BGS 9.5 Strasburg a devastating blow to BGS....
Dpeck100
Posts: 10,912 ✭✭✭✭✭
As I am sure most of you know the Super Refractor card was some how awarded the BGS 9.5 grade. If you watched the video you saw the hesitation of the Beckett editor and the so called senior card graders gently describing the many flaws the card has. I have purchased many graded cards but have only had one experience of sending off cards to get graded. I purchased a sealed set of 1982 Wrestling All Stars Series A for a great deal more then the market for raw cards. My game plan was to keep them sealed but upon receiving I could not resist. I called my post office and got the cards in the morning and by night busted them open. The factory sealed cards looked so strong I knew I had to open them and submit for grading. I chose PSA becuase of the many high grade important cards that were graded by them. The news that the Strasburg card received a Gem Mint destroys the credibility of Beckett. This is a crushing blow as I will never submit a card to them. I am not important to the card grading companies as I will not submit tons of orders, but if many people like me rule them out as a market choice they are done. I think this will do it. I got back cards that were graded 8's that looked perfect to the naked eye. This card is clearly an 8 at best and is most likely a 7.5. To grade it as a near perfect card is absord. The reason graded cards sell for a premium is becuase the grade is supposed to be objective. We all know at this point that BGS is not. It is exciting that a few baseball cards are selling for large sums of money but giving a card of this magnitude a free pass destroys their credibility. The card should have been graded an authentic card with no actuall grade. They could have verified it was the legit version and not crushed their credibility as a card grader. They are clearly not the unbiased third party. This is a business killer.
0
Comments
Every great company in America has sometimes had to make difficult decisions in order to keep its business thriving.
I'm sure this decision to give this card such a lofty grade was a tough one. But Beckett probably felt it was in
the best interests of the company, and those who believe in the company to give a card of this magnitude such a grade.
Everyone can debate the 9.5. We even debate PSA grades here, because grades are subjective.
This Strasburg mania is very good for the hobby. It's good for Beckett, and it's good for PSA.
Please break your posts up into paragraphs.
It will make it easier to read.
I agree with you, the title at least.
Steve
<< <i>Gpeck
Please break your posts up into paragraphs.
It will make it easier to read.
I agree with you, the title at least.
Steve >>
+1 That first post could have been broken into 4 paragraphs, then 3 of them could have been deleted before submitting. Just kidding. But your posts are way to long dude, seriously.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i> This card is clearly an 8 at best and is most likely a 7.5. >>
So, which flaw do you see that will pull it down to the 7.5 or 8 range?
The guy in the video seemed to give a pretty good explanation as to why the card didn't get 10s on its subgrades.
BGS has it's "overgraded" BGS 9.5 Strasburg.
PSA has it's *sheet cut* PSA 8 T206 Wagner.
There's enough dirty laundry to go around the grading card biz.
PSA 10s are NOT PERFECT. Pick up a PSA 10 and you will probably find something that's wrong with it.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Just as there are some 1980s sheet cut cards they will grade.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i> This card is clearly an 8 at best and is most likely a 7.5. >>
So, which flaw do you see that will pull it down to the 7.5 or 8 range?
The guy in the video seemed to give a pretty good explanation as to why the card didn't get 10s on its subgrades.
BGS has it's "overgraded" BGS 9.5 Strasburg.
PSA has it's trimmed PSA 8 T206 Wagner.
There's enough dirty laundry to go around the grading card biz.
PSA 10s are NOT PERFECT. Pick up a PSA 10 and you will probably find something that's wrong with it. >>
Thank-you! I 100% agree w/ your post (again lol).
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>Just as there are some 1980s sheet cut cards they will grade. >>
PSA won't grade any cards that were "custom" sheet cut, if there were "factory" cut versions released.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Again, it is not trimmed as you suggest, it is what is considered sheet cut, and from my understand, not against any PSA grading guideline/rule. Trimmed cards are. That is where I was going with sheet cut...that is different then trimmed.
Perhaps, I am wrong...maybe you can quote a PSA rule that excludes it, a quote...not paraphrase. I don't have the guidelines handy and could not find it online...in a 1-2 min. search.
When I read the guidelines...I saw no reason why they would not grade it.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
The Grading of Hand Cut Cards
"PSA will grade virtually any card that has been hand-cut off of a panel, box, etc. (Post Cereal, Hostess, Bazooka, Strip cards, etc.) keeping the following information in mind. This service does not include traditional sheet-cut cards. PSA will not grade cards cut from sheets that can be obtained in a normal fashion. For example, PSA will not grade a 1979 O-Pee-Chee Wayne Gretzky card cut from a sheet because that card was issued in non-sheet form. On the other hand, PSA will grade a 1959 Bazooka or 1961 Post Cereal Mickey Mantle because those cards could only be obtained in one fashion - removed by hand from a box or panel."
We've also seen plenty of "WTF" threads on these forums regarding misgraded PSA 10s.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Yes, not all PSA 10's are equal. Most understand what an opinion means.
Still, not sure how anyone can justify that grade.....but Beckett can in 7 min.
But to topic, will this be a devasting blow? Unlikely. No worse then their box pulls, price guide and website. To most I know, 50 1984 Dan Marino BGS 10s did more damage then any single card can do.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>I am not convined the guidelines means the Wagner should not be graded. It is far from a normal card....which has at least one book documenting it's history. >>
So, no sheet cut cards... unless it's a super valuable card, then it's ok.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>I am not convined the guidelines means the Wagner should not be graded. It is far from a normal card....which has at least one book documenting it's history. >>
So, no sheet cut cards... unless it's a super valuable card, then it's ok. >>
But again they will grade some sheet cut cards. Also, this has not been a solid wall. As you likely know, some of the 80s sheet cuts, they did, didn't and do again.
I'm not sure everyone would define the Wagner as a traditional sheet cut card...I personally would not. I don't imagine you do either. But more so here, is what PSA thinks is a traditional sheet cut card. This is not a 1986 Topps card, which we can all clearly agree on.
You might be surprized to know the set I have the most graded cards in (~300), is BGS graded. I however do try to stay away from recently graded BGS cards...or as in everything, know the seller.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
This is the exact reason why I will never use beckett for card grading.
1) The Wagner at least looks like an 8. The Strasburg looks nowhere near a 9.5, and everybody who's ever send in cards to BGS for grading is completely aware of the fact that if their '87F Bonds RCs exhibited that kind of centering Beckett wouldn't even consider putting the card in a 9.5 slab. This thread isn't about 'which TPG is better' (yawn), it's about whether grading the Strasburg a 9.5 makes the Beckett grading room look like a study in amateur hour. Which it does, no matter what the centering 'guidelines' may be.
2) The Wagner was graded 20 years ago, before anyone knew much about TPG. This card was graded last week, in the age of the Internet, where news travels fast. If the Strasburg was graded 20 years ago, and the sheet-cut Wagner was graded today (and the Wagner was not designated sheet-cut), the all hell would positively break loose over the Wagner grade and the Strasburg grade would be little more than a casual footnote in the history of TPG.
<< <i>I can't believe Beckett gave that card a Gem Mint grade. The centering is just horrible. IMO the card is mint at best.
This is the exact reason why I will never use beckett for card grading. >>
yep, PSA is perfect and we all know they would have gave it a 8 right! this card was going to be graded a gem mint regardless of who graded it. i could pull tons of cards from my collection graded by BGS,PSA and SGC that don't deserve the grade, this one just happens to be in the spotlight.
I think people are overreacting on this whole issue.
Years ago, folks were showing side-by-side picture evidence of BGS grading trimmed cards (2000 SP Authentic Tom Brady and 2001 SP Authentic Mark Prior) and folks predicted the downfall of Beckett back then.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>So, what would you give as the centering subgrade for that Strasburg?
I think people are overreacting on this whole issue.
Years ago, folks were showing side-by-side picture evidence of BGS grading trimmed cards (2000 SP Authentic Tom Brady and 2001 SP Authentic Mark Prior) and folks predicted the downfall of Beckett back then. >>
Very good point. If BradyGate didn't bring down BGS then it seems very unlikely that this Strasburg debacle will have much of an effect. Still, I wonder if the publicity they're getting from this is worth the uproar they're doubtlessly hearing from longstanding Beckett slab collectors/submitters.
<< <i>
<< <i>I can't believe Beckett gave that card a Gem Mint grade. The centering is just horrible. IMO the card is mint at best.
This is the exact reason why I will never use beckett for card grading. >>
yep, PSA is perfect and we all know they would have gave it a 8 right! this card was going to be graded a gem mint regardless of who graded it. i could pull tons of cards from my collection graded by BGS,PSA and SGC that don't deserve the grade, this one just happens to be in the spotlight. >>
Then you need to pay attention when you buy cards.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Very good point. If BradyGate didn't bring down BGS then it seems very unlikely that this Strasburg debacle will have much of an effect. Still, I wonder if the publicity they're getting from this is worth the uproar they're doubtlessly hearing from longstanding Beckett slab collectors/submitters. >>
If anything, it'll probably boost BGS submissions.
When a big "card event" like this occurs, non-collectors start getting involved. For many non-collectors, third party grading is a foreign concept. Now, they see a high dollar baseball card entombed in a nice plastic brick with "Beckett" written on it. "Hey, those were the price guide people back when I was a kid" many might think, and they do some reading, get a submission form, and ship off their cards.
And quite frankly, BGS holders are awesome. You could actually beat someone to death with a BGS slab. A PSA slab would crack into pieces first.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I can't believe Beckett gave that card a Gem Mint grade. The centering is just horrible. IMO the card is mint at best.
This is the exact reason why I will never use beckett for card grading. >>
yep, PSA is perfect and we all know they would have gave it a 8 right! this card was going to be graded a gem mint regardless of who graded it. i could pull tons of cards from my collection graded by BGS,PSA and SGC that don't deserve the grade, this one just happens to be in the spotlight. >>
Then you need to pay attention when you buy cards. >>
so what you are saying is every graded card in your collection is graded accurately? even good scans/pics don't show all the flaws all the time and i'm not one to ask for a refund from a seller because some proffessional make a mistake. i only buy cheap so i live with it, win some lose some.
<< <i>
<< <i>I can't believe Beckett gave that card a Gem Mint grade. The centering is just horrible. IMO the card is mint at best.
This is the exact reason why I will never use beckett for card grading. >>
yep, PSA is perfect and we all know they would have gave it a 8 right! this card was going to be graded a gem mint regardless of who graded it. i could pull tons of cards from my collection graded by BGS,PSA and SGC that don't deserve the grade, this one just happens to be in the spotlight. >>
I never said PSA was perfect in my post. There is no need to be sassy when replying to my post.
From my experiences PSA is a lot better at grading then Beckett. To say this card would be graded Gem Mint regardless who graded is a very bold statement. I on the other hand would think PSA would not grade the card a 10 because of the horrible centering which takes a lot away from the eye appeal.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I can't believe Beckett gave that card a Gem Mint grade. The centering is just horrible. IMO the card is mint at best.
This is the exact reason why I will never use beckett for card grading. >>
yep, PSA is perfect and we all know they would have gave it a 8 right! this card was going to be graded a gem mint regardless of who graded it. i could pull tons of cards from my collection graded by BGS,PSA and SGC that don't deserve the grade, this one just happens to be in the spotlight. >>
I never said PSA was perfect in my post. There is no need to be sassy when replying to my post.
From my experiences PSA is a lot better at grading then Beckett. To say this card would be graded Gem Mint regardless who graded is a very bold statement. I on the other hand would think PSA would not grade the card a 10 because of the horrible centering which takes a lot away from the eye appeal. >>
sorry for my donkey-esk post but i stand by what i wrote, that PSA would have gave this card a 10
When you go from a BGS 8 to a BGS 8.5, you're moving up just a half a grade. The hobby accepts that. An 8.5 is a "high end 8." When you move from 9 to 9.5, you're advancing, for all intents and purposes, an entire grade. No one looks at a 9.5 as a "high end 9".
Gem Mint isn't a half-grade up from Mint, it's a full grade up. However, there is no middle ground between Mint and Gem Mint on Beckett's scale. If there was, then this Strasburg would have a grade of 9.25.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>The inherent flaw with BGS is this:
When you go from a BGS 8 to a BGS 8.5, you're moving up just a half a grade. The hobby accepts that. An 8.5 is a "high end 8." When you move from 9 to 9.5, you're advancing, for all intents and purposes, an entire grade. No one looks at a 9.5 as a "high end 9".
Gem Mint isn't a half-grade up from Mint, it's a full grade up. However, there is no middle ground between Mint and Gem Mint on Beckett's scale. If there was, then this Strasburg would have a grade of 9.25. >>
every thing you said is true, but the same can be said for PSA. i'm not some BGS supporter i buy whats available, all i'm saying is if PSA had graded this card (which i believe would have been a 10) everybody would be complaining about PSA giving this card a 10, am i wrong in thinking this?
This does not sound like a gem mint card. This sounds like a NM-MT.
GEM-MT 10: Gem Mint.
A PSA Gem Mint 10 card is a virtually perfect card. Attributes include four perfectly sharp corners, sharp focus and full original gloss. A PSA Gem Mint 10 card must be free of staining of any kind, but an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it doesn't impair the overall appeal of the card. The image must be centered on the card within a tolerance not to exceed approximately 55/45 to 60/40 percent on the front, and 75/25 percent on the reverse.
As I said before in order to save face they could have graded it authentic and left out the card grade. I think all card grading companies are having a hard time getting submisions and you can see that in CLCT earnings. But to give a card that the whole world will see a massive over grade will kill any level of objectivity people think they have.
This is like the oil spill to BP, the damage that boycots of their stations and potential contracts lost becuae of the spill is the part of the problem that know one can really predict the damages to their business and only time will tell how significant that part is.
BGS has lost their credibility and they appear to have been losing the race and this is the time for the other two major companies to put them out. I have always thought it seemed like a massive conflict of interest to publish the prices of cards and grade them as well. I understood exactly why they got in the business as profit is the motive. This just reinforces the point that most things are rigged.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I can't believe Beckett gave that card a Gem Mint grade. The centering is just horrible. IMO the card is mint at best.
This is the exact reason why I will never use beckett for card grading. >>
yep, PSA is perfect and we all know they would have gave it a 8 right! this card was going to be graded a gem mint regardless of who graded it. i could pull tons of cards from my collection graded by BGS,PSA and SGC that don't deserve the grade, this one just happens to be in the spotlight. >>
Then you need to pay attention when you buy cards. >>
so what you are saying is every graded card in your collection is graded accurately? even good scans/pics don't show all the flaws all the time and i'm not one to ask for a refund from a seller because some proffessional make a mistake. i only buy cheap so i live with it, win some lose some. >>
No, according to you...you have tons of cards graded by "BGS,PSA and SGC that don't deserve the grade."
If you are not lieing, then you should pay more attention when you purchase cards, and not buy those cards.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
I agree compared to the other cards in the set it is really Off center, but wouldn't Bowman just say "we printed that special card off center on purpose." Who could argue with them? No one is complaining that it has a bunch of funky stuff on the surface of the card because that is how Bowman printed it.
T222's PSA 1 or better
The whole purpose of card grading is to preserve the card in it's current condition, a so called unbiased third party grader to determine the grade, and to make it easier to transact in this virtual commerace world.
There is no rational for throwing out card standards becuase of limited quantity. The only flaw that can be allowed with this card is the rough cutt. The O-pee-chee Gretsky has rough edges but becuase they all do it is allowed.
The centering of a card is crucial to its appeal and must be considered.
A Gem Mint card is supposed to sell at a premium becuase it is the closest thing to a perfect card. This one is clearly not. Think how many times you have come across a card with great atributes but it is off centered and you said man if this card was centered it would be perfect.
I have never looked at a card with ANY corner damage and thought it was higher then an 8 no matter what the other factors were. This card has damaged corners acording to the senion card grader at Beckett.
<< <i>Could someone please explain to me how a 1/1 card could be anything but gem mint? Might sound kind of stupid, but if only one exists how can you find a flaw with nothing to compare it to?
I agree compared to the other cards in the set it is really Off center, but wouldn't Bowman just say "we printed that special card off center on purpose." Who could argue with them? No one is complaining that it has a bunch of funky stuff on the surface of the card because that is how Bowman printed it. >>
I do pretty much agree here...if someone could get Topps to say that. I would not assume that would be their position.
Take for example, the 1/1 printing plates. None of these are what many would consider mint. They are basically pried off the printer and typically show signs of use. One could agrue, it is part of the process and therefore production of the 1/1 printing plate. That the condition problems...are just characteristics of the cards.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Steve
The grader in that clip sure instills confidence. Maybe they borrowed him from BCCG for the day?
Steve
1/1 grading is largely irrelevant.
I think the Strasburg would be an 8.5 to 9 if he was any other rookie prospect.
Of course the problem for Beckett is if they gave it a grade it deserved it would no longer get their coveted "gold label" and would get the crap runner up prize of "silver".
It baffles me why they would have ever made the poor decision to break up their grading in this manner.
No one wants their prized possessions to get a silver or bronze medal! Just put the darned numeric value of the grade on a gold label regardless!
saucywombat@hotmail.com
This is really just creating artificialy low supply. The reason an older card in 8 or better sells for alot is they are hard to find and of the supply equal a very small percentage and hence the large premium relative to less superior grades.
With this logic every card should be Gem Mint.
The modern era cards I do not believe will stay valuable becuase so many are in good condition and the game is all based on insert cards. The key to collecting in my opinion is finding cards that will have appeal for the long term.
This guy Strasburg is very unique, no question. I looked at his strike out to inning ratio and it is the best in the big leagues. Very impressive. So was Doc Gooden, so was Roger Clemens. There are many great players who cards are nearly worthless.
You can't give away a Barry Bonds card.
The notion that an insert card of this young pitcher is more valuable then a PSA 10 Jordan Rookie, and many other cards combined is just bizarre.
<< <i>I don't buy any of the brand new cards but if the rational that a 1/1 is a Gem Mint then every super refractor or what ever they call the insert cards from each brand should all grade perfect. This is just stupid.
This is really just creating artificialy low supply. The reason an older card in 8 or better sells for alot is they are hard to find and of the supply equal a very small percentage and hence the large premium relative to less superior grades.
With this logic every card should be Gem Mint.
The modern era cards I do not believe will stay valuable becuase so many are in good condition and the game is all based on insert cards. The key to collecting in my opinion is finding cards that will have appeal for the long term.
This guy Strasburg is very unique, no question. I looked at his strike out to inning ratio and it is the best in the big leagues. Very impressive. So was Doc Gooden, so was Roger Clemens. There are many great players who cards are nearly worthless.
You can't give away a Barry Bonds card.
The notion that an insert card of this young pitcher is more valuable then a PSA 10 Jordan Rookie, and many other cards combined is just bizarre. >>
You still fail to grasp what 1/1 really means. If you understood, you wouldn't continue to compare 1/1 modern cards to RCs of 80's players where 50,000 - 100,000 supply exist.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>
<< <i>The inherent flaw with BGS is this:
When you go from a BGS 8 to a BGS 8.5, you're moving up just a half a grade. The hobby accepts that. An 8.5 is a "high end 8." When you move from 9 to 9.5, you're advancing, for all intents and purposes, an entire grade. No one looks at a 9.5 as a "high end 9".
Gem Mint isn't a half-grade up from Mint, it's a full grade up. However, there is no middle ground between Mint and Gem Mint on Beckett's scale. If there was, then this Strasburg would have a grade of 9.25. >>
every thing you said is true, but the same can be said for PSA. i'm not some BGS supporter i buy whats available, all i'm saying is if PSA had graded this card (which i believe would have been a 10) everybody would be complaining about PSA giving this card a 10, am i wrong in thinking this? >>
I agree, it probably would have landed in a 10 case as well and PSA would be feeling the heat.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I can't believe Beckett gave that card a Gem Mint grade. The centering is just horrible. IMO the card is mint at best.
This is the exact reason why I will never use beckett for card grading. >>
yep, PSA is perfect and we all know they would have gave it a 8 right! this card was going to be graded a gem mint regardless of who graded it. i could pull tons of cards from my collection graded by BGS,PSA and SGC that don't deserve the grade, this one just happens to be in the spotlight. >>
I never said PSA was perfect in my post. There is no need to be sassy when replying to my post.
From my experiences PSA is a lot better at grading then Beckett. To say this card would be graded Gem Mint regardless who graded is a very bold statement. I on the other hand would think PSA would not grade the card a 10 because of the horrible centering which takes a lot away from the eye appeal. >>
I have to disagree when it comes to modern cards. I have found PSA top be much more lenient.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>Easily, so what you are saying is that there could be a number of things wrong with the card and since it is the only one that exists it is gem mint.
The whole purpose of card grading is to preserve the card in it's current condition, a so called unbiased third party grader to determine the grade, and to make it easier to transact in this virtual commerace world.
There is no rational for throwing out card standards becuase of limited quantity. The only flaw that can be allowed with this card is the rough cutt. The O-pee-chee Gretsky has rough edges but becuase they all do it is allowed.
The centering of a card is crucial to its appeal and must be considered.
A Gem Mint card is supposed to sell at a premium becuase it is the closest thing to a perfect card. This one is clearly not. Think how many times you have come across a card with great atributes but it is off centered and you said man if this card was centered it would be perfect.
I have never looked at a card with ANY corner damage and thought it was higher then an 8 no matter what the other factors were. This card has damaged corners acording to the senion card grader at Beckett. >>
The grade never explained the level of the flaw. I took the explanation as to why the grade was not a 10.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
I see no problem with the theory that this 1/1 is being compared to other modern cards that had millions produced.
If anything a 1/1 should be truly perfect. I have no idea how they produce a 1/1 card I imagine it is inserted into a sheet with the other cards in the set?
If so, perhaps they should (Under strict controls) create 10 or so and choose the best one. This specimen does not fit into my criteria as a gem mint card.
Back in the day I'd have called a card like this near mint. ( I had no NM/MNT grade)
Steve
<< <i> I have no idea how they produce a 1/1 card I imagine it is inserted into a sheet with the other cards in the set?
If so, perhaps they should (Under strict controls) create 10 or so and choose the best one.
Steve >>
Upper Deck is already way ahead of you, Steve.....they've produced a couple hundred more of these and slipped them out the McBackdoor.
I explained to you why it would fall.
I am very clear that this is a 1/1 of card. The difference is there are a ton of other Strasburg cards. If you understood economics you would realize they are close substitutes and this will restrict the long term value of this card.
One of the primary reasons older cards have some value is the sentamental aspect. This guy has thrown pitches in four major league games.
What makes things truely rare is the item withstands the test of time. Just look at the Superman comic book.
Study economics and then we will talk.
<< <i>
If anything a 1/1 should be truly perfect. I have no idea how they produce a 1/1 card I imagine it is inserted into a sheet with the other cards in the set?
Steve >>
On this sheet you'll see they printed more than one of each 1/1 card.
<< <i>On this sheet you'll see they printed more than one of each 1/1 card. >>
Those are the blank auto'ed cards. I wonder how many of them got signed and are sitting at Topps HQ?
Someone should ask Strasburg how many of the red bordered cards he signed.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>You thought the price was right at a million.
I explained to you why it would fall.
I am very clear that this is a 1/1 of card. The difference is there are a ton of other Strasburg cards. If you understood economics you would realize they are close substitutes and this will restrict the long term value of this card.
One of the primary reasons older cards have some value is the sentamental aspect. This guy has thrown pitches in four major league games.
What makes things truely rare is the item withstands the test of time. Just look at the Superman comic book.
Study economics and then we will talk. >>
I would think that someone with such knowledge of economics would spend his time analyzing investments and less time trolling baseball card forums.
<< <i>The inherent flaw with BGS is this:
When you go from a BGS 8 to a BGS 8.5, you're moving up just a half a grade. The hobby accepts that. An 8.5 is a "high end 8." When you move from 9 to 9.5, you're advancing, for all intents and purposes, an entire grade. No one looks at a 9.5 as a "high end 9".
Gem Mint isn't a half-grade up from Mint, it's a full grade up. However, there is no middle ground between Mint and Gem Mint on Beckett's scale. If there was, then this Strasburg would have a grade of 9.25. >>
Also don't forget at the possibility of a BGS 10 in the scale. In the issues I've collected BGS is MUCH tougher on modern cards than PSA, particularly in the "surface" department, and the pop reports typically reflect that. For the people bringing up Upper Deck, you guys realize Topps has contracted them to print product for them in the past and it's likely to continue right? I could only imagine how many hundred 1/1 Strasburg parallels UD would print if they had a license to make MLB cards though....
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>You thought the price was right at a million.
I explained to you why it would fall.
I am very clear that this is a 1/1 of card. The difference is there are a ton of other Strasburg cards. If you understood economics you would realize they are close substitutes and this will restrict the long term value of this card.
One of the primary reasons older cards have some value is the sentamental aspect. This guy has thrown pitches in four major league games.
What makes things truely rare is the item withstands the test of time. Just look at the Superman comic book.
Study economics and then we will talk. >>
<< <i>I think Beckett talk belongs on the Beckett boards. >>
Agree..Unless it's bashing them.. right?
I guess the same could be said for SGC too. all talk about SGC graded cards don't belong here either.
This is PSA country, all must bow down.