Anyone else get the new SMR today with Arod?

goose3

Well, I was thumbing through it and noticed the PSA ad on page 135.

Look closely at the 2 "10's"

handyman

what was it?

goose3

I'm just curious if anyone else saw what I did.

gosteelers

That PSA 10 has at least 5 'fish eyes' on it. Unbelievable. I know this was discussed before, but why would someone throw that kind of money down for a borderline PSA 9 looking card? The Registry holds that much power? Give me the SGC in the picture any day...

bighurt2000

They appear to be to different cards or that SGC one was photo shopped.
SGC card is brighter and has no ink spots it also looks like the centering left to right on both cards are different.
Don't know what does anyone else think.

goose3

judging by the cards alone, no plastic, I'd take the SGC one in a heartbeat.

Numerous fisheyes on the other as well as some disturbance in the field near the bottom left.

not a good choice for that ad IMO.

markmac

The SGC card looks much shorter than the PSA example.

roastedcat

I agree the SGC one looks far better!, the lucky buyer got a great deal at $2,693.

gosteelers

<< <i>The SGC card looks much shorter than the PSA example. >>



No it doesn't...

handyman

Id rather buy a new car than have a 1965 PSA 10. Just my thought. Or maybe a PSA 7 of a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. But hey, I guess it was a good deal.

gosteelers

<< <i>Id rather buy a new car than have a 1965 PSA 10. Just my thought. Or maybe a PSA 7 of a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. But hey, I guess it was a good deal. >>



These outrageously priced post-1960 PSA 10 sales are almost always a big mistake by the buyer. Once another 10 gets graded (it's only a matter of time), the price will be cut in half or more...

handyman

Cant these people just give away there money instead of buying this stuff?

brianwintersfan

You know I was going to bring this up as well. Whoever at PSA decided that would be a good card to use in that ad needs their head examined. The SGC card looks like a real smoker compared to the PSA card. Another case of someone buying the holder and not the card.

Downtown1974

Yes, I noticed that too. I remember when that auction closed we were discussing the fish eyes on it. I agree that it is not the best example of a 10 to be using for the ad.

pleaseletmepost

<< <i>You know I was going to bring this up as well. Whoever at PSA decided that would be a good card to use in that ad needs their head examined. The SGC card looks like a real smoker compared to the PSA card. Another case of someone buying the holder and not the card. >>





I guess you just have to look at it like this. Maybe the people who run the ad stuff at PSA arent that dumb. I mean they are willing to put a card in an add that should be a forsure PSA 9 but the prices sure so otherwise. Does anyone really care that this particular card blows another card out of the water (pricewise)??? I would be laughing if I was at PSA. I mean you usually cannot tell how good/bad a card is in a scan untill you get it in your hands but this one, I mean wow! I guess the point to my ramble is that PSA could put a turd in a holder and some poor (or not so poor) fellow would not have a clue. In reality, I guess the collector (you/me) are responsible for this madness.

My 2...