<< <i>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. >>
I never attacked anything. And I agree with you that the centering could be 9.5 or 10 on the 9.
Okay, well last message without the scan. Thank you for the scans. Now, note that's not the quality of Beckett's software. Well that's like a 1/1 centering and so take your pick on the sub there - 9.5 or 10. Corners 9.5 if bottom right, front no issue (I cannot tell from the scan - could be a small slit). Edges 9 - front left and right. Surface sorry, they missed the red down the left white border and too much white on card. Surface 8 - have to see in person to give exact. So the strength of your card is centering and your sub is 9. But I downgrade edges and surface. Sorry, just being honest. Even if edges were a 9.5, I don't see how the surface could be a 9. If you put this card under Beckett's software, the left and right edge would show white which is what happened with the 9.5, but the 9.5 had 9 corners and this one has 9.5 edges and shows white. So how does this knock the 9.5? So you are .5 away and someone graded the first 9.5, so that probably makes it easier to bump this one. Don't see why you post a photo and this whole forum seems to knock the other. No one is going to argue with the centering which is overwhelming.
Like Matty said, it's just a matter of preference. I posted a picture of the two next to each other without grades and simply asked a question. I never bashed the 9.5 or tried to sway anyone's opinions. I do think mine deserves a bump on centering and hopefully it gets that.
People were attacking BGS and the 9.5. And in the context, you put two cards next to each other, I guess you did not say anything but there were no subs. You can bump your centering to 9.5 or 10 and have a 9.5, but personally the surface is not appealing to me. I have no problems with a centered 9.5 with 9 corners if that's the lowest sub (no I did not buy it). People can read this forum and now look for your centering and they will not find that again, but my point is that does not mean the overall card is better. We are arguing about two of the top 101's, but it does not seem anyone realizes that. I could put up some photos of others and hide issues and no one would know was my other point.
Putting scans next to the one on the right causes people to think the shorter ones are trimmed when they are not. And the one on the right is probably the best centered no matter who was selling it. The problem is people look at the one on the right and say wow, look at centering and say not 9.5, so the one of the left should not be 9.5. Overall, I will take the one on the left as to my opinion. One on the right is best centered version.
I read this in sequence and you would not even think the 9.5 was a 101 if you read it and I felt that was because Beckett Auctions was selling it. No one is going to say the one on the right is not centered and if they do they have no credibility. Just like the person who writes I have seen better 8's than the 9.5 has no credibility. I don't work for Beckett, I did not buy the card, etc.
<< <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? >>
Honestly, both cards have tilt and are off centered top to bottom. The 9.5 is worse than the 9 for the top to bottom centering. Both have about the same tilt. BGS grading standards have obviously softened. It's unfortunate because BGS used to be the toughest as far as grading standards and these less stringent standards are hurting their reputation and graded card values.
I forgot to add that I prefer the BGS 9 over the BGS 9.5. The BGS 9.5 was over graded, in my opinion. There are examples of over graded cards in all of the big 3's holders. It happens.
Well I do not see anything wrong with the 9 in centering in response to point above. If you are grading cards, you must take into account how the cards were made. The 9 is the best centered 101 you will see in my opinion. I know people say that, but hard to think better centered than that. I cannot understand the subs frankly. You can give it 9.5 or 10 centering, 9.5 or 10 corners (probably 9.5 b/c I have a feeling something with that bottom right front corner), I do not understand the edge or surface sub grade. Most problematic is the scan has red marks and white on it and if that is on the card I don't see that as a gem mint card. Since there are hardly any centered 101's I think both are beautifully centered versions. The 9.5 looks crooked in case to me. Maybe one day we will get a better scan. I don't know. I can deal with a gem mint card with a mint sub grade with that as its weakness. It is not like the 9.5 had super high subs. But I cannot see how the 9 can have a 9 surface. And I said friends, yes, b/c now the owner said Matty, I don't even know who Matty is. So yes regulars in these forums know each other which I am not obviously. But the owner of the 9 was polite and maybe he was not knocking the other and in the whole reading I thought so, so hope I did not upset him. But I hope I upset the one who has seen better looking 8's. Still waiting for those.
Prefering the one on the right to me with 9 centering that looks 9.5 or 10 centering is not a big deal, although I will be a broken record because we do not stop at 4 subs. If cards are overgraded - the one on the right is overgraded on edges and surface - red down left and white all over it. But it's .5 away, so saying people prefer that one is not a big deal. Owner posted it without any subs or anything. The context of this read about the 9.5 was off and why I posted.
<< <i>Well I do not see anything wrong with the 9 in centering in response to point above. If you are grading cards, you must take into account how the cards were made. The 9 is the best centered 101 you will see in my opinion. I know people say that, but hard to think better centered than that. I cannot understand the subs frankly. You can give it 9.5 or 10 centering, 9.5 or 10 corners (probably 9.5 b/c I have a feeling something with that bottom right front corner), I do not understand the edge or surface sub grade. Most problematic is the scan has red marks and white on it and if that is on the card I don't see that as a gem mint card. Since there are hardly any centered 101's I think both are beautifully centered versions. The 9.5 looks crooked in case to me. Maybe one day we will get a better scan. I don't know. I can deal with a gem mint card with a mint sub grade with that as its weakness. It is not like the 9.5 had super high subs. But I cannot see how the 9 can have a 9 surface. And I said friends, yes, b/c now the owner said Matty, I don't even know who Matty is. So yes regulars in these forums know each other which I am not obviously. But the owner of the 9 was polite and maybe he was not knocking the other and in the whole reading I thought so, so hope I did not upset him. But I hope I upset the one who has seen better looking 8's. Still waiting for those. >>
All I see are more excuses for over graded cards. The BGS 9 may be the best centered you will see, but the fact is the card has tilt and is off centered top to bottom. The same for the BGS 9.5. By BGS's original strict grading standards, both of these cards might have pulled an 8.5 for centering. I know because I submitted a ton of stuff with them back in the 2000-2004 time period when they were tough on everything they graded. It used to be hard to even receive BGS 9's, and there was a premium for them with 9.5 subgrades. Now, the standards have softened and I am seeing more and more cards with noticeable and obvious flaws receiving gem mint grades. It bothers me because it hurts the hobby as a whole in the end.
Stan, I understand your comments, but let's just leave it that I disagree on the centering issue. Beckett did not grade these cards in 2000-2004 when you are saying they were tougher. The 9.5 is not off-center top to bottom in my opinion, that's the way the card was made. The 9 might have a little extra bottom because as someone alluded to it might be cut larger than even the larger ones. I could not imagine those cards getting 8.5 centering for this type of card. But if that is your opinion, okay. The 9 has probably the least tilt you will see on a centered 101 and yes I will stick with that as the best centered version. I do not understand if we are discussing how the card should grade why we only talk about the centering. Now we get back to BGS and because BGS gives subs, just opens itself up to more criticism. Thanks for the responses.
<< <i>Stan, I understand your comments, but let's just leave it that I disagree on the centering issue. Beckett did not grade these cards in 2000-2004 when you are saying they were tougher. The 9.5 is not off-center top to bottom in my opinion, that's the way the card was made. The 9 might have a little extra bottom because as someone alluded to it might be cut larger than even the larger ones. I could not imagine those cards getting 8.5 centering for this type of card. But if that is your opinion, okay. The 9 has probably the least tilt you will see on a centered 101 and yes I will stick with that as the best centered version. I do not understand if we are discussing how the card should grade why we only talk about the centering. Now we get back to BGS and because BGS gives subs, just opens itself up to more criticism. Thanks for the responses. >>
I know BGS did not grade these cards in 2000-2004 time frame. I was just mentioning how far BGS grading standards have lowered from the original standards.
Both the BGS 9 and BGS 9.5 are off centered top to bottom and both have obvious tilt. That isn't a matter of opinion. Measure the borders. Heck, you don't even have to do that. A close eyeball observation proves it.
As for opinion; My opinion is the BGS 9 is overall graded accurate as a BGS 9. I am not talking about debating if the subgrades are right. Just the overall grade. The BGS 9.5 is clearly over graded. A gem mint card should not have obvious white specks on the tips of the corners or the obvious tilt and off centered top to bottom like the BGS 9.5 clearly shows. A gem mint card should be just that. Gem!
Stan, appreciate the response again, but I am trying to stick to the #101 XRC, not the broader sense of grading today versus years ago. A lot of comments on here are just not going to be fair to Beckett - like the implication now that because it was overly tough in the time frame you note it is the only grading company that is not as tough today. In fact, then Beckett was simply the toughest. I doubt I can just say anything I want on here that maybe another is not as tough as it was. You say the one on the right is a 9 and do not want to discuss subs. Well it is not just a BGS 9, is an extraordinary high grade 9. To grade a BGS card you have to give it subs. If I went 10/9.5/9/8 on that one, that's not even a 9. I saw a similar one on ebay months back with I think 9.5 centering and 9.5 corners and a lower surface grade, even though I called it a 1/1. Not saying the same exact card or even quality, but I remember red and white on surface also and overwhelming centering. I won't agree to discredit centered 101's under any of grading standards from any decades and both are beautifully centered that I bet anyone on here would want, despite some of the comments. I would buy the BGS 9.5 if I had the money but I do not. That is reality. DM23HOF had a nice post above that I agree with. But he lists the 9.5 as a beater card. Does that mean beat this grade? Or that is critical isn't it? Beater does not sound good.
<< <i>Stan, appreciate the response again, but I am trying to stick to the #101 XRC, not the broader sense of grading today versus years ago. A lot of comments on here are just not going to be fair to Beckett - like the implication now that because it was overly tough in the time frame you note it is the only grading company that is not as tough today. In fact, then Beckett was simply the toughest. I doubt I can just say anything I want on here that maybe another is not as tough as it was. You say the one on the right is a 9 and do not want to discuss subs. Well it is not just a BGS 9, is an extraordinary high grade 9. To grade a BGS card you have to give it subs. If I went 10/9.5/9/8 on that one, that's not even a 9. I saw a similar one on ebay months back with I think 9.5 centering and 9.5 corners and a lower surface grade, even though I called it a 1/1. Not saying the same exact card or even quality, but I remember red and white on surface also and overwhelming centering. I won't agree to discredit centered 101's under any of grading standards from any decades and both are beautifully centered that I bet anyone on here would want, despite some of the comments. I would buy the BGS 9.5 if I had the money but I do not. That is reality. DM23HOF had a nice post above that I agree with. But he lists the 9.5 as a beater card. Does that mean beat this grade? Or that is critical isn't it? Beater does not sound good. >>
I don't mind talking about the subgrades. I was just meaning in that specific reply to your post I would not dive in to whether or not I agreed with the subgrades on the BGS 9. As for both cards, The BGS 9 has the same problem the BGS 9.5 has on centering. Both have serious tilt and both are off centered top to bottom. Any excuse you want to make does not take away from that. I don't understand how you can look at those two cards and not see what I have pointed out to you numerous times. Like I stated before, measure the borders to see for yourself. I realize you will probably come back and say that's just how the card is made(like you have done before). Well, that shouldn't matter. If a card is off centered, then it's off centered and should be graded as such. Neither card is worthy of 9.5 gem mint for centering.
<< <i>A lot of comments on here are just not going to be fair to Beckett - like the implication now that because it was overly tough in the time frame you note it is the only grading company that is not as tough today. In fact, then Beckett was simply the toughest. I doubt I can just say anything I want on here that maybe another is not as tough as it was. >>
BirdCeltics,
I forgot to add that unlike some on here, I am not a PSA only guy. I support PSA, BGS, and SGC. All three have their strengths and weaknesses, in my opinion. And if you are hinting that PSA is not as strict on grading as they used to be, I would argue that they are more strict now than they used to be. I believe they have upped their game if anything. Again, just my opinion.
I think my SARCASM when I wrote "beater" was missed. I thought the WINK FACE I used at that time would indicate I was speaking with sarcasm. If that didn't land, then please let me say here and now that I did NOT mean to insult the card.
Stan, yes, I do not want to repeat the centering issue. Both cards are centered to me. I mean when GAI was grading the cards I never saw any centered like those on ebay. As for the BGS 9, I would give it 10 centering on eye appeal alone before I gave it 9 centering. At worst 9.5 centering. 9 centering? No. I am trying to be objective here. All it needs is a .5 bump on centering and it is centered kind of artistically so to speak. I must admit the subs surprised me. It is a strong card on centering and corners from what I can see. So if I had the money I would probably buy both, but these cards are not in my price range frankly. I would put away the 9.5 and then if the 9 bumped, I would have the other 9.5.
<< <i>Stan, yes, I do not want to repeat the centering issue. Both cards are centered to me. I mean when GAI was grading the cards I never saw any centered like those on ebay. As for the BGS 9, I would give it 10 centering on eye appeal alone before I gave it 9 centering. At worst 9.5 centering. 9 centering? No. I am trying to be objective here. All it needs is a .5 bump on centering and it is centered kind of artistically so to speak. I must admit the subs surprised me. It is a strong card on centering and corners from what I can see. So if I had the money I would probably buy both, but these cards are not in my price range frankly. I would put away the 9.5 and then if the 9 bumped, I would have the other 9.5. >>
I'm not trying to be mean, but if you think that card is worthy of a 10 for centering, I am wasting my time debating this until you learn more about grading. A 10 means pristine for centering. Neither of those cards are even worthy of 9.5 gem mint centering because both have serious tilt and both are off centered top to bottom.
Look at this BGS 9 with 8.5 centering(which is graded accurately, imo). The centering isn't any worse than the 9.5(above left) or the 9 on the right (the 9 on the right is a bit better top to bottom and side to side(because the card appears to be oversized), but tilt may be a touch more than bottom left 9). Look side to side down where the Bulls logo is to see what I am getting at.
Stan, I know you are not trying to be mean. But there is nothing I can say to you to defend centered 101's. If I wanted centered 101's, the two in the photo qualify. If the one on the right got 9.5 or 10 centering in the future would I be deemed correct? Or then someone says a grade just not justified again? I thought the guy with the one in right posted and said which one better and people said your 9 and he never said he owned it or the grade or anything. And I saw some other links about an 8.5/9.5/9.5/9.5 that also did not look centered to me that someone said was best and could bump. Seemed like friends to me or something and tried to put down BGS. He explained. Moving on from that. That card on the right is centered. The 9.5 is centered. It does not matter what I say b/c I say the 9.5 looks more tilted b/c crooked in the case. The larger 9 you say has a tilt, well that's such a minor tilt. I do not have photos of other 101's that are centered, but the one you posted is not even close to being centered left to right. That could be 8 centering and looks like it just made 8.5 centering. I do not see how you say it has no tilt or even less than the large 9, but since the card is off-center left to right, it is a waste of time to argue that. I would love to have seen the reaction if Beckett Auctions were selling that one. But someone else probably sold it and said it was the greatest 9 ever....If I am buying 9's, not buying that one. Unless I now bought all 3 of the cards and showed you in person there is nothing I could say to prove to you. And seeing that BGS 9 only makes me want to buy the other 2 more. That's the last card I am going to discuss. I discussed the one in the right b/c the owner posted it. Now this 9 you posted. Someone owns that card and I did not want to insult it but when people write these positions someone has to say something. But the 9 you posted is not in the same league as the other 2 cards, so I guess I just insulted it. It is not an elite #101.
Did you get your training from Don West? I have never seen someone come on these boards and sell so hard on a card. All you are doing is proving you know nothing about graded cards. White corners are not Gem Mint. End of story.
Do you sit on the Board with nothing to do and respond right after I post? I am talking about centering. When you can tell a real one from a counterfeit, maybe you should be allowed to post on the topic. But you probably post on this forum on all sorts of topics you know nothing about.
dpeck, the 460 BGS 9 above shows white or touched corners and imperfect corners, sub 9. Put that in a high definition scan. Sub 9 is mint, not gem mint. I guess the 9.5 with 9 corners is the only one you will point out. You are obviously pro-PSA and do not deal with these cards but said you are an "expert" somehow on cards with color.
Do you sit on the Board with nothing to do and respond right after I post? I am talking about centering. When you can tell a real one from a counterfeit, maybe you should be allowed to post on the topic. But you probably post on this forum on all sorts of topics you know nothing about. >>
After reading your last 11 posts I finally gave in and commented.
You have 25 posts so far all on one card all pleading that it is the best copy out there. Cards aesthetics speaks for themselves. If you can magically make the three white corners go away I will agree it might be Gem Mint. Until then it is not.
dpeck, you posted right after my first post. And then again today right after I posted. If people post like you and ask me a question, I can respond to it. You also said I would prefer your BGS 9 all day to the person who listed it even though person never said owned it or the grade. I said what I have to say and won't be posting any more. Obviously these forums are filled with bullies like you that are rude and insult people. You can continue to roam around forums and post on topics you know nothing about.
<< <i>dpeck, you posted right after my first post. And then again today right after I posted. If people post like you and ask me a question, I can respond to it. You also said I would prefer your BGS 9 all day to the person who listed it even though person never said owned it or the grade. I said what I have to say and won't be posting any more. Obviously these forums are filled with bullies like you that are rude and insult people. You can continue to roam around forums and post on topics you know nothing about. >>
No one can accurately accuse me of being a bully on this forum.
Your first impression is wrong.
Card grading is card grading. It doesn't matter what type of card it is.
The reason I said I preferred the card is because I do. I don't care who owns the card. There are many on these forums who know each other from the forum. I have seen that card posted before and it is a stunner. You are some how acting like politics is keeping people from liking your card. It couldn't be further from the truth. You started an ID to post about the one card and people respond. Pretty simple.
If the so called BGS 9.5 was a great looking card for the grade I said I thought it would sell for more then the $50k opening bid. It didn't sell. The market spoke.
Like I said I posted and am done. You do not seem to listen to anything I said, including that I was done. You now say I posted to talk about my card. Do you want me to post all my personal information on here to prove it. And I don't work for Beckett. I started a new id because I was not a member before and wanted to discuss the topic. How else would I discuss it? You continue to misquote my statements. If you do not agree with my opinions on the cards, that's fine. Unsure your point on that the card should have sold for $50K, with you knocking it here and insulting it? I did not know everyone has $50K to buy it. And did everyone know it was for sale? Who knows, who really cares. Yes, you are the one on here that is constantly attacking and then when I respond you count a response against me.
As I said, I am done with this forum. You call a card a stunner and one guy is criticizing the centering on it. I responded to that centering issue and you knocked me on something else. You and that person disagree and you keep bothering me. You agree with me on centering, but since you are a bully and make being on this forum unenjoyable. So you win, I am gone. You ignore I posted a lot about different things. The card you said is mine is not mine, never was mine. I assume I could post all my personal information on here to prove it. Then you probably would contact me directly and bother me then. $50K sale or not, your comments on here, no one is going to buy it. And I did not know everyone knew it was for sale or even graded yet or has $50K. Since you are an expert and all my comments are wrong, I am not needed here anyway.
This thread is a perfect example of why I would never touch this card with a 10 foot pole. Way too much controversy around this card. PSA won't grade it for a reason. what if new facts are discovered that make this card worth significant less? Not saying that would ever happen, but the chances are much higher than other iconic cards. I'll stick with the '86 Fleer.
I would respectfully counter that just because some people argue over what card is better has nothing to do with a TPG's ability to authenticate it. TPGs are great but they are not God when it comes to cards. People always say, rather reductively, "Company X won't grade it for a reason." To that I encourage delving for the true answer to that very question, instead of clinging to the question as some proof of a problem with the card itself.
We collectors don't need a TPG to grade or not grade a card for us to do our own homework as passionate collectors and be comfortable. Indeed there are entire seven digit (and more) collections in the world that are entirely raw, for example, and don't need a piece of plastic or a sticker to be awesome.
The Star Jordan is MJ's first licensed card, and its rarity relative to the Fleer speaks for itself. Both cards are fantastic pieces for a collection, but I for one cannot hate on a card just because a TPG allowed a shot or two to slip past the goalie years ago and subsequently adopted a rigid stance against it.
As this thread, back when it began, bears out: this is not neurosurgery or rocket science. The ability to authenticate the sportscard exists. BGS does it and has done it for years. Experienced collectors do it. And there are more and better quality fakes of the Fleer, if one is concerned about fakes. This aspect is admittedly highly subjective, but I know that if I am browsing a collection, I get very excited when I see a Star MJ. They are not in every collection. I can't imagine what hypothetical new "facts" could come to light that could hurt the card. Rumors about it in the past (and this is a hobby where false rumors spread like wildfire, reinforcing erroneous perceptions) abound, but the facts that are out there, when one takes the time to acquire them, actually foster confidence.
Did you get your training from Don West? I have never seen someone come on these boards and sell so hard on a card. All you are doing is proving you know nothing about graded cards. White corners are not Gem Mint. End of story. >>
If I didn't know better, I'd say that Bird33's life depended on this card.
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>If I didn't know better, I'd say that Bird33's life depended on this card. >>
I find it interesting that a poster signs up here just to debate one card, yet, insists he has no ties to it. It just smells funny to me. Maybe I am wrong.
<< <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. >>
I love this thread.... With the exception of the ridiculous Bird 33 posts of course.... And the Star Jordan pre 1986 cards. I have no idea why the 1985 Jordan slam dunk card doesn't get more attention but that's what makes a great investment I guess. I predict that card exceeds the percentage price increase of the 1986 fleer rookie in the next 10 years. These cards are under valued because PSA a doesn't grade them but in the next 10 years that will change. I think its underserving the hobby they don't grade them today and this should change. When it does the prices will increase.
I normally stay away from these message boards but I came on here to inform the board of a few facts and clear up some misconceptions. You all may not like me but that is irrelevant and the arguments about which 101 is better may be pointless and all about taste but the things that brought me here are as follows from various people's posts:
1. The 9.5 card is trimmed: No it is not. I know it was pulled directly from a bag and submitted to bgs. The Jordan 101 was miscut from the factory at different sizes. A short 101 does not mean trimmed.
2. There are better 8s: I challenge anyone to post such an 8. I do not think that an 8 exists that is better than the 9.5.
3. PSA stays away from the 101 because it can't tell the real ones from the fakes: This is not true. A fake 101 is easy to spot. Read this forum and look at the links to interviews with Steve Taft who trains the grading companies who do grade star. The Jordan 101 was not reprinted by the company. After 6 years of grading by bgs and all the cards in 1 population report, the 101 which is the most expensive card has approximately 400 submissions. That doesn't signify a card that was widely produced or reprinted. If there were tons of them out there and so hard to tell the difference between real and fakes, many more people would be cashing in as 6s and 7s sell for 4 figures.
4: I have some vested interest in the card: I do not have an interest in the card specifically. I do however have an interest in star. I collect star. I love star. I do not have the $ to buy the 9.5 101. I do have an 8.5 with subs of 8 95 95 10 that I am very fond of. I have a pretty strong collection of the other key cards as well. I study the cards. I've spent 10 years learning about the cards and all the nuances of the series and I do not want to see message boards like this ruin the perception of a product I care a lot about.
Yes there were fakes, yes there was a shop at home scandal. All that is in the past. BGS has a firm grip on authenticating the cards. Look at the pop reports if you believe there is widespread reprints and real looking counterfeits going on. No company is perfect. I saw a link earlier to the Strapsburg they supposedly overgraded. There are plenty of examples of that in all 3 major grading holders. Just because you don't agree with a grade, it doesn't mean there is some conspiracy going on at the company.
Lastly, if you have a problem with star, ask questions to the people that know what they are talking about. Ask Steve Taft questions, don't take to heart information given by someone who collects wrestling cards as his passion.
If I wanted to get my car worked on, I wouldn't take it to a florist or a restaurant and neither would any of you. If you want to know star basketball, ask the people that have experience dealing with the series and know all the little subtleties that are a part of it. There are a few on ebay that are extremely knowledgeable and credible. You can dislike me if you want but don't let that ruin a great product.
Charrigan, I would also like to go into that-- but certain things can't be typed here. In some posts above, especially early on, that topic is addressed, albeit in some veiled language. Bottom line, if any TPG wanted to authenticate the card, they could acquire the expertise and get it done.
<< <i>I normally stay away from these message boards but I came on here to inform the board of a few facts and clear up some misconceptions. You all may not like me but that is irrelevant and the arguments about which 101 is better may be pointless and all about taste but the things that brought me here are as follows from various people's posts:
1. The 9.5 card is trimmed: No it is not. I know it was pulled directly from a bag and submitted to bgs. The Jordan 101 was miscut from the factory at different sizes. A short 101 does not mean trimmed.
2. There are better 8s: I challenge anyone to post such an 8. I do not think that an 8 exists that is better than the 9.5. >>
1. How do you claim to know so much about the over graded BGS 9.5 if you don't have any connection to it? If you just heard it was pulled from a bag, then you can't make the statement that you know for a fact that it was pulled from a bag(I do tend to think it was from a bag based on the white specks of wear on the corners). That is, unless you were there and/or have a personal connection to the card.
2. The point is not whether there is a BGS 8 better than the BGS 9.5. The point is the BGS 9.5 IS over graded and you don't grasp that fact because you clearly don't understand card grading based on your own comments.
<< <i>@rtimmer - which slam dunk card are you talking about - the Gatorade one or the 5x7 one? >>
I find the gatorade card a little boring actually. My three favorite Jordan cards that I'd rank above the 1986 fleer in terms of best looking are:
1). 1985 Court kings 5x7 2). 1985 slam dunk contest 5x7 3). 1985 slam dunk contest checklist 5x7
Honorable mention..... the 1985 all rookie team card. The card isn't his best looking but that set is. For those not familiar it showcases the 1984 draft class arguably the best draft class ever and Jordan's card is the anchor. The Barkley all rookie card in this set is a great looking one though and certainly one of his best.
....And in full disclosure I do own all the cards I claim are the best looking above, but that's the reason I bought them after all. I also own multiple star gatorade and '86 Fleer Jordans though along with having a complete 1986 fleer set but not the 1984 or 1985 complete star sets so I don't think of myself as biased just hopefully well informed.
Has anyone contributing to this thread had either a phone conversation or in person conversation with Joe as to why PSA will not grade these?
I've always found PSA to be relatively reasonable, and would really love to know if there is any legitimate reason as to why PSA won't grade these cards. I do not believe for one second it's because they cant tell the difference between real and fake Star product.
Matt I collect: 80’s Rookies and 86 Fleer Basketball
People have had conversations and the response is the door is always open or we will never say never. If one does not take an action to open the door, it is in fact closed. The reality and it is noted before that economically it does not make sense for the company to grade the cards. As long as it is busy with a couple of high volume graders putting cards it already grades in holders why would it take the time to learn to grade these cards? Also, since it has a buyback policy, even though it would not make mistakes once it learned, it simply has that fear in the back of its mind. Ironically, if you then spoke to certain important people they would not deny the importance of the Star Co. cards. PSA graders cannot tell the difference between real and fake. Despite what it is written by some people on various sections of this board, PSA never missed and graded a counterfeit #101. There is not even a high quality #101 counterfeit. The issue was when the one sheet of 100 cards that was reprinted from the plate (or you can say scraps that were not destroyed by the printer) came out and were sent to PSA for grading, including the #117 Jordan and Ewing XRC. PSA was a young grading company at the time and chose to stop grading the cards due to decisions at the top even though some graders wanted to learn and continue. At the time PSA graded those reprints/scraps anyone could have made a mistake. Despite what people write, there are difference between the original cards and those reprints/scraps. Just as PSA can tell the difference on that former President's card and the version that seems to have been a back door employee reprint from the same plate, it can learn that with the Star Co. cards if it so chooses. And this only applies to 100 cards - 1985-86 Star #95-172; 10 card Jordan set and Best New set. The 100 cards were unauthorized for release/reprint by the Star Owner Levin and he has nothing to do with this. Shop at Home in 1997 is different and he was involved with those fantasy issue cards.
People should have their own mind and buy the cards if they want. If people are waiting for PSA to grade the cards to justify buying them or give them more confidence in their prior purchases, well I do not see that. Maybe if you had a petition from players like Jordan, Worthy, Isiah Thomas, Drexler, Wilkins, Barkley, Stockton and Ewing to grade their cards, you might have a chance. Otherwise, I don't see it. I think the #101 XRC is easily a top 10 basketball card but because PSA does not grade the card, it does not put it in the list: http://www.psacard.com/Lists/Top-10-Basketball-Cards. People can believe what they want and buy what the want. If they want to believe Senior Members on here that tell them to buy a Prism Jewel instead of the #101 because PSA grades it, one could buy both. I recently saw two BGS 8 101's sell in the $3,500 range.
Comments
<< <i>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. >>
I never attacked anything.
And I agree with you that the centering could be 9.5 or 10 on the 9.
<< <i>
<< <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? >>
Honestly, both cards have tilt and are off centered top to bottom. The 9.5 is worse than the 9 for the top to bottom centering. Both have about the same tilt. BGS grading standards have obviously softened. It's unfortunate because BGS used to be the toughest as far as grading standards and these less stringent standards are hurting their reputation and graded card values.
I forgot to add that I prefer the BGS 9 over the BGS 9.5. The BGS 9.5 was over graded, in my opinion. There are examples of over graded cards in all of the big 3's holders. It happens.
<< <i>Well I do not see anything wrong with the 9 in centering in response to point above. If you are grading cards, you must take into account how the cards were made. The 9 is the best centered 101 you will see in my opinion. I know people say that, but hard to think better centered than that. I cannot understand the subs frankly. You can give it 9.5 or 10 centering, 9.5 or 10 corners (probably 9.5 b/c I have a feeling something with that bottom right front corner), I do not understand the edge or surface sub grade. Most problematic is the scan has red marks and white on it and if that is on the card I don't see that as a gem mint card. Since there are hardly any centered 101's I think both are beautifully centered versions. The 9.5 looks crooked in case to me. Maybe one day we will get a better scan. I don't know. I can deal with a gem mint card with a mint sub grade with that as its weakness. It is not like the 9.5 had super high subs. But I cannot see how the 9 can have a 9 surface. And I said friends, yes, b/c now the owner said Matty, I don't even know who Matty is. So yes regulars in these forums know each other which I am not obviously. But the owner of the 9 was polite and maybe he was not knocking the other and in the whole reading I thought so, so hope I did not upset him. But I hope I upset the one who has seen better looking 8's. Still waiting for those. >>
All I see are more excuses for over graded cards. The BGS 9 may be the best centered you will see, but the fact is the card has tilt and is off centered top to bottom. The same for the BGS 9.5. By BGS's original strict grading standards, both of these cards might have pulled an 8.5 for centering. I know because I submitted a ton of stuff with them back in the 2000-2004 time period when they were tough on everything they graded. It used to be hard to even receive BGS 9's, and there was a premium for them with 9.5 subgrades. Now, the standards have softened and I am seeing more and more cards with noticeable and obvious flaws receiving gem mint grades. It bothers me because it hurts the hobby as a whole in the end.
<< <i>Stan, I understand your comments, but let's just leave it that I disagree on the centering issue. Beckett did not grade these cards in 2000-2004 when you are saying they were tougher. The 9.5 is not off-center top to bottom in my opinion, that's the way the card was made. The 9 might have a little extra bottom because as someone alluded to it might be cut larger than even the larger ones. I could not imagine those cards getting 8.5 centering for this type of card. But if that is your opinion, okay. The 9 has probably the least tilt you will see on a centered 101 and yes I will stick with that as the best centered version. I do not understand if we are discussing how the card should grade why we only talk about the centering. Now we get back to BGS and because BGS gives subs, just opens itself up to more criticism. Thanks for the responses. >>
I know BGS did not grade these cards in 2000-2004 time frame. I was just mentioning how far BGS grading standards have lowered from the original standards.
Both the BGS 9 and BGS 9.5 are off centered top to bottom and both have obvious tilt. That isn't a matter of opinion. Measure the borders. Heck, you don't even have to do that. A close eyeball observation proves it.
As for opinion; My opinion is the BGS 9 is overall graded accurate as a BGS 9. I am not talking about debating if the subgrades are right. Just the overall grade. The BGS 9.5 is clearly over graded. A gem mint card should not have obvious white specks on the tips of the corners or the obvious tilt and off centered top to bottom like the BGS 9.5 clearly shows. A gem mint card should be just that. Gem!
<< <i>Stan, appreciate the response again, but I am trying to stick to the #101 XRC, not the broader sense of grading today versus years ago. A lot of comments on here are just not going to be fair to Beckett - like the implication now that because it was overly tough in the time frame you note it is the only grading company that is not as tough today. In fact, then Beckett was simply the toughest. I doubt I can just say anything I want on here that maybe another is not as tough as it was. You say the one on the right is a 9 and do not want to discuss subs. Well it is not just a BGS 9, is an extraordinary high grade 9. To grade a BGS card you have to give it subs. If I went 10/9.5/9/8 on that one, that's not even a 9. I saw a similar one on ebay months back with I think 9.5 centering and 9.5 corners and a lower surface grade, even though I called it a 1/1. Not saying the same exact card or even quality, but I remember red and white on surface also and overwhelming centering. I won't agree to discredit centered 101's under any of grading standards from any decades and both are beautifully centered that I bet anyone on here would want, despite some of the comments. I would buy the BGS 9.5 if I had the money but I do not. That is reality. DM23HOF had a nice post above that I agree with. But he lists the 9.5 as a beater card. Does that mean beat this grade? Or that is critical isn't it? Beater does not sound good. >>
I don't mind talking about the subgrades. I was just meaning in that specific reply to your post I would not dive in to whether or not I agreed with the subgrades on the BGS 9. As for both cards, The BGS 9 has the same problem the BGS 9.5 has on centering. Both have serious tilt and both are off centered top to bottom. Any excuse you want to make does not take away from that. I don't understand how you can look at those two cards and not see what I have pointed out to you numerous times. Like I stated before, measure the borders to see for yourself. I realize you will probably come back and say that's just how the card is made(like you have done before). Well, that shouldn't matter. If a card is off centered, then it's off centered and should be graded as such. Neither card is worthy of 9.5 gem mint for centering.
<< <i>A lot of comments on here are just not going to be fair to Beckett - like the implication now that because it was overly tough in the time frame you note it is the only grading company that is not as tough today. In fact, then Beckett was simply the toughest. I doubt I can just say anything I want on here that maybe another is not as tough as it was. >>
BirdCeltics,
I forgot to add that unlike some on here, I am not a PSA only guy. I support PSA, BGS, and SGC. All three have their strengths and weaknesses, in my opinion. And if you are hinting that PSA is not as strict on grading as they used to be, I would argue that they are more strict now than they used to be. I believe they have upped their game if anything. Again, just my opinion.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
<< <i>Stan, yes, I do not want to repeat the centering issue. Both cards are centered to me. I mean when GAI was grading the cards I never saw any centered like those on ebay. As for the BGS 9, I would give it 10 centering on eye appeal alone before I gave it 9 centering. At worst 9.5 centering. 9 centering? No. I am trying to be objective here. All it needs is a .5 bump on centering and it is centered kind of artistically so to speak. I must admit the subs surprised me. It is a strong card on centering and corners from what I can see. So if I had the money I would probably buy both, but these cards are not in my price range frankly. I would put away the 9.5 and then if the 9 bumped, I would have the other 9.5. >>
I'm not trying to be mean, but if you think that card is worthy of a 10 for centering, I am wasting my time debating this until you learn more about grading. A 10 means pristine for centering. Neither of those cards are even worthy of 9.5 gem mint centering because both have serious tilt and both are off centered top to bottom.
Look at this BGS 9 with 8.5 centering(which is graded accurately, imo). The centering isn't any worse than the 9.5(above left) or the 9 on the right (the 9 on the right is a bit better top to bottom and side to side(because the card appears to be oversized), but tilt may be a touch more than bottom left 9). Look side to side down where the Bulls logo is to see what I am getting at.
edited to add scans
Did you get your training from Don West? I have never seen someone come on these boards and sell so hard on a card. All you are doing is proving you know nothing about graded cards. White corners are not Gem Mint. End of story.
Do you sit on the Board with nothing to do and respond right after I post? I am talking about centering. When you can tell a real one from a counterfeit, maybe you should be allowed to post on the topic. But you probably post on this forum on all sorts of topics you know nothing about.
<< <i>dpeck,
Do you sit on the Board with nothing to do and respond right after I post? I am talking about centering. When you can tell a real one from a counterfeit, maybe you should be allowed to post on the topic. But you probably post on this forum on all sorts of topics you know nothing about. >>
After reading your last 11 posts I finally gave in and commented.
You have 25 posts so far all on one card all pleading that it is the best copy out there. Cards aesthetics speaks for themselves. If you can magically make the three white corners go away I will agree it might be Gem Mint. Until then it is not.
<< <i>All you are doing is proving you know nothing about graded cards. >>
Agreed. He's embarrassing himself.
<< <i>dpeck, you posted right after my first post. And then again today right after I posted. If people post like you and ask me a question, I can respond to it. You also said I would prefer your BGS 9 all day to the person who listed it even though person never said owned it or the grade. I said what I have to say and won't be posting any more. Obviously these forums are filled with bullies like you that are rude and insult people. You can continue to roam around forums and post on topics you know nothing about. >>
No one can accurately accuse me of being a bully on this forum.
Your first impression is wrong.
Card grading is card grading. It doesn't matter what type of card it is.
The reason I said I preferred the card is because I do. I don't care who owns the card. There are many on these forums who know each other from the forum. I have seen that card posted before and it is a stunner. You are some how acting like politics is keeping people from liking your card. It couldn't be further from the truth. You started an ID to post about the one card and people respond. Pretty simple.
If the so called BGS 9.5 was a great looking card for the grade I said I thought it would sell for more then the $50k opening bid. It didn't sell. The market spoke.
We collectors don't need a TPG to grade or not grade a card for us to do our own homework as passionate collectors and be comfortable. Indeed there are entire seven digit (and more) collections in the world that are entirely raw, for example, and don't need a piece of plastic or a sticker to be awesome.
The Star Jordan is MJ's first licensed card, and its rarity relative to the Fleer speaks for itself. Both cards are fantastic pieces for a collection, but I for one cannot hate on a card just because a TPG allowed a shot or two to slip past the goalie years ago and subsequently adopted a rigid stance against it.
As this thread, back when it began, bears out: this is not neurosurgery or rocket science. The ability to authenticate the sportscard exists. BGS does it and has done it for years. Experienced collectors do it. And there are more and better quality fakes of the Fleer, if one is concerned about fakes. This aspect is admittedly highly subjective, but I know that if I am browsing a collection, I get very excited when I see a Star MJ. They are not in every collection. I can't imagine what hypothetical new "facts" could come to light that could hurt the card. Rumors about it in the past (and this is a hobby where false rumors spread like wildfire, reinforcing erroneous perceptions) abound, but the facts that are out there, when one takes the time to acquire them, actually foster confidence.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
<< <i>Hey Bird33
Did you get your training from Don West? I have never seen someone come on these boards and sell so hard on a card. All you are doing is proving you know nothing about graded cards. White corners are not Gem Mint. End of story. >>
Bingo!
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>If I didn't know better, I'd say that Bird33's life depended on this card. >>
I find it interesting that a poster signs up here just to debate one card, yet, insists he has no ties to it. It just smells funny to me. Maybe I am wrong.
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
I love this thread.... With the exception of the ridiculous Bird 33 posts of course.... And the Star Jordan pre 1986 cards. I have no idea why the 1985 Jordan slam dunk card doesn't get more attention but that's what makes a great investment I guess. I predict that card exceeds the percentage price increase of the 1986 fleer rookie in the next 10 years. These cards are under valued because PSA a doesn't grade them but in the next 10 years that will change. I think its underserving the hobby they don't grade them today and this should change. When it does the prices will increase.
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
1. The 9.5 card is trimmed: No it is not. I know it was pulled directly from a bag and submitted to bgs. The Jordan 101 was miscut from the factory at different sizes. A short 101 does not mean trimmed.
2. There are better 8s: I challenge anyone to post such an 8. I do not think that an 8 exists that is better than the 9.5.
3. PSA stays away from the 101 because it can't tell the real ones from the fakes: This is not true. A fake 101 is easy to spot. Read this forum and look at the links to interviews with Steve Taft who trains the grading companies who do grade star. The Jordan 101 was not reprinted by the company. After 6 years of grading by bgs and all the cards in 1 population report, the 101 which is the most expensive card has approximately 400 submissions. That doesn't signify a card that was widely produced or reprinted. If there were tons of them out there and so hard to tell the difference between real and fakes, many more people would be cashing in as 6s and 7s sell for 4 figures.
4: I have some vested interest in the card: I do not have an interest in the card specifically. I do however have an interest in star. I collect star. I love star. I do not have the $ to buy the 9.5 101. I do have an 8.5 with subs of 8 95 95 10 that I am very fond of. I have a pretty strong collection of the other key cards as well. I study the cards. I've spent 10 years learning about the cards and all the nuances of the series and I do not want to see message boards like this ruin the perception of a product I care a lot about.
Yes there were fakes, yes there was a shop at home scandal. All that is in the past. BGS has a firm grip on authenticating the cards. Look at the pop reports if you believe there is widespread reprints and real looking counterfeits going on. No company is perfect. I saw a link earlier to the Strapsburg they supposedly overgraded. There are plenty of examples of that in all 3 major grading holders. Just because you don't agree with a grade, it doesn't mean there is some conspiracy going on at the company.
Lastly, if you have a problem with star, ask questions to the people that know what they are talking about. Ask Steve Taft questions, don't take to heart information given by someone who collects wrestling cards as his passion.
If I wanted to get my car worked on, I wouldn't take it to a florist or a restaurant and neither would any of you. If you want to know star basketball, ask the people that have experience dealing with the series and know all the little subtleties that are a part of it. There are a few on ebay that are extremely knowledgeable and credible. You can dislike me if you want but don't let that ruin a great product.
<< <i>PSA stays away from the 101 because it can't tell the real ones from the fakes: This is not true. >>
Any thought on why they don't, then?
Instagram: mattyc_collection
<< <i>
<< <i>PSA stays away from the 101 because it can't tell the real ones from the fakes: This is not true. >>
Any thought on why they don't, then? >>
There's no money in it for them. It would employ a lot of resources/training to grade only few cards a year.
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
<< <i>I normally stay away from these message boards but I came on here to inform the board of a few facts and clear up some misconceptions. You all may not like me but that is irrelevant and the arguments about which 101 is better may be pointless and all about taste but the things that brought me here are as follows from various people's posts:
1. The 9.5 card is trimmed: No it is not. I know it was pulled directly from a bag and submitted to bgs. The Jordan 101 was miscut from the factory at different sizes. A short 101 does not mean trimmed.
2. There are better 8s: I challenge anyone to post such an 8. I do not think that an 8 exists that is better than the 9.5. >>
1. How do you claim to know so much about the over graded BGS 9.5 if you don't have any connection to it? If you just heard it was pulled from a bag, then you can't make the statement that you know for a fact that it was pulled from a bag(I do tend to think it was from a bag based on the white specks of wear on the corners). That is, unless you were there and/or have a personal connection to the card.
2. The point is not whether there is a BGS 8 better than the BGS 9.5. The point is the BGS 9.5 IS over graded and you don't grasp that fact because you clearly don't understand card grading based on your own comments.
edited to clarify comments
I want to say that I don't want you ran off of here. It's nothing personal. Post and discuss things with us if you would like.
<< <i>@rtimmer - which slam dunk card are you talking about - the Gatorade one or the 5x7 one? >>
I find the gatorade card a little boring actually. My three favorite Jordan cards that I'd rank above the 1986 fleer in terms of best looking are:
1). 1985 Court kings 5x7
2). 1985 slam dunk contest 5x7
3). 1985 slam dunk contest checklist 5x7
Honorable mention..... the 1985 all rookie team card. The card isn't his best looking but that set is. For those not familiar it showcases the 1984 draft class arguably the best draft class ever and Jordan's card is the anchor. The Barkley all rookie card in this set is a great looking one though and certainly one of his best.
....And in full disclosure I do own all the cards I claim are the best looking above, but that's the reason I bought them after all. I also own multiple star gatorade and '86 Fleer Jordans though along with having a complete 1986 fleer set but not the 1984 or 1985 complete star sets so I don't think of myself as biased just hopefully well informed.
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
I've always found PSA to be relatively reasonable, and would really love to know if there is any legitimate reason as to why PSA won't grade these cards. I do not believe for one second it's because they cant tell the difference between real and fake Star product.
I collect: 80’s Rookies and 86 Fleer Basketball
People should have their own mind and buy the cards if they want. If people are waiting for PSA to grade the cards to justify buying them or give them more confidence in their prior purchases, well I do not see that. Maybe if you had a petition from players like Jordan, Worthy, Isiah Thomas, Drexler, Wilkins, Barkley, Stockton and Ewing to grade their cards, you might have a chance. Otherwise, I don't see it. I think the #101 XRC is easily a top 10 basketball card but because PSA does not grade the card, it does not put it in the list: http://www.psacard.com/Lists/Top-10-Basketball-Cards. People can believe what they want and buy what the want. If they want to believe Senior Members on here that tell them to buy a Prism Jewel instead of the #101 because PSA grades it, one could buy both. I recently saw two BGS 8 101's sell in the $3,500 range.