Bumpable? 1976 Topps Nolan Ryan

Bosox1976

Corners/centering/edges are all nearly perfect, color and stray print too much?






Heading out for review...

itzagoner

white spot on cap.

beauty of a card.

CDsNuts

Yeah I'd try a whole bunch of times.

5714Ks

WOW, very nice!

itzagoner

<< <i>Yeah I'd try a whole bunch of times. >>



can't argue that.

not like it hasn't happened before.

jeffcbay

When you scroll up and down, does the left edge appear wavy, or is it just me?

mikeschmidt

One time I was successful on a crack and resubmit on about a dozen PSA 9s of a certain Hall of Famer from the 1976 Topps set. I went on the assumption that if all the cards were Minty Fresh, perhaps one might rise to the top.

I think I just got lucky.

Bosox1976

<< <i>When you scroll up and down, does the left edge appear wavy, or is it just me? >>



The card has a little vending curl to it - looks straight in hand.

Thanks for the input guys.

swartz1

keep it in the current holder and let the next person decide...

the non-current flip makes it very appealing...

CDsNuts

It has perfect corners and near perfect centering. As a 9 it's a $200 card. As a 10 it's a $5,000 card. Anybody who thinks this isn't worth a shot at a bump needs to put down the crackpipe.

SidePocket

Lee is right.

Personally with 95% of the cards I can't tell the difference b/t a 9 and a 10. Good luck if you resub!

mikeschmidt

There is downside risk, too, Lee. In the example I noted above, 9s cracked and resubmitted come back as 8s.

The odds of getting a review bump from 9 to 10 are significantly harder than a crack-and-bump 10. And that way will cost you money [grading fees + shipping] and the risk of the 9 coming back as less than 9.

CDsNuts

There is downside risk, too, Lee. In the example I noted above, 9s cracked and resubmitted come back as 8s.

No doubt Marc, but anybody who grades regularly will tell you that card is closer to a 10 than it is an 8, so if you want to get it back into a 9 slab you eventually will (as long as you don't damage the card cracking it out). If it was the difference between $200 and $600 I'd say it's probably not worth it, but we're talking about a 2500% return here.

You and I have both seen enough fugly 10s to know that this Ryan has at least a small shot at ending up in a 10 holder. When we're talking about a $5k difference in price, that's really all I need to try for the crack and resub.

itzagoner

Lee's right, the grading is so unpredictable on 10's, as to include cards with print dots, ink smudges or even a tiny bit of shadowy focus, all of which i've received before in subs.....although i personally would more likely be interested in finding that so-called "perfect" example of a '76 Ryan without any detectable faults, a score on a 10 for that card could land you around 3 more NEW fresh 1976 Topps wax boxes so you could look for another one.

Bosox1976

I'd feel a little better about cracking if the pink and yellow were a little more vibrant. Lee's logic is spot on though.

Anybody have any 1976 10's with average color?

larryallen73

Nice card!

RonBurgundy

Awesome cardboard

ThoseBackPages

Shows some snow.

is that white spot on his hat as bad in person as it is showing in the scan?

swartz1

Your scan looks better edge / side wise ...

The auction scan definitely looks better color wise...

Dpeck100

I just found the card you won for $165 and were the only bidder. That really surprised me as this is a sweet card.

The seller has a ton of other PSA 9 mint cards and I would think that if he thought it had a shot at a 10 he would have it reviewed prior to selling it to you.

With there only being 3 PSA 10's out of 2500 subs I don't see a 10 in your future. I think once a card has a defined population that is so heavily skewed away from 10's that it is now almost impossible to get one in that holder.

I say enjoy the awesome card the way it is and be glad no one came in and jacked the price on you on your solo double bid.

mikeschmidt

Dpeck:

I agree with you that when there is such a low preponderance of 10s, that striking a 10 can be a Herculean task. I think it's a gamble, and one where the submitter is unlikely to win (although I'd like to be wrong so BoSox1976 can have a big score).

I'm not sure that past grading patterns are indicative of future ones. In that reference I made earlier on this thread, when I cracked a dozen or so 9s of a Hall of Famer and scored a PSA 10 from the 1976 Topps set, it was the first PSA 10 of that card ever graded. It's possible -- albeit unlikely.

Just my $0.02

Dpeck100

I don't know if I am right or wrong but I will say that PSA is quite aware on a card like this that the last sale was $4,800+ and I think they are cautious on handing grades out on cards like this. A Robin Yount Rookie comes to mind.

I do agree that sometimes you can't tell a 9 from a 10 but when you have a true Gem you know it.

I have subbed a good number of cards at this point and I have one card in particular that when I was going though my stacks I said to myself is this is not a 10 I don't know what is. Had that been a higher dollar card I don't know which holder it would have shown up in.


If this card had been subbed less times I think the odds are higher but with 2500 subbed I think the chances go down.

Either way it is really awesome card!

RonBurgundy

DPeck makes a good point. Go look at the pop report of PSA 10 Rickey Henderson rookies and ask yourself why there are not more. There are thousands upon thousands of that card - and yes, many yet to be graded - but there are likely several 9's of that card that could be in 10 holders that are not simply because of hypertechnical grading.

ShootyBabitt

I went through a little analysis of the 1982 Donruss set when I was trying to decide whether or not to buy a factory set case from BBCE. It is a profitable deal if you can get one Gem Mint 10 Cal Ripken Jr. from the 15 sets. However, when looking at the pop reports from that set, the Ripken appeared to be scrutinized so much more than the rest of the set. You can also make the argument that people will submit any 82 Donruss Ripken and will scrutinize all of the other cards they send in. However, take a look at the differences:

1982 Donruss Pop Report

Ripken
PSA 10 224 (3.1% of total)
PSA 9 1,459 (20.1%)
PSA 9Q 842 (11.6%)
PSA 8 2,863 (39.4%)
PSA 8Q 564 (7.8%)
<PSA 7.5 1,311 (18.1%)
Total Subs 7,263


Rest of Set
PSA 10 2,242 (28.7% of total)
PSA 9 3,241 (41.5%)
PSA 9Q 205 (2.6%)
PSA 8 1,517 (19.4%)
PSA 8Q 57 (0.7%)
<PSA 7.5 541 (6.9%)
Total Subs 7,803


According to this, it's roughly 9x harder to get a PSA 10 1982 Donruss Ripken and you are 5x as likely to get a qualifier. Even if you account for what I said above, those are some huge differences.

itzagoner

it would be interesting at least to see how the existing PSA 10 Ryans appear and when they were graded in order to make a comparison.....i'm sure the opinions could fill up another thread.

Bosox1976

I've thought of buying a dozen Hendersons and sending them all in together for review, but always came back to the percentages (like the 82 Donruss example).

That said, Marc's example shows that it can be done. I think just sending in one card on a "naked bootleg" is probably not the way to go. It would have to be the clear cut best among a bunch of 9's.

RonBurgundy

That is some great analysis Shooty. Good stuff.

Incidentally, is the pop report for PSA 10 Ryan RC's still at zero? I find that hard to believe too, with the quantity of 68's that are out there.

Pittfan

Be careful it may come back evidence of trimming!!!

hammered

<< <i>I went through a little analysis of the 1982 Donruss set when I was trying to decide whether or not to buy a factory set case from BBCE. It is a profitable deal if you can get one Gem Mint 10 Cal Ripken Jr. from the 15 sets. However, when looking at the pop reports from that set, the Ripken appeared to be scrutinized so much more than the rest of the set. You can also make the argument that people will submit any 82 Donruss Ripken and will scrutinize all of the other cards they send in. However, take a look at the differences:

1982 Donruss Pop Report

Ripken
PSA 10 224 (3.1% of total)
PSA 9 1,459 (20.1%)
PSA 9Q 842 (11.6%)
PSA 8 2,863 (39.4%)
PSA 8Q 564 (7.8%)
<PSA 7.5 1,311 (18.1%)
Total Subs 7,263


Rest of Set
PSA 10 2,242 (28.7% of total)
PSA 9 3,241 (41.5%)
PSA 9Q 205 (2.6%)
PSA 8 1,517 (19.4%)
PSA 8Q 57 (0.7%)
<PSA 7.5 541 (6.9%)
Total Subs 7,803


According to this, it's roughly 9x harder to get a PSA 10 1982 Donruss Ripken and you are 5x as likely to get a qualifier. Even if you account for what I said above, those are some huge differences. >>




Your logic is not correct. Ripkens will get subbed even if they are 7-8 quality, so you'll see a much higher % of those in lower grades. The rest of the set will only be subbed if the card is worthy of a 10 or 9, so the % is higher on the upper grades.

ThoseBackPages

<< <i>I went through a little analysis of the 1982 Donruss set when I was trying to decide whether or not to buy a factory set case from BBCE. It is a profitable deal if you can get one Gem Mint 10 Cal Ripken Jr. from the 15 sets. However, when looking at the pop reports from that set, the Ripken appeared to be scrutinized so much more than the rest of the set. You can also make the argument that people will submit any 82 Donruss Ripken and will scrutinize all of the other cards they send in. However, take a look at the differences:

1982 Donruss Pop Report

Ripken
PSA 10 224 (3.1% of total)
PSA 9 1,459 (20.1%)
PSA 9Q 842 (11.6%)
PSA 8 2,863 (39.4%)
PSA 8Q 564 (7.8%)
<PSA 7.5 1,311 (18.1%)
Total Subs 7,263


Rest of Set
PSA 10 2,242 (28.7% of total)
PSA 9 3,241 (41.5%)
PSA 9Q 205 (2.6%)
PSA 8 1,517 (19.4%)
PSA 8Q 57 (0.7%)
<PSA 7.5 541 (6.9%)
Total Subs 7,803


According to this, it's roughly 9x harder to get a PSA 10 1982 Donruss Ripken and you are 5x as likely to get a qualifier. Even if you account for what I said above, those are some huge differences. >>



So it was a "no go" on the factory set case?

ShootyBabitt

<< <i>Your logic is not correct. Ripkens will get subbed even if they are 7-8 quality, so you'll see a much higher % of those in lower grades. The rest of the set will only be subbed if the card is worthy of a 10 or 9, so the % is higher on the upper grades. >>




As I mentioned in my post:


<< <i>You can also make the argument that people will submit any 82 Donruss Ripken and will scrutinize all of the other cards they send in. >>


And


<< <i>Even if you account for what I said above, those are some huge differences. >>




TBP - I ended up not doing it, because of the difficulty of getting a 10. I have a spreadsheet that maps it all out, including the re-selling of the sets that didn't have a submission-worthy Ripken. I should have taken advantage of BBCE's thanksgiving sale - that would have made it more palatable.

Mickey71

I think the 76 Ryan is a 9 with gem mint centering and corners. The color and print does not do it for me for a 10. Although scans can be different regarding the true color of the card.

The reverse can sometimes be O/C and this card is stunning and razor sharp.

I don't know where to go with this card....if it's cracked out the absolute highest holder it gets into is a 9. If it's reviewed they will look at the color and print and not even need to get to the awesome corners and centering.

I just think it is a very nice 9 that is graded right on the money.

"GREAT CARD" with all things considered. I'll give you $180.

Bosox1976

<< <i>I think the 76 Ryan is a 9 with gem mint centering and corners. The color and print does not do it for me for a 10. >>



Yeah - this is how I felt when starting the thread.

I am also basing my feelings on the 76 vending box that I got killed on, despite eye-popping colors: Vending rip

My scanner was crappy, but check the pinks and yellows on the team cards, which all came back 9's. I thought they were all 10's.

gameusedhoop

<< <i> which all came back 9's. I thought they were all 10's. >>



On another day, looked at by another grader there probably would have been some 10s. As for the Ryan, just don't see it.

5714Ks

the '86 topps ryan comes to mind in regards to hyper-technical grading.
somehow the standard has changed.
pre 2010 PSA 10 pop: 0
2010 PSA 10 pop: 23