We're all free to have our opinions, whether they're based on eye instinct or years of handling the cards. There are more counterfeits of the Fleer than there are of the Star, as well.
All good. I can put it this way: I'm more apt to think a larger one is sheet cut than to think the left one is trimmed. Many of those I have seen in the bag, known legit examples from original owners, looked exactly like the 9.5, namely with a truncated bottom cut that leaves little red real estate below the name. There is no question that from an aesthetic and eye appeal standpoint, I'd prefer the example on the right. In fact that example on the right is my favorite Star Jordan around. I've never seen one better. Helped it find a happy home a couple years back when it came to my attention. I'd also add that I initially had the exact same reaction years ago when I saw two like this, side by side; my instinct was trimming.
<< <i>All good. I can put it this way: I'm more apt to think a larger one is sheet cut than to think the left one is trimmed. Many of those I have seen in the bag, known legit examples from original owners, looked exactly like the 9.5, namely with a truncated bottom cut that leaves little red real estate below the name. There is no question that from an aesthetic and eye appeal standpoint, I'd prefer the example on the right. In fact that example on the right is my favorite Star Jordan around. I've never seen one better. Helped it find a happy home a couple years back when it came to my attention. I'd also add that I initially had the exact same reaction years ago when I saw two like this, side by side; my instinct was trimming. >>
So we conclude that the BGS 9 on the right is mostly likely sheet cut since it's a larger one?
so, ok there's a slight bias there on your behalf coupled with considering beck's tolerances for sheet cut cards, i can see where the one on the right could be sheet cut...
in closing, there is really just one size then? the one with the smaller bottom border and then sheet cut cards, correct?
<< <i>I mean to say the ones I saw in bags looked like the card on the left. The one on the left is the BGS 9.5, not a 9.
On the topic of trimming, here's a fun one from a thread running across the street at Net54...
>>
So then the BGS 9 on the right is sheet cut? Then the BGS 9.5 on the left must be more desirable since it's obviously a higher grade and not sheet cut and straight from the bag.
I think it's a slippery logic slope for us all as collectors, in that technically any card in any holder could conceivably be sheet cut. Any card could theoretically have been laser trimmed and then slipped past the goalie. PSA and SGC have a stated strict policy against them, but anything can slip by-- as shown by the DiMaggio example above. The good news is that the review process at any company allows them to take another hard look at any card any owner is curious about, and their knowledge coupled with our own is what we must trust in, end of the day.
If you look at the back scan the upper right corner does not present well and looks even worse than the same corner on the front.
I don't care who the grader is, I hate seeing a card that is the lone example of a top grade that looks so far from what is on the label.
Apparently Beckett generally charges 15% to sell consigned cards so they certainly stand to benefit if a card they grade sells. At $10,000 it is only a $1,500 commission but at $50,000 you are up to $7,500.
When I dug up the information on CLCT from the IPO they used to engage in the sale of graded items but stopped due to the inherent appearance of a conflict of interest. I think it was a very smart move on their part.
<< <i>For the auction look at the high bidder with 5 feedback. 24 items bid on in past 30 days with 100% activity with this SELLER. Fishy bidding >>
It looks that way. I was hoping to see a true number on this card. >>
The same seller was selling 1993 Topps Blank Back Jeter's & also believe he was shilling those.
Best regards!
Buying or trading for these signed Jeter rc's: 1992 GCL, 93 Stadium Club, 93 Greensboro,, 93 South Atlantic League, 93 Topps Marlins & Rockies,, 94 Classic Tampa, 94 Procards Tampa, 94 Florida State League & 95 Columbus Clippers.
I'd never consider buying a Star Jordan because of the amount of counterfeits. Even if it's in a 3rd party holder, PSA's stance not to grade them at all completely turned me away from this series.
And, aesthetically, they don't come close to the beauty of 86 Fleer.
Aesthetics are a personal choice, but there are far more counterfeits of the Fleer, including very good fake slabs of the Fleer, than there are of the Star. If you read this thread from the beginning, you will see that there being many fakes of the Star is more rumor than fact. It is a conclusion drawn by some from the fact that PSA does not grade them-- but the reason PSA does not grade them is not an inability to parse the fakes from the real ones.
<< <i>I'd never consider buying a Star Jordan because of the amount of counterfeits. Even if it's in a 3rd party holder, PSA's stance not to grade them at all completely turned me away from this series.
And, aesthetically, they don't come close to the beauty of 86 Fleer. >>
I'd actually suggest you'd be better off buying a Star Jordan if you're scared of counterfits as I'm sure there are far more Fleer fakes than star fakes. The Star fakes out there aren't really centered around the Jordan rookies, but the 1986 fleer fakes are almost wholely centered around the Jordan's.
I agree I do prefer the 1986 Fleer rookie to the star 1984 101 rookie card, but I also prefer 3 Star Jordan's that predate the 1986 fleer. In my opinion the 5x7 jordan 1985 slam contest Star is his best looking card. There's also just something about that 1985 Star 1984 draft rookie set centered around the Jordan.
The Fleer card is the most iconic in basketball. It was there when the basketball craze started and the set itself is centered around half a decade of rookie cards.
Fleer is certainly the more well known of the two cards, but I would agree with Matt above, in terms of counterfeiting, there are far more 86 Fleer counterfeits than that of the 84 Star.
I would have really liked to see where this card sold, had this auction not been run by a 5 feedback bidder and a 0 feedback bidder. It looks like there was a legit bid in at $3200.......
Matt I collect: 80’s Rookies and 86 Fleer Basketball
<< <i>The Fleer card is the most iconic in basketball. It was there when the basketball craze started and the set itself is centered around half a decade of rookie cards. >>
I really wonder if this would be the case if PSA graded the Star rookie from the outset. Would the Star become the "1951 Bowman Mantle"? Going way back to the early 1990s, before grading was the norm, I recall the Star card selling for significantly more than the Jordan rookie. The Jordan was bringing about $200-250 (when wax boxes were around $2000) and the Star, I recall, was $500+ in the team bag.
If people are familiar with these cards, they would not state some things in these forums. The same people who cannot tell the difference between real or not make comments that seem biased. Possibly people who probably have never owned a #101 or seen one in person. The BGS 9.5 101 came out of a bag and was graded if you knew the source. Yet someone who does not know about these cards, says it might be trimmed. It looks like the caser put it in the case crooked. It might be Diamond cut at the bottom exaggerated by how put in the case. If it were trimmed, the corners would have been better, so that statement is also illogical. If you knew the source, you would know it had nothing to do with Beckett Auctions listing it. Yet, people on here write that it is suspect, etc. merely b/c Beckett Auctions is selling it. Someone writes they have seen better 8's. Even though we do not grade cards from scans and that is why cards are actually graded in person, please post those better 8's. There is no better 8, 8.5 or 9. Has anyone commenting seen the card in person? What you saw was some Beckett software and lighting that exaggerated issues on the card. If you looked at the instagram scan, you would see the difference. Now if your friend or someone has a 101 (on the right) which does not even give a grade or subs or anything, but you note is a BGS 9, how is that better? We cannot hardly see front scan. We do not have a back scan. But if Beckett Auctions were selling it you would be calling it after market sheet cut, having white on right and left edge and having red marks on it on the left side and I cannot even tell if there is white on it or in the scan.
Now while the 9.5 is pulled and graded right from a bag, this does not mean the other card that is larger is sheet cut. So someone cannot just write it is sheet cut b/c it is larger. However, that one does look both larger and wider, but someone that knows these cards would have to see it in person to tell. But the 9.5 is 9 corners and those seem in line with the grading standards - I see someone commenting here before on a BGS 9 101 that was not perfect corners and had 9 corners. How is the card on the right better if the edges (white on left and right) and surface (red marks on left side, other white marks?) are not better from a faint scan? If you could show that the card on the right is not after market sheet cut and does not have those red marks, I would deal with the white edges as a tradeoff. Otherwise, if the card on the right is a 9 or you are saying going to be a 9.5, that only supports the BGS 9.5 more.
I have seen the same people listing an 8.5/9.5/9.5/9.5 and have friends and sellers calling it the best on the planet, .5 away, with a chance to bump. If Beckett Auctions were selling that card people would have said centering looked like a 7.5. The card had no chance to bump and was not the highest sub BGS 9 101. I suppose other sellers or auction houses that repeatedly list every single card as the best card in the particular grade or the best one they have ever brokered every time they own it are better. Seems other auction houses could have shown a lighter scan of the 9.5 and asked double the price b/c there was an assumption here that a conflict existed on the card but there was none.
Can I post a faint photo of my 101 and claim it was better than the 9.5 and not tell you any of the issues in the card that only I would know or you could see in person?
I do not work for Beckett or any grading company. Cards are not graded from scans, etc. Taking that too literally. I guess I could have said we do not judge cards from scans, grade, etc.
My point was you said you prefer the 9 and person did not even write what the grade was on that card. Seems to imply you know him. Maybe you assumed it was a 9? How do you explain the red marks on the card? And that's better? White on left and right edge?
Not looking for arguments, but I do not know why someone would post a superficial card that no one can see and imply better when it is not. The fact no one noted any white on both edges or red marks shows the bias.
<< <i>"Even though we do not grade cards from scans and that is why cards are actually graded in person, please post those better 8's."
You work for Beckett? >>
I'm guessing he means "we" in the colloquial sense, not literally.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I do not work for Beckett or any grading company. Cards are not graded from scans, etc. Taking that too literally. I guess I could have said we do not judge cards from scans, grade, etc.
My point was you said you prefer the 9 and person did not even write what the grade was on that card. Seems to imply you know him. Maybe you assumed it was a 9? How do you explain the red marks on the card? And that's better? White on left and right edge?
Not looking for arguments, but I do not know why someone would post a superficial card that no one can see and imply better when it is not. The fact no one noted any white on both edges or red marks shows the bias. >>
There was no bias. One had three white corners and the other certainly didn't.
Beckett thought that card was going to be a bidding war starting at $50,000 and instead there were no bids. If that card had been a true Gem Mint copy I think there could have been a bidding war that would take it past $50,000. The comments on message boards across the hobby were the same. An over graded card being marketed by the same company who graded it.
BGS is the only major third party grader that I am aware of that grades the card so you really can't even have BGS bias if you are interested in the card. There are plenty of fans of the Jordan Star card on this message board.
You cannot even see the other card. Let's get that card under a scan like the Beckett software. There were not 3 white corners, but you think so. You never saw the card. If that card went right from grading to a different seller or auction house, it most certainly would have sold higher and the scan would have showed nothing. I could post a BGS 9 101 up right now in a scan that would make it look perfect. The other card has 2 white edges and red marks down the whole white border. That's better?
<< <i>You cannot even see the other card. Let's get that card under a scan like the Beckett software. There were not 3 white corners, but you think so. You never saw the card. If that card went right from grading to a different seller or auction house, it most certainly would have sold higher and the scan would have showed nothing. I could post a BGS 9 101 up right now in a scan that would make it look perfect. The other card has 2 white edges and red marks down the whole white border. That's better? >>
The card on the right looked much better to me.
In the scans provided from the auction house the front showed three white corners and one of the back corners looked no where close to Gem Mint either.
I really don't think there is anyone on this board who doesn't like the Star Jordan. That said the card in the scans provided looked no where close to Gem Mint. I realize there are discrepancies on a cards appearance from in person and in a scan but white corners on colored borders show up in both. I collect a set with all colored borders and I may not be an expert at all levels of card grading but in this arena I definitely am. I have never once seen a red card that showed white that didn't have white once in hand.
One day the owner of the card will come forward and post a scan the quality of the other one. If there are people that are fans of the Star Jordan on this forum, how come they say, cannot tell if real (you for one). How come no one notices the red marks down the entire white border and white edges on the other? So it is larger than the large ones and well-centered, hmmm, what does that sound like? As you note, only Beckett grades the cards, so maybe Beckett felt the 9.5 was the best 101 it had seen. But no someone's friend has one that is better. Same person who was posting and trying to sell 8.5/9.5/9.5/9.5 and had sellers calling it best on planet. If PSA graded, the 9.5 grades higher as the red marks are a qualifier on the other. But I guess we ignore the surface and the edges.
<< <i>One day the owner of the card will come forward and post a scan the quality of the other one. If there are people that are fans of the Star Jordan on this forum, how come they say, cannot tell if real (you for one). How come no one notices the red marks down the entire white border and white edges on the other? So it is larger than the large ones and well-centered, hmmm, what does that sound like? As you note, only Beckett grades the cards, so maybe Beckett felt the 9.5 was the best 101 it had seen. But no someone's friend has one that is better. Same person who was posting and trying to sell 8.5/9.5/9.5/9.5 and had sellers calling it best on planet. If PSA graded, the 9.5 grades higher as the red marks are a qualifier on the other. But I guess we ignore the surface and the edges. >>
You can certainly tell the difference between my fake and a real one. It is my understanding there are even better fakes out there. Maybe not. Just because this is the case doesn't mean I don't like the card or anyone else for that matter.
I read a couple of forums before posting. One guy on here claimed the 9.5 was not centered on another forum. He said not centered top to bottom. Really? Then he is not familiar with these cards? A guy on here says better 8's. Really? Again, Beckett Auctions selling it I think gave false impressions. I think you are confusing lighting from software - see the instagram, I don't see white corners. But on the right one, how do we know corners do not have issues even if not white from a scan - corners can have other issues. Point is you have to see cards in person. It sounds as if this card was deemed the best by the only company who grades it. The lowest sub is what you appear to not like.
If the 9.5 went to ebay directly with a normal scan, everyone would have bid all over it. Or put it at .5 away, everyone all over it. I think b/c first 9.5 and Beckett Auctions selling it with software exaggerating corners, overreaction. I don't see Beckett Auctions listing every Star Co. card as a rookie, calling all their cards they graded in any particular grade the best ever or undergraded. I don't see what Beckett Auctions did wrong. No, I don't work for Beckett. But I know there are not many centered 101's and that 9.5 was centered with no problems in high definition software and people were writing things that did not make sense. So let's put the other card under the same software or see the 9.5 under a regular scan.
What I am saying is I cannot see the scan on the right, but it is possible it is after market sheet cut and probably why you do not see cards like that. But there is red marks down that whole white section which to me precludes from ever being a 9.5. And two white edges. You can hardly see the card. And I do not deem cards better that I can hardly see and have no back scan. So because it could be a larger and wider after market sheet cut you might think it is better. If you can prove to me it came from a bag and does not have those red marks down the whole white border (is the scan accurate?) and does not have all that other white crap on it, I would look at the back and consider it. Otherwise, I am taking the true bag pulled version with touched soft (not 3 white corners). I would think Beckett would be very careful deeming a 9.5 on the card. Those that have dealt with the cards feel it was 9 corners worthy, so I am fine with it.
I did not buy the card. 9.5 with 9 corners, so the weakness of the card is the lowest sub, so I do not see how I can criticize that? Did you not see someone wrote on here he saw better 8's. Is the card 9 corners for a 101, regardless if the card results in an 8, 8.5, 9 or 9.5 overall grade. I think you might see light in software, etc. We never got a scan or subs on the other. Is that gem mint with red marks down the left side? Or two out of two white front edges? My point is anyone can post scans and claim better and you can only trust the only grading company grading.
<< <i>I did not buy the card. 9.5 with 9 corners, so the weakness of the card is the lowest sub, so I do not see how I can criticize that? Did you not see someone wrote on here he saw better 8's. Is the card 9 corners for a 101, regardless if the card results in an 8, 8.5, 9 or 9.5 overall grade. I think you might see light in software, etc. We never got a scan or subs on the other. Is that gem mint with red marks down the left side? Or two out of two white front edges? My point is anyone can post scans and claim better and you can only trust the only grading company grading. >>
What centering grade would you give the one on the right?
My point is anyone can post scans and claim better and you can only trust the only grading company grading. >>
Sometimes the grading companies get them wrong. This isn't the first high profile card that Beckett over graded and it won't be the last. You have to trust your own eyes and if you are comfortable with the grade and paying the price fine. I am not in the market for this card but those that are went with their eyes and not Beckett's.
It's a good point raised in general up above, that scans do play almost too prevalent a role in today's collecting.
We have probably all seen scans make beautiful cards look worse, by exaggerating flaws; then when received in hand, they far surpass the scan.
Then we have also probably all seen scans make a card look beautiful, and then when received in hand it did not look quite as nice. So it is a very, very hard to judge a card by a scan.
That said, the terms "better" and "preference" are really key to any discussion like this one that has evolved, comparing those two Jordans. Given any two (or more) cards for collectors' consideration, there is what a TPG grades the card, and what the collector prefers-- or what is, to each individual collector, the "better" card. One can never discount just how very subjective card choice is. Heck, even the same grading company will grade the same exact card a 7 on one day and then subsequently a 9 the next day, or vice versa. We see 10s every day that we know would come back 9s perhaps 99% of the time.
Some guys will prefer centering or color over corners. Others will tolerate a fish eye or some PD. Others will pass immediately because of a tiny fish eye. As the saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Ultimately, the graders are just guys like us, and in some cases are even dispassionate non-collectors. A TPG's opinion and each of ours is equally valid. So if one guy looks at a card in Grade X and sees beauty that merits or surpasses the grade, to him that's a great card. Another guy may go to his grave believing a lower graded specimen is "better," and is the card he wants for his collection. It's all good in a collecting world where everyone can pursue what they like.
I personally love it when the card I prefer is in the lower grade, since the higher grade in general tends to sell for more money. But then there are always exceptions, where we see a card in Grade X sell for way more than a card in Grade X+. When that happens, it is usually collectors en masse voting with their wallets at auction, saying, "We think this card transcends the grade, and is better looking than some in higher grade."
Lastly, there's the distinction to be made between what may be technically better to a grader, and what may be visually better looking to a collector. The old case of "Eye Appeal Vs. Technical Grade." Some guys who enjoy looking at their cards in hand or onlinewill go with eye appeal as their chosen "better" or preferred card over one with a higher technical grade. Then I have heard of other guys who like looking at their cards through loupes or like to go with what the graders deemed the technically "better" card. There's really no right or wrong, just opinion and personal preference.
Okay, so let's get scans up now of the other card? Is anyone going to tell us if the red or white is on the other card? I have no problem with the centering of the other card but if the surface has that red and white that's not gem mint. And edges 9 no better. But it is also looks larger and wider than the larger ones. If you say grading companies get it wrong, we know the subs on the 9.5, how come no one can tell us the other? The 9.5 has better edges and surface. If you want to say yours is centered well, sure, but the 9.5 is centered too.
One on right could be 10 or 9.5 centering could be 9.5 corners (I cannot even see them and white or not in scan does not mean corners perfect), but edges show white so 9 and red marks and white on surface, so that's 7.5-8.5 surface. I never went out of my way to attack the one on the right, I don't see why someone with the one on the right would attack the other with a scan no one can see. No one on here never discussed the red or white surface marks. The one on right could be a 1/1 centering b/c it could be after market sheet cut. I don't know. It is the edges and surface that I am talking about.
Comments
Instagram: mattyc_collection
not asking facetiously, by all means...school me.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
<< <i>All good. I can put it this way: I'm more apt to think a larger one is sheet cut than to think the left one is trimmed. Many of those I have seen in the bag, known legit examples from original owners, looked exactly like the 9.5, namely with a truncated bottom cut that leaves little red real estate below the name. There is no question that from an aesthetic and eye appeal standpoint, I'd prefer the example on the right. In fact that example on the right is my favorite Star Jordan around. I've never seen one better. Helped it find a happy home a couple years back when it came to my attention. I'd also add that I initially had the exact same reaction years ago when I saw two like this, side by side; my instinct was trimming. >>
So we conclude that the BGS 9 on the right is mostly likely sheet cut since it's a larger one?
On the topic of trimming, here's a fun one from a thread running across the street at Net54...
Instagram: mattyc_collection
in closing, there is really just one size then? the one with the smaller bottom border and then sheet cut cards, correct?
again, not asking facetiously...
<< <i>I mean to say the ones I saw in bags looked like the card on the left.
On the topic of trimming, here's a fun one from a thread running across the street at Net54...
ut-yeah! looks like someone got trigger happy on that right hand side. should be a 7 (mc) (by owner)
<< <i>I mean to say the ones I saw in bags looked like the card on the left. The one on the left is the BGS 9.5, not a 9.
On the topic of trimming, here's a fun one from a thread running across the street at Net54...
So then the BGS 9 on the right is sheet cut? Then the BGS 9.5 on the left must be more desirable since it's obviously a higher grade and not sheet cut and straight from the bag.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
So far no one has taken the bait.
If you look at the back scan the upper right corner does not present well and looks even worse than the same corner on the front.
I don't care who the grader is, I hate seeing a card that is the lone example of a top grade that looks so far from what is on the label.
Apparently Beckett generally charges 15% to sell consigned cards so they certainly stand to benefit if a card they grade sells. At $10,000 it is only a $1,500 commission but at $50,000 you are up to $7,500.
When I dug up the information on CLCT from the IPO they used to engage in the sale of graded items but stopped due to the inherent appearance of a conflict of interest. I think it was a very smart move on their part.
1984 Star BGS 8.5
<< <i>For the auction look at the high bidder with 5 feedback. 24 items bid on in past 30 days with 100% activity with this SELLER. Fishy bidding >>
It looks that way. I was hoping to see a true number on this card.
<< <i>Which one would you rather have?
Wow, sheet cut or not, that 101 Jordan on the right is gorgeous. What are the subs?
<< <i>
<< <i>For the auction look at the high bidder with 5 feedback. 24 items bid on in past 30 days with 100% activity with this SELLER. Fishy bidding >>
It looks that way. I was hoping to see a true number on this card. >>
The same seller was selling 1993 Topps Blank Back Jeter's & also believe he was shilling those.
Best regards!
1992 GCL, 93 Stadium Club, 93 Greensboro,, 93 South Atlantic League, 93 Topps Marlins & Rockies,, 94 Classic Tampa, 94 Procards Tampa, 94 Florida State League & 95 Columbus Clippers.
And, aesthetically, they don't come close to the beauty of 86 Fleer.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
Instagram: mattyc_collection
<< <i>
<< <i>For the auction look at the high bidder with 5 feedback. 24 items bid on in past 30 days with 100% activity with this SELLER. Fishy bidding >>
It looks that way. I was hoping to see a true number on this card. >>
The winning bidder has 0 feedback. The second highest bidder is the person with 5 feedback.
<< <i>I'd never consider buying a Star Jordan because of the amount of counterfeits. Even if it's in a 3rd party holder, PSA's stance not to grade them at all completely turned me away from this series.
And, aesthetically, they don't come close to the beauty of 86 Fleer. >>
I'd actually suggest you'd be better off buying a Star Jordan if you're scared of counterfits as I'm sure there are far more Fleer fakes than star fakes. The Star fakes out there aren't really centered around the Jordan rookies, but the 1986 fleer fakes are almost wholely centered around the Jordan's.
I agree I do prefer the 1986 Fleer rookie to the star 1984 101 rookie card, but I also prefer 3 Star Jordan's that predate the 1986 fleer. In my opinion the 5x7 jordan 1985 slam contest Star is his best looking card. There's also just something about that 1985 Star 1984 draft rookie set centered around the Jordan.
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
I would have really liked to see where this card sold, had this auction not been run by a 5 feedback bidder and a 0 feedback bidder. It looks like there was a legit bid in at $3200.......
I collect: 80’s Rookies and 86 Fleer Basketball
<< <i>The Fleer card is the most iconic in basketball. It was there when the basketball craze started and the set itself is centered around half a decade of rookie cards. >>
I really wonder if this would be the case if PSA graded the Star rookie from the outset. Would the Star become the "1951 Bowman Mantle"? Going way back to the early 1990s, before grading was the norm, I recall the Star card selling for significantly more than the Jordan rookie. The Jordan was bringing about $200-250 (when wax boxes were around $2000) and the Star, I recall, was $500+ in the team bag.
Now while the 9.5 is pulled and graded right from a bag, this does not mean the other card that is larger is sheet cut. So someone cannot just write it is sheet cut b/c it is larger. However, that one does look both larger and wider, but someone that knows these cards would have to see it in person to tell. But the 9.5 is 9 corners and those seem in line with the grading standards - I see someone commenting here before on a BGS 9 101 that was not perfect corners and had 9 corners. How is the card on the right better if the edges (white on left and right) and surface (red marks on left side, other white marks?) are not better from a faint scan? If you could show that the card on the right is not after market sheet cut and does not have those red marks, I would deal with the white edges as a tradeoff. Otherwise, if the card on the right is a 9 or you are saying going to be a 9.5, that only supports the BGS 9.5 more.
I have seen the same people listing an 8.5/9.5/9.5/9.5 and have friends and sellers calling it the best on the planet, .5 away, with a chance to bump. If Beckett Auctions were selling that card people would have said centering looked like a 7.5. The card had no chance to bump and was not the highest sub BGS 9 101. I suppose other sellers or auction houses that repeatedly list every single card as the best card in the particular grade or the best one they have ever brokered every time they own it are better. Seems other auction houses could have shown a lighter scan of the 9.5 and asked double the price b/c there was an assumption here that a conflict existed on the card but there was none.
Can I post a faint photo of my 101 and claim it was better than the 9.5 and not tell you any of the issues in the card that only I would know or you could see in person?
You work for Beckett?
My point was you said you prefer the 9 and person did not even write what the grade was on that card. Seems to imply you know him. Maybe you assumed it was a 9? How do you explain the red marks on the card? And that's better? White on left and right edge?
Not looking for arguments, but I do not know why someone would post a superficial card that no one can see and imply better when it is not. The fact no one noted any white on both edges or red marks shows the bias.
<< <i>"Even though we do not grade cards from scans and that is why cards are actually graded in person, please post those better 8's."
You work for Beckett? >>
I'm guessing he means "we" in the colloquial sense, not literally.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I do not work for Beckett or any grading company. Cards are not graded from scans, etc. Taking that too literally. I guess I could have said we do not judge cards from scans, grade, etc.
My point was you said you prefer the 9 and person did not even write what the grade was on that card. Seems to imply you know him. Maybe you assumed it was a 9? How do you explain the red marks on the card? And that's better? White on left and right edge?
Not looking for arguments, but I do not know why someone would post a superficial card that no one can see and imply better when it is not. The fact no one noted any white on both edges or red marks shows the bias. >>
There was no bias. One had three white corners and the other certainly didn't.
Beckett thought that card was going to be a bidding war starting at $50,000 and instead there were no bids. If that card had been a true Gem Mint copy I think there could have been a bidding war that would take it past $50,000. The comments on message boards across the hobby were the same. An over graded card being marketed by the same company who graded it.
BGS is the only major third party grader that I am aware of that grades the card so you really can't even have BGS bias if you are interested in the card. There are plenty of fans of the Jordan Star card on this message board.
<< <i>You cannot even see the other card. Let's get that card under a scan like the Beckett software. There were not 3 white corners, but you think so. You never saw the card. If that card went right from grading to a different seller or auction house, it most certainly would have sold higher and the scan would have showed nothing. I could post a BGS 9 101 up right now in a scan that would make it look perfect. The other card has 2 white edges and red marks down the whole white border. That's better? >>
The card on the right looked much better to me.
In the scans provided from the auction house the front showed three white corners and one of the back corners looked no where close to Gem Mint either.
I really don't think there is anyone on this board who doesn't like the Star Jordan. That said the card in the scans provided looked no where close to Gem Mint. I realize there are discrepancies on a cards appearance from in person and in a scan but white corners on colored borders show up in both. I collect a set with all colored borders and I may not be an expert at all levels of card grading but in this arena I definitely am. I have never once seen a red card that showed white that didn't have white once in hand.
<< <i>One day the owner of the card will come forward and post a scan the quality of the other one. If there are people that are fans of the Star Jordan on this forum, how come they say, cannot tell if real (you for one). How come no one notices the red marks down the entire white border and white edges on the other? So it is larger than the large ones and well-centered, hmmm, what does that sound like? As you note, only Beckett grades the cards, so maybe Beckett felt the 9.5 was the best 101 it had seen. But no someone's friend has one that is better. Same person who was posting and trying to sell 8.5/9.5/9.5/9.5 and had sellers calling it best on planet. If PSA graded, the 9.5 grades higher as the red marks are a qualifier on the other. But I guess we ignore the surface and the edges. >>
You can certainly tell the difference between my fake and a real one. It is my understanding there are even better fakes out there. Maybe not. Just because this is the case doesn't mean I don't like the card or anyone else for that matter.
From Oct of 2012 in this very thread.
I personally am a fan of this card and would certainly be a buyer of one if I knew for sure it was real.
For the time being I will stick with my mint counterfeit example.
The notion that someone's friend posted a card on the board and I or anyone else on here likes it more is just silly. Come on dude.
<< <i>Which one would you rather have?
You honestly think the one on the left looks better?
"Otherwise, I am taking the true bag pulled version with touched soft (not 3 white corners)."
Touched corners does not equal Gem Mint.
Did you buy the card? You really seem sold on this one.
<< <i>I did not buy the card. 9.5 with 9 corners, so the weakness of the card is the lowest sub, so I do not see how I can criticize that? Did you not see someone wrote on here he saw better 8's. Is the card 9 corners for a 101, regardless if the card results in an 8, 8.5, 9 or 9.5 overall grade. I think you might see light in software, etc. We never got a scan or subs on the other. Is that gem mint with red marks down the left side? Or two out of two white front edges? My point is anyone can post scans and claim better and you can only trust the only grading company grading. >>
What centering grade would you give the one on the right?
Sometimes the grading companies get them wrong. This isn't the first high profile card that Beckett over graded and it won't be the last. You have to trust your own eyes and if you are comfortable with the grade and paying the price fine. I am not in the market for this card but those that are went with their eyes and not Beckett's.
Strasburg
We have probably all seen scans make beautiful cards look worse, by exaggerating flaws; then when received in hand, they far surpass the scan.
Then we have also probably all seen scans make a card look beautiful, and then when received in hand it did not look quite as nice. So it is a very, very hard to judge a card by a scan.
That said, the terms "better" and "preference" are really key to any discussion like this one that has evolved, comparing those two Jordans. Given any two (or more) cards for collectors' consideration, there is what a TPG grades the card, and what the collector prefers-- or what is, to each individual collector, the "better" card. One can never discount just how very subjective card choice is. Heck, even the same grading company will grade the same exact card a 7 on one day and then subsequently a 9 the next day, or vice versa. We see 10s every day that we know would come back 9s perhaps 99% of the time.
Some guys will prefer centering or color over corners. Others will tolerate a fish eye or some PD. Others will pass immediately because of a tiny fish eye. As the saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Ultimately, the graders are just guys like us, and in some cases are even dispassionate non-collectors. A TPG's opinion and each of ours is equally valid. So if one guy looks at a card in Grade X and sees beauty that merits or surpasses the grade, to him that's a great card. Another guy may go to his grave believing a lower graded specimen is "better," and is the card he wants for his collection. It's all good in a collecting world where everyone can pursue what they like.
I personally love it when the card I prefer is in the lower grade, since the higher grade in general tends to sell for more money. But then there are always exceptions, where we see a card in Grade X sell for way more than a card in Grade X+. When that happens, it is usually collectors en masse voting with their wallets at auction, saying, "We think this card transcends the grade, and is better looking than some in higher grade."
Lastly, there's the distinction to be made between what may be technically better to a grader, and what may be visually better looking to a collector. The old case of "Eye Appeal Vs. Technical Grade." Some guys who enjoy looking at their cards in hand or onlinewill go with eye appeal as their chosen "better" or preferred card over one with a higher technical grade. Then I have heard of other guys who like looking at their cards through loupes or like to go with what the graders deemed the technically "better" card. There's really no right or wrong, just opinion and personal preference.
Instagram: mattyc_collection