is good Mike!
It will give their graders something to do.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
It's almost scary to think of all the possible marriages between modern cards and set registry participation, and with Beckett being more or less at the fore of the modern grading market they could position themselves to really take command of that if they choose to. It's feels weird to say, but modern sets may actually be a better fit for registry participation than vintage sets. Look at the 1972 baseball set, for example. A great set, and I applaud anyone who's done it in PSA 7 or better, but my God-- look at the price! I don't think you could even get in the door for less than 10K, and even that would only give you a middling set (by the standards set by the guys who've already done it). Many modern sets, however, have just enough condition challenges to make them fun to put together in high grade (Crown Royale, anyone?), and the sets are small enough such that you wouldn't break the bank putting them together.
And there are other possibilities which haven't get been touched. With Fleer and Donruss gone, you could do a Topps Albert Pujols, or UD Albert Pujols, or something like that. Or an Albert Pujols insert set. There are a lot of different ways it could go, and it will be interesting to see what (if anything) Beckett does with these possibilities in the next 5 years.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>My feeling is that at some point Beckett is going to make a serious move in that direction. I don't know when, or how, but they surely know they've left a lot of money on the table by allowing PSA to handle all the 'registry grading'. And while I have no respect for Beckett's grading acumen-- an opinion, I'd like to mention, which is the result of having seen scores of woefully overgraded cards in Beckett holders, and NOT the result of some senseless group-think regarding Beckett's services-- I do think they have considerably more market savvy than CU, and will be able to give CU a real run once they wake up and decide to get involved.
It's almost scary to think of all the possible marriages between modern cards and set registry participation, and with Beckett being more or less at the fore of the modern grading market they could position themselves to really take command of that if they choose to. It's feels weird to say, but modern sets may actually be a better fit for registry participation than vintage sets. Look at the 1972 baseball set, for example. A great set, and I applaud anyone who's done it in PSA 7 or better, but my God-- look at the price! I don't think you could even get in the door for less than 10K, and even that would only give you a middling set (by the standards set by the guys who've already done it). Many modern sets, however, have just enough condition challenges to make them fun to put together in high grade (Crown Royale, anyone?), and the sets are small enough such that you wouldn't break the bank putting them together.
And there are other possibilities which haven't get been touched. With Fleer and Donruss gone, you could do a Topps Albert Pujols, or UD Albert Pujols, or something like that. Or an Albert Pujols insert set. There are a lot of different ways it could go, and it will be interesting to see what (if anything) Beckett does with these possibilities in the next 5 years. >>
Great post.
I would tend to agree with a lot of that. One of the key ingredients to this hobby is the nostalgia that we, as collectors, try to regain through the acquisition of these cards. The thing about nostalgia is that it's always relative. Many people on here collect 50s, 60s or 70s because those were the cards they collected when they were growing up. While I think the hobby has moved away, to a certain extent, from being accessible for young children there is still, and always will be, a group of individuals who will find today's modern material their own nostalgia in the future.
By taking the lead in the modern department (rightfully or wrongfully) BGS has poised themselves to be the format for future set registries of today's modern collectors. However, what will play against them is the seemingly generous manner in which they grade many of their submissions. While the nostalgia may be there for BGS's demographic the hunt and thrill of piecing together a challenging set in high grade will always be a major draw. The easier it is to obtain 9.5's the less competition will exist for participants. The less competition, the less difficulty and, hence, the less reward. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. BGS has one thing going for them, they've got a monthly magazine that seems to be the standard for modern pricing/categorizing.
This may be why PSA has been pushing more modern issues in their monthly specials.
Arthur
Collecting Jordan graded cards,
Jordan #d cards,
Wanted: Bill Quackenbush cards
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>My feeling is that at some point Beckett is going to make a serious move in that direction. I don't know when, or how, but they surely know they've left a lot of money on the table by allowing PSA to handle all the 'registry grading'. And while I have no respect for Beckett's grading acumen-- an opinion, I'd like to mention, which is the result of having seen scores of woefully overgraded cards in Beckett holders, and NOT the result of some senseless group-think regarding Beckett's services-- I do think they have considerably more market savvy than CU, and will be able to give CU a real run once they wake up and decide to get involved.
It's almost scary to think of all the possible marriages between modern cards and set registry participation, and with Beckett being more or less at the fore of the modern grading market they could position themselves to really take command of that if they choose to. It's feels weird to say, but modern sets may actually be a better fit for registry participation than vintage sets. Look at the 1972 baseball set, for example. A great set, and I applaud anyone who's done it in PSA 7 or better, but my God-- look at the price! I don't think you could even get in the door for less than 10K, and even that would only give you a middling set (by the standards set by the guys who've already done it). Many modern sets, however, have just enough condition challenges to make them fun to put together in high grade (Crown Royale, anyone?), and the sets are small enough such that you wouldn't break the bank putting them together.
And there are other possibilities which haven't get been touched. With Fleer and Donruss gone, you could do a Topps Albert Pujols, or UD Albert Pujols, or something like that. Or an Albert Pujols insert set. There are a lot of different ways it could go, and it will be interesting to see what (if anything) Beckett does with these possibilities in the next 5 years. >>
Great post.
I would tend to agree with a lot of that. One of the key ingredients to this hobby is the nostalgia that we, as collectors, try to regain through the acquisition of these cards. The thing about nostalgia is that it's always relative. Many people on here collect 50s, 60s or 70s because those were the cards they collected when they were growing up. While I think the hobby has moved away, to a certain extent, from being accessible for young children there is still, and always will be, a group of individuals who will find today's modern material their own nostalgia in the future.
By taking the lead in the modern department (rightfully or wrongfully) BGS has poised themselves to be the format for future set registries of today's modern collectors. However, what will play against them is the seemingly generous manner in which they grade many of their submissions. While the nostalgia may be there for BGS's demographic the hunt and thrill of piecing together a challenging set in high grade will always be a major draw. The easier it is to obtain 9.5's the less competition will exist for participants. The less competition, the less difficulty and, hence, the less reward. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. BGS has one thing going for them, they've got a monthly magazine that seems to be the standard for modern pricing/categorizing.
This may be why PSA has been pushing more modern issues in their monthly specials.
Arthur >>
Great post, Arthur. Here are a couple more interesting ideas to chew on.
1) BGS is an inferior grader. I am sure of this. They have their apologists, and that's fine, but I have seen far more overgraded cards in BGS holders than I have in PSA or SGC holders. And I'd like to emphasize that I have no personal bias towards PSA; if BGS were a better grader I would be happy to admit that. I don't have any PSA registered sets, and my collection of PSA graded cards is worth less than $3000.
That being said, one of the reasons why BGS ends up putting more trimmed cards into holders than PSA (again, this is my opinion, feel free to disagree) is because they have more trimmed cards submitted to them. Let's say you have a 3003 Topps Chrome Dwyane Wade Black Refractor that looks like it's in the NMMT+ range. Further, let's say the problem lies with the bottom right corner, and that a quick run with a rotary cutter will take away the offending bit of card stock. If you submit that card and it comes back a PSA 10/ BGS 9.5 you're smiling. If it comes back trimmed, though, it's no big deal, since you can just sell it raw on Ebay with a big scan and probably get PSA 9/BGS 9 money for it. In other words, the penalty for trimming modern RC's is very small, so more guys are going to try it. Compare this to having, say, a NM 1962 Mantle. If you trim off the right edge you might have a PSA 8 or 9, and have one hell of a card on your hands. Or it might come back trimmed and you lose 150$ worth of equity, since it's almost impossible to get PSA 7 or PSA 8 money for a raw card that like (because everyone's wondering why it isn't slabbed already).
Also, trimmed modern cards are harder to spot then trimmed vintage cards, for a variety of reasons that I won't elaborate upon here. But the point is that it's possible that the reason why BGS has such a bad rap is because they're getting so many more 'bad cards' sent to them, and of course a certain number of those are going to slip through.
That said, Beckett is a shoddy outfit. They overgrade, and I don't think their graders are very well trained. But they ARE very good marketers; much better than CU. Look at the BGS 9/ BGS 9.5/ BGS 10 nonsense, for example. Beckett (and SGC and GAI, to be fair) were smart enough to realize that if grading preferences eventually 'evened out', then leaving themselves the 'Pristine' option would give them a competitive advantage later on. And they were right. They established that a BGS 9.5 was the same as a PSA 10, and once that had been firmly established they started kicking out the BGS 10 grades. If you have a stunning UD Pujols RC, for example, and are thinking of getting it graded, and you're of the opinion that one grader is pretty much like another (the opinion, I would think, of plenty of part time collectors who aren't as nerdy as all of us), why wouldn't you send that card to BGS? You figure the odds of getting a 9 are the same from both companies, a 9.5 / PSA 10 are roughly the same, but with BGS you have a chance to spin the wheel and get a BGS 10. The BGS 10 grade, in other words, is a total free roll. Why not take a shot at it?
PSA has two big advantages over Beckett. Their set registry, and the loyalty they've built up with 1952-1980 card collectors. But all other advantages, I think, go to Beckett. You don't pay $100 a year to send them cards, their pop reports are free (and easier to navigate, IMO), their holders are sturdier and more tamper-resistant, they grade the autograph on a card (silly, I know, but hey-- somebody must dig it), they offer subgrades (more silliness, but again-- it works for some guys), they have a 'Pristine' grade, they established themselves as the 'industries toughest grader' in the early part of this century by impletmenting absurdly tough grading standards, etc. etc. In short, they are some smart set of dudes. And if they ever get serious about competing for registry dollars they will become a major player.
Collecting Jordan graded cards,
Jordan #d cards,
Wanted: Bill Quackenbush cards
they (BGS) would have a very tough time competing for anything but the "low" end market, i.e. modern cards. PSA is too entrenched and SGC has a decent piece of the pie for pre-war. this would be tough to crack. but i agree they have great marketing acumen and if they focus on modern, they can continue to do well in that niche. The modern segment is potentially huge but somehow they have to figure out how to grade cards efficiently enough to make it economically viable to submit modern cards. When the grading fee exceeds the market value of the card, you have a problem. And, lowering your grading fees to accommodate the low end results in a less than desirable product (BCCG). Not sure how to fix this problem unless someone invents an automated grading system that is as reliable as the current systems It doesn't seem like that will happen anytime soon.
Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards
My PSA Registry Sets
34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
<< <i>The modern segment is potentially huge but somehow they have to figure out how to grade cards efficiently enough to make it economically viable to submit modern cards. When the grading fee exceeds the market value of the card, you have a problem. >>
You would think this is true, but as it turns out enhancing the market value of a cards is usually not the reason why people get cards graded. Check out
This example, for instance. The pop on this card is 138, so the hammer price is no fluke. Now, how many people, if given this same card raw, would send it in for grading even if a) they were planning on reselling it, and b) knew what the pop was? The answer, I think, is a surprisingly high number of TPG customers.
People do get cards graded for the purpose of resale, or for the purpose of storing them away in their personal collections, but a lot of cards get graded just because people enjoy the whole process of shipping off their cards and waiting for the grades to avail themselves. There are plenty of stories here about people who, when their grades become available online, sit down in front of the computer with the lights out and slowly reveal each grade one at a time, thereby extending the process by ten or fifteen minutes. Why? Because that's the fun part-- seeing what you get. So long as grading is fun people will continue to spend considerable money doing it. What Beckett needs to do is find away to get the word out that getting grades back-- even if they're grades for cards that aren't worth anything either raw or slabbed-- is a blast, and an excellent way to spend a hobby buck. PSA has definitely figured that out-- although I think they tripped into it more than anything else-- as you can see just by perusing the 'grades popped' thread. If you look at the subs in that thread, for example, and calculate what all of the cards in a particular submission would sell for raw if the cards were accurately described, and what they'll sell for in the slabs they've been assigned less the grading fees, you'll notice that the first number will often be bigger than the second number, or will only be smaller by a negligible amount, over 70% of the time or so. Enhancing the value of a card by an amount above and beyond the grading fee is only one reason why people get cards graded, and when you consider the total volume of cards slabbed I'm not even sure it's a very important reason.