values of 9's???
OAKESY25
Posts: 4,726 ✭✭✭
do we see these just staying that same??
since there is no half grade?
since there is no half grade?
0
Comments
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>do we see these just staying that same??
since there is no half grade? >>
I think it is foolish to assume 7 and 8's lost value...so yes, they do.
The concern is that high end 7's and 8's....ones that you looked at and thought that is a nice 7, which went for more then basic PSA 7 price, lost their premium.
As I noted, I think 1958 Topps collectors know a high end 7 from a low end 7 when looking at it and will still bid accordingly. The biggest factor in high and low end pricing is centering....we still want centered cards that look nice. I think the high end 7 from last week will still command a premium tomorrow.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
They should have gone with 9.5.
Mint 9
Superior Mint 9.5
GEM Mint 10
EDITED TO SAY:
I changed my mind about this. It would only work
fairly if cards in the Registry were exempted from
the Bump program.
<< <i>
<< <i>do we see these just staying that same??
since there is no half grade? >>
I think it is foolish to assume 7 and 8's lost value...so yes, they do.
The concern is that high end 7's and 8's....ones that you looked at and thought that is a nice 7, which went for more then basic PSA 7 price, lost their premium.
As I noted, I think 1958 Topps collectors know a high end 7 from a low end 7 when looking at it and will still bid accordingly. The biggest factor in high and low end pricing is centering....we still want centered cards that look nice. I think the high end 7 from last week will still command a premium tomorrow. >>
Bingo.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
1 - They would devalue some of the 10's (of which there are likely too many). Many of these would be 9.5's. I don't think they have an interest in devaluing their cards.
2 - Beckett 9.5's would be commanding a premium of at least 150% of what PSA 9.5's would be selling for. That makes them look bad on the surface. This is due simply to the pop's of Beckett 10's versus PSA 10's.
To answer the original post, I don't think the value of 9's will take much of a hit, if any. Beckett 9's, SGC 96's and PSA 9's should stay pretty consistent during the adjustment period, I think. What will be really interesting is if Beckett 8.5's begin outselling PSA 8.5's due to a perception that they are simply bumped up 8's.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
That would be strange as collectors and auction houses prefer PSA and SGC over Beckett on vintage cards.
BGS, at least to me, and I have BGS, SGC and PSA in my collection, only has a lead on modern Basketball and with people under 30. Baseball seems pretty even, with the exception of signed cards or jersey cards which is a person under 30 factor. In modern football, there are more collectors on the PSA side I think.
In vintage, where this matters most, BGS is a distant third.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Count me in as someone who will dump every PSA 9 I own.
Furthermore, I can't see myself buying another PSA 9 card for my registry set ever again.
Grading is so subjective there can't be any difference in those new 9.5's and today's 9...or 10's for that matter.
This is just wrong.
Mike >>
PSA is not doing a 9.5
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Furthermore, I can't see myself buying another PSA 9 card for my registry set ever again.
Grading is so subjective there can't be any difference in those new 9.5's and today's 9...or 10's for that matter.
This is just wrong.
Mike
Kirby Puckett Master Set
<< <i>they are going to be swamped with people rying to get ahalf point,that sucks for alot of the guy that have tons of sets on theregistry bad,i only have one set and plan on staying that way, i can imagine how guys with 48-70s fb are feeling right about now, if they are going to do it, the should redo em for free,its their idea,they just want more money, like vampires and blood,its good in some ways and bad in others i suppose if u weight it out, just depends on how many cards and set you got on
I don't think it is reasonable to ask that PSA regrade 10 million plus cards for free. They could however, do like they did on the Kellogg's cases when they came out, I think crossovers to the new case were $2. Also, they could offer 1 or 2 free regrades for complete sets over 200 cards....or something like that.
The hard part for us registry collectors is how much do you want to pay....to buy the upgrade of 0.5?
Clear Skies,
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>"What will be really interesting is if Beckett 8.5's begin outselling PSA 8.5's due to a perception that they are simply bumped up 8's."
That would be strange as collectors and auction houses prefer PSA and SGC over Beckett on vintage cards.
BGS, at least to me, and I have BGS, SGC and PSA in my collection, only has a lead on modern Basketball and with people under 30. Baseball seems pretty even, with the exception of signed cards or jersey cards which is a person under 30 factor. In modern football, there are more collectors on the PSA side I think.
In vintage, where this matters most, BGS is a distant third. >>
I think your post is very accurate. I personally grade my vintage basketball with Beckett simply because I like the holder. You could put that thing through nuclear testing. I also like the inner sleeve. I also have a Carl Yastrzemski registry set with Beckett because I wanted to buy them already graded.
I do however feel like this is close to the end for PSA modern. And I know this will upset people (and I swear I'm not trying to) but what will happen when you submit a pack fresh card and it comes back an 8.5 with no justification. With post 1981 stuff on Beckett, at least I know WHY they gave it the grade they did, even if I disagree. I think for modern, PSA was wise to be using a 10 point scale if they weren't going to justify half grades in some way. Grading is so subjective anyway, I feel comfortable with a justification for grades.
I think the most poignant part of your post is that vintage is really what matters. Premiums on modern cards are fleeting.
I think Beckett should go back to justifying it's BVG cards. I think it would serve their resale values well against PSA Vintage 1/2 grading
My mind is not made up on this. I'd be curious to hear what you think about that.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i>
<< <i>I think the most poignant part of your post is that vintage is really what matters. Premiums on modern cards are fleeting. >>
I do not think vintage is what really matters....I don't collect vintage and outside of some football HOF RC's, I think the oldest graded card I have is a tie with the 1974 Kellogg's set I have been working on.
I do think the new grading mostly effects vintage because few people get modern graded that they do not think will come back 10, so most modern graded is PSA 9 and PSA 10, outside of the half scale. I collect a bunch of modern and I think most modern collectors do not care much for 8's either....there are plenty that end with no bids on ebay.
The only Young PSA 8 or below I have is a 1990 Wild Card 1000 stripe PSA 8. When I bought it, there was no 1990 Wild Card 1000 Stripe had been graded 9 or 10, and it was better looking...and cheaper then the one I had. So I paid like $8 for it and sold my ungraded one for $10.
Why pay $3.00 shipping for a modern PSA 8, which in most cases is pretty much worthless. I dont think this is my thinking, but most collectors thinking.
The worry, appears to be in the high end 7 and 8 cards, which i have discussed elsewhere a couple times. I personally don't think there is such thing as a high end PSA 7 1996 Topps card.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>do we see these just staying that same??
since there is no half grade? >>
I think they would stay the same, or maybe even go up a bit. The really nice 8's that would have slipped in as a 9 will now catch an 8.5 instead. A nine will be a little tougher to get now, It will really have to meet the standard. That is the way I see it.
<< <i>
<< <i>Count me in as someone who will dump every PSA 9 I own.
Furthermore, I can't see myself buying another PSA 9 card for my registry set ever again.
Grading is so subjective there can't be any difference in those new 9.5's and today's 9...or 10's for that matter.
This is just wrong.
Mike >>
PSA is not doing a 9.5 >>
I wish that they would only for the factor of the centering of the back of the card, PSA 10 is not tough enough IMO on centering for the back of the card.
Steve
<< <i>9s will be fine. 8.5 will be the redheaded stepchild of modern. In postwar Topps cards 8.5s will demand current centered 8 money and the rest of the 8s will drop significantly. >>
Kind of agree with that, but I guess I would not mind having some 8.5s in my 76 BB set if some of the 9s get too pricy for me.
<< <i>
<< <i>do we see these just staying that same??
since there is no half grade? >>
I think they would stay the same, or maybe even go up a bit. The really nice 8's that would have slipped in as a 9 will now catch an 8.5 instead. A nine will be a little tougher to get now, It will really have to meet the standard. That is the way I see it. >>
good point
a 10 is truly a perfect card at first glance...
a 9 looks pefect at first glance but has 1 minor flaw....
i dont see there being room for a 9.5 PSA
its either a Gem Mint 10, or it has a tiny flaw and it is 9.0, what would a 9.5 PSA be, a tiny tiny flaw????????