<< <i>So less gold should buy more cards? And in that sense it seems the bubble popped one Gretzky and Rose rookies a while ago. For these 2 examples
And a PSA 10 Henderson in 2001 was what 5000(17 ounces of gold in 2001 value) and now 30,000 ( or 25 ounces of gold in todays value)
Which goes with the point it is a good investment in buying PSA 10s >>
No, cards like the Henderson are overpriced, and gold is undervalued. The high grade modern rookie cards are in a bubble due to the easy money being made in the manipulated stock market that even guys like Warren Buffet says is due for a correction. When it corrects and the chickens come home to roost, so too will these modern high grade rookie cards that have skyrocketed. >>
Cards like 1980 Henderson rookie are not modern cards and you would know if you have collected a long time. Most people refer to modern cards as late 1980's to now. Cards in the 80's like henderson rookie, bird magic, rice, etc were not mass produced like the ones beginning in the late 80's and early 90's. >>
I have been at this since the 70's. Is that long enough?
The Henderson is a modern card. And I assure you they produced plenty of these cards, along with the Bird, Magic, Rice, etc to go around.
<< <i>So less gold should buy more cards? And in that sense it seems the bubble popped one Gretzky and Rose rookies a while ago. For these 2 examples
And a PSA 10 Henderson in 2001 was what 5000(17 ounces of gold in 2001 value) and now 30,000 ( or 25 ounces of gold in todays value)
Which goes with the point it is a good investment in buying PSA 10s >>
No, cards like the Henderson are overpriced, and gold is undervalued. The high grade modern rookie cards are in a bubble due to the easy money being made in the manipulated stock market that even guys like Warren Buffet says is due for a correction. When it corrects and the chickens come home to roost, so too will these modern high grade rookie cards that have skyrocketed. >>
Cards like 1980 Henderson rookie are not modern cards and you would know if you have collected a long time. Most people refer to modern cards as late 1980's to now. Cards in the 80's like henderson rookie, bird magic, rice, etc were not mass produced like the ones beginning in the late 80's and early 90's. >>
I have been at this since the 70's. Is that long enough?
The Henderson is a modern card. And I assure you they produced plenty of these cards, along with the Bird, Magic, Rice, etc to go around. >>
You've been at this since the 1970's and still haven't realized that PSA 10's generally outperform PSA 9's of the same card?
<< <i>So less gold should buy more cards? And in that sense it seems the bubble popped one Gretzky and Rose rookies a while ago. For these 2 examples
And a PSA 10 Henderson in 2001 was what 5000(17 ounces of gold in 2001 value) and now 30,000 ( or 25 ounces of gold in todays value)
Which goes with the point it is a good investment in buying PSA 10s >>
No, cards like the Henderson are overpriced, and gold is undervalued. The high grade modern rookie cards are in a bubble due to the easy money being made in the manipulated stock market that even guys like Warren Buffet says is due for a correction. When it corrects and the chickens come home to roost, so too will these modern high grade rookie cards that have skyrocketed. >>
Cards like 1980 Henderson rookie are not modern cards and you would know if you have collected a long time. Most people refer to modern cards as late 1980's to now. Cards in the 80's like henderson rookie, bird magic, rice, etc were not mass produced like the ones beginning in the late 80's and early 90's. >>
I have been at this since the 70's. Is that long enough?
The Henderson is a modern card. And I assure you they produced plenty of these cards, along with the Bird, Magic, Rice, etc to go around. >>
You've been at this since the 1970's and still haven't realized that PSA 10's generally outperform PSA 9's of the same card? >>
Did I ever say they didn't? No.. What I said was that I find it silly to pay insane amounts of money for soft 10's when you can often find better cards in 9 holders. I already showed you that earlier in this thread when comparing that PSA 9 Winfield to the current PSA 10 in question.
<< <i>So less gold should buy more cards? And in that sense it seems the bubble popped one Gretzky and Rose rookies a while ago. For these 2 examples
And a PSA 10 Henderson in 2001 was what 5000(17 ounces of gold in 2001 value) and now 30,000 ( or 25 ounces of gold in todays value)
Which goes with the point it is a good investment in buying PSA 10s >>
No, cards like the Henderson are overpriced, and gold is undervalued. The high grade modern rookie cards are in a bubble due to the easy money being made in the manipulated stock market that even guys like Warren Buffet says is due for a correction. When it corrects and the chickens come home to roost, so too will these modern high grade rookie cards that have skyrocketed. >>
Cards like 1980 Henderson rookie are not modern cards and you would know if you have collected a long time. Most people refer to modern cards as late 1980's to now. Cards in the 80's like henderson rookie, bird magic, rice, etc were not mass produced like the ones beginning in the late 80's and early 90's. >>
I have been at this since the 70's. Is that long enough?
The Henderson is a modern card. And I assure you they produced plenty of these cards, along with the Bird, Magic, Rice, etc to go around. >>
You've been at this since the 1970's and still haven't realized that PSA 10's generally outperform PSA 9's of the same card? >>
Did I ever say they didn't? No.. What I said was that I find it silly to pay insane amounts of money for soft 10's when you can often find better cards in 9 holders. I already showed you that earlier in this thread when comparing that PSA 9 Winfield to the current PSA 10 in question. >>
But you are assuming the better 9 will cross to a 10. What if the 9 doesn't cross to a 10? Then obviously usually the soft 10 will outperform your strong 9 not just for this winfield card but most other cards. The owner of a weak Jerry Rice PSA 10 rookie who bought it 3 years ago wouldn't be considered silly correct? Of course not he would have made 4 to 5 times on his jerry rice 10 in 3 years is my point.
<< <i>But you are assuming the better 9 will cross to a 10. What if the 9 doesn't cross to a 10? Then obviously usually the soft 10 will outperform your strong 9 not just for this winfield card but most other cards. The owner of a weak Jerry Rice PSA 10 rookie who bought it 3 years ago wouldn't be considered silly correct? Of course not he would have made 4 to 5 times on his jerry rice 10 in 3 years is my point. >>
That is why you need to know what you are doing before submitting. And even on the rare occasion one doesn't cross, who cares? At least you don't have thousands in an over graded 10.
I could not stand to look at or own a 10 with soft corners, surface and edges issues, and know I paid thousands for it, when I could have a 9 that was clearly the better card for a fraction of the price.
I also find it interesting that you continue to dodge this point.
One day collectors are going to wake up and stop buying just the label as they get more educated on the issues that not all 10's are created equal. PWCC's sticker is a step towards that happening for many investors/collectors. Once they finally do fully wake up to this, I wouldn't want to be trying to peddle those soft 10's that I had thousands of dollars tied up in. But that's just me.
<< <i>But you are assuming the better 9 will cross to a 10. What if the 9 doesn't cross to a 10? Then obviously usually the soft 10 will outperform your strong 9 not just for this winfield card but most other cards. The owner of a weak Jerry Rice PSA 10 rookie who bought it 3 years ago wouldn't be considered silly correct? Of course not he would have made 4 to 5 times on his jerry rice 10 in 3 years is my point. >>
That is why you need to know what you are doing before submitting. And even on the rare occasion one doesn't cross, who cares? At least you don't have thousands in an over graded 10.
I could not stand to look at or own a 10 with soft corners, surface and edges issues, and know I paid thousands for it, when I could have a 9 that was clearly the better card for a fraction of the price.
I also find it interesting that you continue to dodge this point.
One day collectors are going to wake up and stop buying just the label as they get more educated on the issues that not all 10 are created equal. PWCC's sticker is a step towards that happening for many investors/collectors. Once they do finally wake up to this, I wouldn't want to be trying to peddle those soft 10's that I had thousands of dollars tied up in. But that's just me. >>
Of course collectors would like to have the strongest PSA 10's possible. But you fail to recognize the same point that people who buy weak 10's have in many cases made good investments as the weak 10's have generally outperformed the strong 9's. So the collectors with what you consider have a weak 10 actually made a good purchase. You keep saying the strong 9 was the better purchase for a fraction of the price. But you are in this to make money as you try to bump 9's to 10's. That rarely happens. I would say people who buy what you consider weak 10's have made better purchases over the years such as buying a weak Jerry Rice PSA 10 rookie 3 years ago which has gone up in value 4-5 times and are wiser collectors than people like you who try and most of the time fail to bump strong 9's to 10's.
<< <i> Of course collectors would like to have the strongest PSA 10's possible. But you fail to recognize the same point that people who buy weak 10's have in many cases made good investments as the weak 10's have generally outperformed the strong 9's. So the collectors with what you consider have a weak 10 actually made a good purchase. You keep saying the strong 9 was the better purchase for a fraction of the price. But you are in this to make money as you try to bump 9's to 10's. That rarely happens. I would say people who buy what you consider weak 10's have made better purchases over the years such as buying a weak Jerry Rice PSA 10 rookie 3 years ago which has gone up in value 4-5 times as smarter and better collectors than people like you who try and most of the time fail to bump strong 9's to 10's. >>
I don't feel you're even listening to what I'm saying. I am not having a debate as to what outperforms what. Obviously, a 10 is going to do better than a 9 because there are less of them. That is just plain common sense.
What I am saying is that I'm personally not going to buy 8's, 8.5's, or 9's for 10 money just because they managed to slip in to a 10 holder. If people want to do that, then more power to them.
I don't try and fail most times to cross 9's to 10's because I do my homework and know what to submit based on what is acceptable to get in to a 10 holder.
Man, so psyched about this new pickup below. There's some tilt, but the sheer image, with that green grass, blue sky, and the player's batting stance-- it really brings be back to youth and gives me such enjoyment...
But joking aside, who really cares if some random dude buys a card in any grade that even triples in value in a year; even if it's like a 50k card. It's no Powerball. And who cares if some other dude has a card that "goes down" in sixteen months? Schadenfreude is karmically no bueno.
There will be always be downs and ups; there will always be economic cycles. A collector can hold a card through numerous ups and downs-- it's all about personal horizon. When a collector's horizon of holding a card is on the order of decades, or if he buys to keep for a lifetime of joy in collecting, such a collector doesn't give a flying %&*# what the value is in one year or five or ten. Such a collector is enjoying the beloved cards, not sweating auction results.
Also, it was posted above that cards like the 1980 Henderson are not modern or mass produced; it's all relative; the 1980 Henderson is certainly common and mass produced relative to the likes of any popular Pre War card, like a CJ Shoeless or a Gehrig Rookie '25.
If someone wants to buy a 10 or a 2, as long as they're happy with their collection. It's all good. If one is collecting older cards, even from the 50s, let alone Pre War, the whole 10 versus 9 thing has no bearing whatsoever, for the most part.
Talking about 10s and 9s, yes, the resellers and investor/flippers seem to do quite well on resale. There is also a reason a lot of these cards change hands so much on the sale market in somewhat short periods of time: they are good investments but also hot potatoes to a degree-- in that if anything happens to the company printing the little sticker or if more pop up, there are risks. There's also no denying the fact that the best card in any grade can often equal or even surpass cards in the next grade up. That's the subjective grading game. There's also no denying that when one is evaluating what to buy for their collection or flipping portfolio, there is a huge price jump from 9 to 10, for a very small actual increase in card quality. Some will look at that noteworthy relationship between price and card quality and choose the lower grade, seeing value and the ability to secure a desired image for their collection while also retaining resources to expand their collection. Others will go for the 10, whether to flip because they prefer that for fun and profit (and for some profit is fun in and of itself, which is cool) or because they like simply the card. Both choices are great for whoever makes them.
It's also true that there are plenty of guys who can afford a higher graded card, but choose a lower graded one. I wanted a Montana RC. I could grab a 10. I went with a 5 that I loved the look of. Cost me like thirty bucks; I get to see the image in my collection and I don't have to ever stress it being a big chunk of change. Again, it's all good for all parties. Personally, I'd be thrilled if every card in the world cost only a dollar and could only ever be sold for a dollar I'd still love them all the same, and look at them just as often, and they'd still bring the same instant calm and happiness the second they hit the eye.
<< <i>Man, so psyched about this new pickup below. There's some tilt, but the sheer image, with that green grass, blue sky, and the player's batting stance-- it really brings be back to youth and gives me such enjoyment...
But joking aside, who really cares if some random dude buys a card in any grade that even triples in value in a year; even if it's like a 50k card. It's no Powerball. And who cares if some other dude has a card that "goes down" in sixteen months? Schadenfreude is karmically no bueno.
There will be always be downs and ups; there will always be economic cycles. A collector can hold a card through numerous ups and downs-- it's all about personal horizon. When a collector's horizon of holding a card is on the order of decades, or if he buys to keep for a lifetime of joy in collecting, such a collector doesn't give a flying %&*# what the value is in one year or five or ten. Such a collector is enjoying the beloved cards, not sweating auction results.
Also, it was posted above that cards like the 1980 Henderson are not modern or mass produced; it's all relative; the 1980 Henderson is certainly common and mass produced relative to the likes of any popular Pre War card, like a CJ Shoeless or a Gehrig Rookie '25.
If someone wants to buy a 10 or a 2, as long as they're happy with their collection. It's all good. If one is collecting older cards, even from the 50s, let alone Pre War, the whole 10 versus 9 thing has no bearing whatsoever, for the most part.
Talking about 10s and 9s, yes, the resellers and investor/flippers seem to do quite well on resale. There is also a reason a lot of these cards change hands so much on the sale market in somewhat short periods of time: they are good investments but also hot potatoes to a degree-- in that if anything happens to the company printing the little sticker or if more pop up, there are risks. There's also no denying the fact that the best card in any grade can often equal or even surpass cards in the next grade up. That's the subjective grading game. There's also no denying that when one is evaluating what to buy for their collection or flipping portfolio, there is a huge price jump from 9 to 10, for a very small actual increase in card quality. Some will look at that noteworthy relationship between price and card quality and choose the lower grade, seeing value and the ability to secure a desired image for their collection while also retaining resources to expand their collection. Others will go for the 10, whether to flip because they prefer that for fun and profit (and for some profit is fun in and of itself, which is cool) or because they like simply the card. Both choices are great for whoever makes them.
It's also true that there are plenty of guys who can afford a higher graded card, but choose a lower graded one. I wanted a Montana RC. I could grab a 10. I went with a 5 that I loved the look of. Cost me like thirty bucks; I get to see the image in my collection and I don't have to ever stress it being a big chunk of change. Again, it's all good for all parties. Personally, I'd be thrilled if every card in the world cost only a dollar and could only ever be sold for a dollar I'd still love them all the same, and look at them just as often, and they'd still bring the same instant calm and happiness the second they hit the eye. >>
This is all too well reasoned for 12:30 AM on a Fri/Sat night. Does this mean no hangover and no cards? It's not too late for a drink! I wanna see some centered Mantles tomorrow morning. Seriously, it only took 109 posts for me to get to throw one of these out here: +1
<< <i> Of course collectors would like to have the strongest PSA 10's possible. But you fail to recognize the same point that people who buy weak 10's have in many cases made good investments as the weak 10's have generally outperformed the strong 9's. So the collectors with what you consider have a weak 10 actually made a good purchase. You keep saying the strong 9 was the better purchase for a fraction of the price. But you are in this to make money as you try to bump 9's to 10's. That rarely happens. I would say people who buy what you consider weak 10's have made better purchases over the years such as buying a weak Jerry Rice PSA 10 rookie 3 years ago which has gone up in value 4-5 times as smarter and better collectors than people like you who try and most of the time fail to bump strong 9's to 10's. >>
I don't feel you're even listening to what I'm saying. I am not having a debate as to what outperforms what. Obviously, a 10 is going to do better than a 9 because there are less of them. That is just plain common sense.
What I am saying is that I'm personally not going to buy 8's, 8.5's, or 9's for 10 money just because they managed to slip in to a 10 holder. If people want to do that, then more power to them.
I don't try and fail most times to cross 9's to 10's because I do my homework and know what to submit based on what is acceptable to get in to a 10 holder. >>
PSA graders knows that they are doing. There is a reason it was given a 9 in the first place such as surface imperfection or corner or edge wear.
<< <i>PSA graders knows that they are doing. There is a reason it was given a 9 in the first place such as surface imperfection or corner or edge wear. >>
Of course the graders know what they are doing, but I'm not sure that you fully understand the subjectivity of the grading process. It's not a science. I just showed you two 10's with corner wear. The Winfield and Montana rookies. So what's the point? A 10 number on the holder doesn't mean that is the best conditioned card you can buy for the money. Also, a 10 does not truly mean perfect because I have never seen a 10 from any grading company that didn't have a flaw somewhere under close examination.
The bottom line in this. There are 10's in 9 holders if you know what you are looking for. I have done very well over the years finding those cards and crossing them over to 10's. You can take the free advice and use it to better your collection, or you can ignore it. It's your choice.
<< <i> By the cert no., it was originally graded by 4SC. >>
How can this be determined? Would love to know.
It is my understanding that any flip label with the grade on the 2nd row was graded before 4SC was in existence. >>
That is incorrect. 4SC was a prominent PSA graded card seller long before the advent of the half point grading system.
Back then, larger submitters like 4SC and DSL had assigned cert # ranges. For 4SC, they began with 812XXX and ran through 819XXX (IIRC, the range may have gone a bit higher or began a bit earlier, but this is what I recall from buying from them at the time). Shortly thereafter, these assigned cert # sequences were abandoned in favor of the sequential cert # format you see today.
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>Which products are you referring to? If we're talking pre 1980s than yes there is a shortage, and it will just get "shorter" over time. You also need to look at things from a much wider perspective, at least when it comes to time. In the decades and centuries to follow many of these cards will be lost or destroyed. Fewer and fewer raw cards will be submitted to replace these relics and over time the population will only decrease.
Again, what do you refer to as "modern"? Also, IMO if you knew how to spot the difference between a 9 and 10 then you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. For those in the know, there is, most times, a quite evident difference between a pre 1980s 9 and a 10. Many times it has to do with centering (front AND back) and how clean the photos and borders are.
It's fine if you don't care about these qualities, there's nothing wrong with owning a 9, 8, raw or anything that you enjoy. But to say what you say about people who own 10s, well that just says to me that you don't really know how to spot one. >>
These modern high grade rookie cards are not dinosaurs. They are not going to grow extinct so I find that argument laughable.
And I assure you I know how to spot the difference between a 9 and 10. I can't tell you how many 9's I have turned in to 10's upon re-submitting since about 2000.
Like I said before, no card is truly perfect. I can find a flaw on every 10 I have ever handled. They key to grading is to find a card that might not be flawless, but is good enough to get in to the next level's holder. When you finally figure that out, and don't just buy a card blindly for what the label says, that is when you finally have a full understanding of the grading game. And in the process, you can build a nice collection and not spend silly amounts of money just so you can have bragging rights of owning that 10 on a label. I have seen those guys, and in the end, they tie up tons of money in cards that are in 10 holders, but if cracked and re-submitted, might be 9's at best. Or in this latest Winfield's case, maybe an 8-8.5 at best on a good day.
Like my dad used to say, some people have more money than brains, and if they are not careful, they will end up with little of either. >>
Which years are you referring to? Again you are ignoring my question so you can go off on an unrelated tangent where you make predictions that don't seem to have any logic to support them. I can't take any of your novellas seriously and I'm pretty sure you're just trying to get people riled up by attacking those who covet the best of the best.
You're just taking pot shots at collectors. And like others have said it sounds like simple sour grapes here. There can be many reasons for this, if you want to share your frustrations in a polite or honestly curious way then please do. But attacking learned collectors here isn't the way.
As I said earlier, and even if we're talking about stuff from the 1980s and moving forward, there is simply a finite amount of these cards. In time many will vanish one way or another and the ones that have been preserved, especially the higher grade and higher quality ones, will only increase in value.
Perhaps I am not reading the same posts, but I don't see Sultan Of Swat taking any "potshots" at fellow collectors or reeking of sour grapes. Rather, he seems to merely be pointing out that there are cards currently residing in 9 holders that are literally of equal quality to those in 10 holders. This is absolutely true. One need not spend the premium that 10s command at auction, to obtain the exact same eye appeal and quality of actual card. Sultan is also correct in his assessment of traffic flowing the other way, from 10s to 9s, meaning that many 10s, if resubbed raw, would often come back 9s. I have effectively "bought" several 10s over the years for 9 or even raw prices, as have many of us. The same can be said of other grades, meaning the collector who buys what to his eye is GRADE X, even though he bought it raw or in a GRADE X-Y holder-- and he can later find the grader agrees with him on a review or crack resubmission, if he so desires. Lately myself I just save the fees and keep buying cards, LOL.
There is a distinction between the best card and the highest grade assigned by some grader; there is similarly a distinction between those who want the "best of the best" CARDS and the best of the best GRADES. And it's also worth noting that for many of the hobby's "best" cards-- or I prefer the term "legendary" or "iconic," since best implies some sort of competition (and despite the Registry's efforts, I personally have grown over the years to abhor the notion of pitting one lover of baseball cards "against" another, especially when the "weapon," so to speak, is some random guy's opinion-- who often knows less than a very experienced collector)-- 10s and even 9s just don't exist (Balt News Ruth, Just So Young, M101 Ruth, T206 Wagner and Cobb, T210 Old Mill, The CJs, the list goes on). While technical condition, which the TPGS tend to grade, can often be easy to compare (declaring one card in "better" condition), eye appeal is an enormous factor that for many utterly trumps the numeric grade.
Take for example, someone with a PSA 10 of any card. If that is really "the best of the best," then of course it would reason that it is "better" than a PSA 9 of the same card. But Lo & Behold, let's now say the owner of what was a nanosecond ago the "inferior" MINT 9 example, now reviews or crack-subs that very card into a 10. Is this new 10 not the very same card it was a moment ago in the 9 holder? Has it become any "better?" Of course not. So in truth, the 9 and the 10-- the cards themselves-- were always equal, or perhaps, depending on how collectors' eyes see it, the "new" 10, the card that was just moments ago a 9, is even "better." So back when they were a 9 and 10, the 9 was really just as nice or even "better" than the 10. Now someone who bought the 10 in the 10 holder might not like to see another essentially obtain the very same card for a small fraction of the price, but that's the nuance of the grading game. Hence why it's all about the cards we love.
The same situation can hold true for any card in any grade in a comparative analysis to a card in a higher grade. I have personally had cards jump up two or even two and a half grades-- it's a subjective opinion, the grade, after all-- prone to the same errors in judgement as umpires have with their own calls on the field. One ump's strike is another's ball, and so forth. There is rarely an absolute, though some crave an opinion they can hold as absolute, perhaps to create a sense of definitive order in an always gray world.
Also germane to this discussion is the notion of condition rarity versus true rarity. Across the spectrum of collectors, some embrace grades as a way to effectively create a finite or smaller population of a card, and other collectors simply see thousands of a 1980's card versus the likes of say a Lou Gehrig Rookie Card or Joe D Zeenut card. No right or wrong view there, just two schools of thought or philosophies that peacefully coexist.
Another interesting example for discussion among collectors would be a PSA 5 1956 Koufax I once saw on eBay. My eyes told me I would grade it a 7.5 or even an 8. Now some might think it crazy for me to say, "This 5 is in as good condition or better than that 7 over there." Yet guess what, the eyes of your fellow collector later proved to be more on point than "the system," as the card later became a 7.5. Examples like this abound. Just food for thought in this discussion.
<< <i>Perhaps I am not reading the same posts, but I don't see Sultan Of Swat taking any "potshots" at fellow collectors or reeking of sour grapes. Rather, he seems to merely be pointing out that there are cards currently residing in 9 holders that are literally of equal quality to those in 10 holders. This is absolutely true. One need not spend the premium that 10s command at auction, to obtain the exact same eye appeal and quality of actual card. Sultan is also correct in his assessment of traffic flowing the other way, from 10s to 9s, meaning that many 10s, if resubbed raw, would often come back 9s. I have effectively "bought" several 10s over the years for 9 or even raw prices, as have many of us. The same can be said of other grades, meaning the collector who buys what to his eye is GRADE X, even though he bought it raw or in a GRADE X-Y holder-- and he can later find the grader agrees with him on a review or crack resubmission, if he so desires. Lately myself I just save the fees and keep buying cards, LOL.
There is a distinction between the best card and the highest grade assigned by some grader; there is similarly a distinction between those who want the "best of the best" CARDS and the best of the best GRADES. And it's also worth noting that for many of the hobby's "best" cards-- or I prefer the term "legendary" or "iconic," since best implies some sort of competition (and despite the Registry's efforts, I personally have grown over the years to abhor the notion of pitting one lover of baseball cards "against" another, especially when the "weapon," so to speak, is some random guy's opinion-- who often knows less than a very experienced collector)-- 10s and even 9s just don't exist (Balt News Ruth, Just So Young, M101 Ruth, T206 Wagner and Cobb, T210 Old Mill, The CJs, the list goes on). While technical condition, which the TPGS tend to grade, can often be easy to compare (declaring one card in "better" condition), eye appeal is an enormous factor that for many utterly trumps the numeric grade.
Take for example, someone with a PSA 10 of any card. If that is really "the best of the best," then of course it would reason that it is "better" than a PSA 9 of the same card. But Lo & Behold, let's now say the owner of what was a nanosecond ago the "inferior" MINT 9 example, now reviews or crack-subs that very card into a 10. Is this new 10 not the very same card it was a moment ago in the 9 holder? Has it become any "better?" Of course not. So in truth, the 9 and the 10-- the cards themselves-- were always equal, or perhaps, depending on how collectors' eyes see it, the "new" 10, the card that was just moments ago a 9, is even "better." So back when they were a 9 and 10, the 9 was really just as nice or even "better" than the 10. Now someone who bought the 10 in the 10 holder might not like to see another essentially obtain the very same card for a small fraction of the price, but that's the nuance of the grading game. Hence why it's all about the cards we love.
The same situation can hold true for any card in any grade in a comparative analysis to a card in a higher grade. I have personally had cards jump up two or even two and a half grades-- it's a subjective opinion, the grade, after all-- prone to the same errors in judgement as umpires have with their own calls on the field. One ump's strike is another's ball, and so forth. There is rarely an absolute, though some crave an opinion they can hold as absolute, perhaps to create a sense of definitive order in an always gray world.
Also germane to this discussion is the notion of condition rarity versus true rarity. Across the spectrum of collectors, some embrace grades as a way to effectively create a finite or smaller population of a card, and other collectors simply see thousands of a 1980's card versus the likes of say a Lou Gehrig Rookie Card or Joe D Zeenut card. No right or wrong view there, just two schools of thought or philosophies that peacefully coexist.
Another interesting example for discussion among collectors would be a PSA 5 1956 Koufax I once saw on eBay. My eyes told me I would grade it a 7.5 or even an 8. Now some might think it crazy for me to say, "This 5 is in as good condition or better than that 7 over there." Yet guess what, the eyes of your fellow collector later proved to be more on point than "the system," as the card later became a 7.5. Examples like this abound. Just food for thought in this discussion. >>
Thank you for being the voice of reason here. I have no ill will, soured grapes, or any people that I want to take pot shots at or whatever else member gregf falsely accused me of. Some people just have a hard time accepting the realities of grading subjectivity when it's something they don't want to hear. That's ok. All you can do is plant seeds.
And some people like me have had far too strong a cup of coffee this morning! Sorry for the long post! Talking cards definitely beats waiting around all day today for some work stuff to pan out tomorrow
I remember one time in college, I slaved on a paper and handed it in-- professor gave it a C+. I was devastated. Later that same term, in another class, we had a paper due on the same book. I handed in the same paper and it got an A. Grades were never the same for me, after that. The same pitch can be called a game breaking Ball Four by one ump, or a no-hitter clinching strike by another ump. Grading cards is no different. One reviewer can rave over a restaurant or movie, another loathe it. It's all subjective. The good thing with cards is that by and large the beauties in any grade will strike most collectors' eyes the same way.
On the topic here, I remember when I first jumped hard into cards again as an adult (in numerical age, that is, haha), I looked at the flips as little missives from God. Then one day I was staring at a card I paid a lot for, right beside another I paid a lot less for-- and I simply could not logically justify why I should have paid so much more for what was, to my eye, clearly the lesser-looking card. After this happened a few times, it was like an epiphany and I just changed the way I collected and purchased. The great thing about our hobby is that it's so easy to change direction or taste-- due largely to the market confidence that TPGs do bring, which is great.
Thanks, yes, it's a cornerstone of my collection. It was 'the' dream card for me ever since I learned of the M101 Ruth many years ago, alongside the 52 Topps Mantle. I mean Babe Ruth is...beyond words. Just The Man. Global icon before mass media as we know it.
It is a low grade example, but was for years on display in the Dreier Museum up in Santa Barbara. Mr. Dreier could have bought any grade he wanted, but went with this one, which makes it more than good enough for me
<< <i>Thanks, yes, it's a cornerstone of my collection. It was 'the' dream card for me ever since I learned of the M101 Ruth many years ago, alongside the 52 Topps Mantle. I mean Babe Ruth is...beyond words. Just The Man. Global icon before mass media as we know it.
It is a low grade example, but was for years on display in the Dreier Museum up in Santa Barbara. Mr. Dreier could have bought any grade he wanted, but went with this one, which makes it more than good enough for me >>
Wow! Great job securing that one. As you can see from my user icon, I am a big, big fan of "The Babe".
Mr. Dreier had a great eye, as do you. Enjoy that treasure!
<< <i>interesting debate and i fall in the middle.
own a 74 ryan 10. however, is not listed in my #1 set. i have a 9 in there, because it's a better looking card, imo. my gpa is lower, but so what.
with that being said, i'm certainly not regretting what i picked my 10 up for....and consider it to have been a wise investment. >>
I wouldn't say it's much of a debate. Everyone knows grading is subjective. And yes bumps happen on occasion and some cards appear overgraded. But it's a tired story where some people take gabs at those who enjoy PSA 10s. PSA says they are best of the best, anyone can agree or disagree, but making fun (as IMO SultanOfSwat has done in this thread) of those who enjoy these 10s does no one good.
As for 10s, there's much more to the technical grade of a 10 than is often seen in a scan. Way too often people debate the strength of a card based on a scan of the front versus holding it in hand. Some might say a PSA 6 looks better because it has slightly better centering than a 10 and yet has veins that don't show up in the scan. Others simply don't know what to look for when they applaud or criticize a card. That's why so many rely on PSA and why their opinion has and will carry so much weight over time.
I would still like to hear SultanOfSwat comment on the finite amount of cards that exist for a given issue. There will be a point when there are simply no more left to grade, and I'm pretty sure the collector holding the only PSA 10 in the world (if that's the case) will feel pretty good about their purchase regardless if one bumps later or if some collectors say it's not worthy of such a grade (usually only by a scan from VCP). I'd also like him to answer what he considers to be "modern". Of course he's free to ignore these points and questions, as he has, for whatever reasons he may have ... but they do have a bearing on why some pay what they do for "the best of the best" PSA 10s.
<< <i>interesting debate and i fall in the middle.
own a 74 ryan 10. however, is not listed in my #1 set. i have a 9 in there, because it's a better looking card, imo. my gpa is lower, but so what.
with that being said, i'm certainly not regretting what i picked my 10 up for....and consider it to have been a wise investment. >>
I wouldn't say it's much of a debate. Everyone knows grading is subjective. And yes bumps happen on occasion and some cards appear overgraded. But it's a tired story where some people take gabs at those who enjoy PSA 10s. PSA says they are best of the best, anyone can agree or disagree, but making fun (as IMO SultanOfSwat has done in this thread) of those who enjoy these 10s does no one good.
As for 10s, there's much more to the technical grade of a 10 than is often seen in a scan. Way too often people debate the strength of a card based on a scan of the front versus holding it in hand. Some might say a PSA 6 looks better because it has slightly better centering than a 10 and yet has veins that don't show up in the scan. Others simply don't know what to look for when they applaud or criticize a card. That's why so many rely on PSA and why their opinion has and will carry so much weight over time.
I would still like to hear SultanOfSwat comment on the finite amount of cards that exist for a given issue. There will be a point when there are simply no more left to grade, and I'm pretty sure the collector holding the only PSA 10 in the world (if that's the case) will feel pretty good about their purchase regardless if one bumps later or if some collectors say it's not worthy of such a grade (usually only by a scan from VCP). I'd also like him to answer what he considers to be "modern". Of course he's free to ignore these points and questions, as he has, for whatever reasons he may have ... but they do have a bearing on why some pay what they do for "the best of the best" PSA 10s. >>
Here you go again with your false accusations trying to twist the facts. I am not making fun of, or taking jabs at anyone. I am merely discussing the subjectivity of grading and why not all 10's are created equal. Others have detailed that for you, but you keep on putting your false narrative out there. Maybe this is an attempt to get the masses on your side and upset with me? I don't know, but I must say your accusing me of something that I am not doing is not appreciated.
A scan that clearly shows soft corners, chipped edges, surface marks, and other flaws, while being in a 10 holder, speaks for its self. You're defense is sounding like a denial of reality, or as if our eyes can't see what is right in front of us.
These modern graded cards are not going to go the way of the dinosaur. In my opinion, to continue to make that argument is silly. That is why I have no desire to keep addressing that issue.
SultanOfSwat, you're criticizing people for buying what you consider to be "weak" PSA 10s. You should probably edit your posts to say "what I consider to be weak PSA 10s" because you're not the end all of judgement on these cards.
IMO, your comments come off as pretty arrogant, saying "if some people want to buy based solely on the label, and not the actual card in the holder, they can have at it. It's just not for me".
Also, when you compared the PSA 9 to the PSA 10 Winfield you didn't post the back of the card. The back sometimes plays a great role in the grade a card receives. And, as I've said before, there are other issues that popup only when a card is in hand. Linking a scan to say conclusively that one card has better eye appeal than another is simply not telling the full story.
You also mention a bubble bursting, which is an uncertainty, and yet refuse to acknowledge the reality that cards simply disappear over time for one reason or another, and eventually there will be no more left to grade for a particular year.
I keep asking you what you consider "modern" and you keep dodging the question. For cards pre 1980/81 the above point is even more evident in today's market, as it is even more when you go back further in decades.
You say stuff like "But who wants to own one that looks like a 7 or 8, and pay 10 prices for it, when a sharp PSA 9 can be had for thousands less?". That's your opinion that they look like a 7 or 8, in general. Clearly no one wants to pay strong money for a card that's in the wrong holder but you're acting like you know better than, for example, the person who bought the Dave Winfield. You're entitled to your opinion, yes, but it's your opinion and not the final word on the grade.
You say "There is no shortage of these products out there so far, and more and more of these cards will be submitted over time." For which years? Some there are shortages of, others there aren't, but over time all will decrease due to the chaos of existence, do you agree or disagree?
You say "You can also find most of these modern gem mint rookies up for auction yearly as they are passed like hot potatoes from auction house to auction house, then Ebay, and on down the line." Again what do you consider modern?
You say "No, cards like the Henderson are overpriced." That's your opinion and not a fact. Saying a blanket statement like that insults those who have spent a lot of hard earned money on this card. I haven't bought it, but if I had I would take offense to what you said here.
I agree with you when you say that under magnification you can (sometimes) find errors in 10s, sometimes you can't. The same holds true for 9s. Just because you have a 9 that you consider sharp doesn't mean if you resubbed it it wouldn't come back an 8 or less. Having a 10 means something, even the ones you call "soft". Yes we all know that grading is subjective, mistakes do happen, but in general, there is a reason why 10s get the grade that they get, and IMO, I don't like some of how you question why people buy these 10s.
You say "What I said was that I find it silly to pay insane amounts of money for soft 10's when you can often find better cards in 9 holders." That, once again, is YOUR OPINION, these aren't "better" cards by PSA standards but by your own. I would phrase your comments more appropriately and then your point might be welcomed more softly.
You say "I don't try and fail most times to cross 9's to 10's because I do my homework and know what to submit based on what is acceptable to get in to a 10 holder." Do you have any examples you can post of this? Do you have a PSA Registry I can see so I can get a better understanding of what you consider to be strong?
You say "Of course the graders know what they are doing, but I'm not sure that you fully understand the subjectivity of the grading process. It's not a science. I just showed you two 10's with corner wear. The Winfield and Montana rookies. So what's the point? A 10 number on the holder doesn't mean that is the best conditioned card you can buy for the money. Also, a 10 does not truly mean perfect because I have never seen a 10 from any grading company that didn't have a flaw somewhere under close examination." I think everyone who posts on this forum understands the subjectivity to the grading process. And a 10 on the holder means that according to PSA, the card has a summary of values that properly put it in that holder. I don't think anyone here is saying that any 10s are perfect, but I do believe that 10s are supposed to be "the best of the best" according to PSA.
You say "Here you go again with your false accusations trying to twist the facts. I am not making fun of, or taking jabs at anyone. I am merely discussing the subjectivity of grading and why not all 10's are created equal. Others have detailed that for you, but you keep on putting your false narrative out there. Maybe this is an attempt to get the masses on your side and upset with me? I don't know, but I must say your accusing me of something that I am not doing is not appreciated." I've quoted you in many places above to point out what I'm saying and to show I'm not making any false accusations.
You say "A scan that clearly shows soft corners, chipped edges, surface marks, and other flaws, while being in a 10 holder, speaks for its self. You're defense is sounding like a denial of reality, or as if our eyes can't see what is right in front of us." As I've said before IMO a scan doesn't tell the whole story, especially when it doesn't show the back and when it's low resolution. A card in hand is the only way to truly see all the detail that may or may not merit a 10 holder.
You say "These modern graded cards are not going to go the way of the dinosaur. In my opinion, to continue to make that argument is silly. That is why I have no desire to keep addressing that issue." You are entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong, and that it's silly to say something is "silly" without explaining why. There was a finite number of cards produced for any given year. There are only so many that are worthy of being graded, there are only so many that will survive the test of time, this is the nature of existence, and why, over time, the populations of any given year will simply decrease.
I do hope you consider what I've written here, and if not that's fine. Enjoy collecting for whatever reasons you enjoy it, and let others do the same for just like cards all of our days are numbered.
Gregf, relax. I 'm not the only one who is trying to explain to you that just because the label says 10, doesn't mean it's the best conditioned card.
There are people who are in love with buying what the holder says, thinking they obtained the "best of the best" card available, and until they finally realize there is more to it than that, it will be like banging ones head on the wall trying to explain it to them. Such as this debate with you is going.
You keep acting as if most of these cards are going to suddenly disappear. Where are they going to go? Do you know something the rest of us don't?
I hope you realize this day and time is not like it was 50 years ago when cards weren't big business. Now they are. These things are entombed in plastic and fawned after with kid gloves, and when that owner passes, their family members have the internet to use to search and find out exactly what they have. In the end, most of the cards end up at an auction house or Ebay where they are sold and the cycle repeats. Like I said, they are not going to become dinosaurs.
<< <i>You say "A scan that clearly shows soft corners, chipped edges, surface marks, and other flaws, while being in a 10 holder, speaks for its self. You're defense is sounding like a denial of reality, or as if our eyes can't see what is right in front of us." As I've said before IMO a scan doesn't tell the whole story, especially when it doesn't show the back and when it's low resolution. A card in hand is the only way to truly see all the detail that may or may not merit a 10 holder. >>
I took the time to search completed auctions for that 9, so you can't continue to suggest I was trying to hide something by not showing the back.
If both labels were covered up so no one knew the grades, tell me which one of the two they would more than likely pick? Be honest.
Personally, I'll take the 9 and the thousands in cash that I would save in the process. Clearly, it's the better card of the two.
Gregf, I will show you another big card that went the other way, from a 9 to a 10. Like I said, it's not uncommon for this to happen, and something I have done many, many times over the years.
The Pujols card is not mine. It's just something I ran across when searching completed auctions this evening. The owner of this card went from a $3000-$4000 card, to a card that should bring around $16,000-$18,000.
BUYING Frank Gotch T229 Kopec Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses. >>
And your answer is precisely why some collectors get so frustrated. They try to determine a grade based on a scan when nothing compares to a card in hand.
Since you refuse to share your Registry would you share a 9 you have that you bumped to a 10 or that is superior to a 10?
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses. >>
And your answer is precisely why some collectors get so frustrated. They try to determine a grade based on a scan when nothing compares to a card in hand.
Since you refuse to share your Registry would you share a 9 you have that you bumped to a 10 or that is superior to a 10? >>
So are you telling me you can't see chipping on the edges, the big print dot to the right of his hat, the black speckling on the surface on the front, or the less than sharp top two corners on the Winfield 10?
I never said I had a 10 that was superior to a 10. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is that not all 10's are created equal.
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses. >>
And your answer is precisely why some collectors get so frustrated. They try to determine a grade based on a scan when nothing compares to a card in hand.
Since you refuse to share your Registry would you share a 9 you have that you bumped to a 10 or that is superior to a 10? >>
So are you telling me you can't see chipping on the edges, the big print dot to the right of his hat, the black speckling on the surface on the front, or the less than sharp top two corners on the Winfield 10?
I never said I had a 10 that was superior to a 10. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is that not all 10's are created equal. >>
You said in an earlier post:
And I assure you I know how to spot the difference between a 9 and 10. I can't tell you how many 9's I have turned in to 10's upon re-submitting since about 2000.
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses. >>
And your answer is precisely why some collectors get so frustrated. They try to determine a grade based on a scan when nothing compares to a card in hand.
Since you refuse to share your Registry would you share a 9 you have that you bumped to a 10 or that is superior to a 10? >>
So are you telling me you can't see chipping on the edges, the big print dot to the right of his hat, the black speckling on the surface on the front, or the less than sharp top two corners on the Winfield 10?
I never said I had a 10 that was superior to a 10. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is that not all 10's are created equal. >>
You said in an earlier post:
And I assure you I know how to spot the difference between a 9 and 10. I can't tell you how many 9's I have turned in to 10's upon re-submitting since about 2000.
Please provide at least one example of the above. >>
I have posted examples of public cards that prove my point. I'd rather not post my private collection.
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses. >>
And your answer is precisely why some collectors get so frustrated. They try to determine a grade based on a scan when nothing compares to a card in hand.
Since you refuse to share your Registry would you share a 9 you have that you bumped to a 10 or that is superior to a 10? >>
So are you telling me you can't see chipping on the edges, the big print dot to the right of his hat, the black speckling on the surface on the front, or the less than sharp top two corners on the Winfield 10?
I never said I had a 10 that was superior to a 10. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is that not all 10's are created equal. >>
You said in an earlier post:
And I assure you I know how to spot the difference between a 9 and 10. I can't tell you how many 9's I have turned in to 10's upon re-submitting since about 2000.
Please provide at least one example of the above. >>
I have posted examples of public cards that prove my point. I'd rather not post my private collection. >>
Exactly. Because you are hiding information, just like a scan on a computer screen hides information that a professional grader would use to grade a card.
Nothing lasts forever, and those who understand that best make the wisest decisions.
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses. >>
And your answer is precisely why some collectors get so frustrated. They try to determine a grade based on a scan when nothing compares to a card in hand.
Since you refuse to share your Registry would you share a 9 you have that you bumped to a 10 or that is superior to a 10? >>
So are you telling me you can't see chipping on the edges, the big print dot to the right of his hat, the black speckling on the surface on the front, or the less than sharp top two corners on the Winfield 10?
I never said I had a 10 that was superior to a 10. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is that not all 10's are created equal. >>
You said in an earlier post:
And I assure you I know how to spot the difference between a 9 and 10. I can't tell you how many 9's I have turned in to 10's upon re-submitting since about 2000.
Please provide at least one example of the above. >>
I have posted examples of public cards that prove my point. I'd rather not post my private collection. >>
Exactly. Because you are hiding information, just like a scan on a computer screen hides information that a professional grader would use to grade a card.
Nothing lasts forever, and those who understand that best make the wisest decisions. >>
Oh, so I am hiding something because I don't want to post my collection? Really? Isn't that like me saying prove you don't beat your wife or else you are hiding something?
You just don't want to accept reality or the evidence that has been laid out here. That is your choice.
This whole argument is absurd, and the intrusion of alts just exacerbates it. However I do want to say one thing: I have seen a good portion of Sultan's collection and it is SPECTACULAR!!!
I've skimmed through this thread and got to this. My kind of humor, thanks!
Back on topic, that is one ugly 10. Anyone wanting to invest in cards should look at that card and read Sulton's comments. Class is in session: card investing 101.
I certainly learned a lot lurking on this forum for years. Entirely changed my buying behavior for the better.
Forgive me for my ignorance, but how do you get the same cert # when you bump your card from a 9 to a 10? has that always been the case for bumps?
thanks in advance
Collecting PSA 9's from 1970-1977. Raw 9's from 72-77. Raw 10's from '78-'83. Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks. Prefer to buy in bulk.
<<I've skimmed through this thread and got to this. My kind of humor, thanks!>>
sdub,
anytime! glad ya got it. very few seem to and appreciate that you appreciated it!
<< <i>This whole argument is absurd, and the intrusion of alts just exacerbates it. However I do want to say one thing: I have seen a good portion of Sultan's collection and it is SPECTACULAR!!! >>
i remember your original question being ignored as well dan!
Forgive me for my ignorance, but how do you get the same cert # when you bump your card from a 9 to a 10? has that always been the case for bumps?
Yes.
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.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So less gold should buy more cards?
And in that sense it seems the bubble popped one Gretzky and Rose rookies a while ago.
For these 2 examples
And a PSA 10 Henderson in 2001 was what 5000(17 ounces of gold in 2001 value) and now 30,000 ( or 25 ounces of gold in todays value)
Which goes with the point it is a good investment in buying PSA 10s >>
No, cards like the Henderson are overpriced, and gold is undervalued. The high grade modern rookie cards are in a bubble due to the easy money being made in the manipulated stock market that even guys like Warren Buffet says is due for a correction. When it corrects and the chickens come home to roost, so too will these modern high grade rookie cards that have skyrocketed. >>
Cards like 1980 Henderson rookie are not modern cards and you would know if you have collected a long time. Most people refer to modern cards as late 1980's to now. Cards in the 80's like henderson rookie, bird magic, rice, etc were not mass produced like the ones beginning in the late 80's and early 90's. >>
I have been at this since the 70's. Is that long enough?
The Henderson is a modern card. And I assure you they produced plenty of these cards, along with the Bird, Magic, Rice, etc to go around.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So less gold should buy more cards?
And in that sense it seems the bubble popped one Gretzky and Rose rookies a while ago.
For these 2 examples
And a PSA 10 Henderson in 2001 was what 5000(17 ounces of gold in 2001 value) and now 30,000 ( or 25 ounces of gold in todays value)
Which goes with the point it is a good investment in buying PSA 10s >>
No, cards like the Henderson are overpriced, and gold is undervalued. The high grade modern rookie cards are in a bubble due to the easy money being made in the manipulated stock market that even guys like Warren Buffet says is due for a correction. When it corrects and the chickens come home to roost, so too will these modern high grade rookie cards that have skyrocketed. >>
Cards like 1980 Henderson rookie are not modern cards and you would know if you have collected a long time. Most people refer to modern cards as late 1980's to now. Cards in the 80's like henderson rookie, bird magic, rice, etc were not mass produced like the ones beginning in the late 80's and early 90's. >>
I have been at this since the 70's. Is that long enough?
The Henderson is a modern card. And I assure you they produced plenty of these cards, along with the Bird, Magic, Rice, etc to go around. >>
You've been at this since the 1970's and still haven't realized that PSA 10's generally outperform PSA 9's of the same card?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So less gold should buy more cards?
And in that sense it seems the bubble popped one Gretzky and Rose rookies a while ago.
For these 2 examples
And a PSA 10 Henderson in 2001 was what 5000(17 ounces of gold in 2001 value) and now 30,000 ( or 25 ounces of gold in todays value)
Which goes with the point it is a good investment in buying PSA 10s >>
No, cards like the Henderson are overpriced, and gold is undervalued. The high grade modern rookie cards are in a bubble due to the easy money being made in the manipulated stock market that even guys like Warren Buffet says is due for a correction. When it corrects and the chickens come home to roost, so too will these modern high grade rookie cards that have skyrocketed. >>
Cards like 1980 Henderson rookie are not modern cards and you would know if you have collected a long time. Most people refer to modern cards as late 1980's to now. Cards in the 80's like henderson rookie, bird magic, rice, etc were not mass produced like the ones beginning in the late 80's and early 90's. >>
I have been at this since the 70's. Is that long enough?
The Henderson is a modern card. And I assure you they produced plenty of these cards, along with the Bird, Magic, Rice, etc to go around. >>
You've been at this since the 1970's and still haven't realized that PSA 10's generally outperform PSA 9's of the same card? >>
Did I ever say they didn't? No.. What I said was that I find it silly to pay insane amounts of money for soft 10's when you can often find better cards in 9 holders. I already showed you that earlier in this thread when comparing that PSA 9 Winfield to the current PSA 10 in question.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So less gold should buy more cards?
And in that sense it seems the bubble popped one Gretzky and Rose rookies a while ago.
For these 2 examples
And a PSA 10 Henderson in 2001 was what 5000(17 ounces of gold in 2001 value) and now 30,000 ( or 25 ounces of gold in todays value)
Which goes with the point it is a good investment in buying PSA 10s >>
No, cards like the Henderson are overpriced, and gold is undervalued. The high grade modern rookie cards are in a bubble due to the easy money being made in the manipulated stock market that even guys like Warren Buffet says is due for a correction. When it corrects and the chickens come home to roost, so too will these modern high grade rookie cards that have skyrocketed. >>
Cards like 1980 Henderson rookie are not modern cards and you would know if you have collected a long time. Most people refer to modern cards as late 1980's to now. Cards in the 80's like henderson rookie, bird magic, rice, etc were not mass produced like the ones beginning in the late 80's and early 90's. >>
I have been at this since the 70's. Is that long enough?
The Henderson is a modern card. And I assure you they produced plenty of these cards, along with the Bird, Magic, Rice, etc to go around. >>
You've been at this since the 1970's and still haven't realized that PSA 10's generally outperform PSA 9's of the same card? >>
Did I ever say they didn't? No.. What I said was that I find it silly to pay insane amounts of money for soft 10's when you can often find better cards in 9 holders. I already showed you that earlier in this thread when comparing that PSA 9 Winfield to the current PSA 10 in question. >>
But you are assuming the better 9 will cross to a 10. What if the 9 doesn't cross to a 10?
Then obviously usually the soft 10 will outperform your strong 9 not just for this winfield card but most other cards. The owner of a weak Jerry Rice PSA 10 rookie who bought it 3 years ago wouldn't be considered silly correct?
Of course not he would have made 4 to 5 times on his jerry rice 10 in 3 years is my point.
<< <i>But you are assuming the better 9 will cross to a 10. What if the 9 doesn't cross to a 10?
Then obviously usually the soft 10 will outperform your strong 9 not just for this winfield card but most other cards. The owner of a weak Jerry Rice PSA 10 rookie who bought it 3 years ago wouldn't be considered silly correct?
Of course not he would have made 4 to 5 times on his jerry rice 10 in 3 years is my point. >>
That is why you need to know what you are doing before submitting. And even on the rare occasion one doesn't cross, who cares? At least you don't have thousands in an over graded 10.
I could not stand to look at or own a 10 with soft corners, surface and edges issues, and know I paid thousands for it, when I could have a 9 that was clearly the better card for a fraction of the price.
I also find it interesting that you continue to dodge this point.
One day collectors are going to wake up and stop buying just the label as they get more educated on the issues that not all 10's are created equal. PWCC's sticker is a step towards that happening for many investors/collectors. Once they finally do fully wake up to this, I wouldn't want to be trying to peddle those soft 10's that I had thousands of dollars tied up in. But that's just me.
<< <i>
<< <i>But you are assuming the better 9 will cross to a 10. What if the 9 doesn't cross to a 10?
Then obviously usually the soft 10 will outperform your strong 9 not just for this winfield card but most other cards. The owner of a weak Jerry Rice PSA 10 rookie who bought it 3 years ago wouldn't be considered silly correct?
Of course not he would have made 4 to 5 times on his jerry rice 10 in 3 years is my point. >>
That is why you need to know what you are doing before submitting. And even on the rare occasion one doesn't cross, who cares? At least you don't have thousands in an over graded 10.
I could not stand to look at or own a 10 with soft corners, surface and edges issues, and know I paid thousands for it, when I could have a 9 that was clearly the better card for a fraction of the price.
I also find it interesting that you continue to dodge this point.
One day collectors are going to wake up and stop buying just the label as they get more educated on the issues that not all 10 are created equal. PWCC's sticker is a step towards that happening for many investors/collectors. Once they do finally wake up to this, I wouldn't want to be trying to peddle those soft 10's that I had thousands of dollars tied up in. But that's just me. >>
Of course collectors would like to have the strongest PSA 10's possible. But you fail to recognize the same point that people who buy weak 10's have in many cases made good investments as the weak 10's have generally outperformed the strong 9's. So the collectors with what you consider have a weak 10 actually made a good purchase. You keep saying the strong 9 was the better purchase for a fraction of the price.
But you are in this to make money as you try to bump 9's to 10's. That rarely happens.
I would say people who buy what you consider weak 10's have made better purchases over the years such as buying a weak Jerry Rice PSA 10 rookie 3 years ago which has gone up in value 4-5 times and are wiser collectors than people like you who try and most of the time fail to bump strong 9's to 10's.
<< <i>
Of course collectors would like to have the strongest PSA 10's possible. But you fail to recognize the same point that people who buy weak 10's have in many cases made good investments as the weak 10's have generally outperformed the strong 9's. So the collectors with what you consider have a weak 10 actually made a good purchase. You keep saying the strong 9 was the better purchase for a fraction of the price.
But you are in this to make money as you try to bump 9's to 10's. That rarely happens.
I would say people who buy what you consider weak 10's have made better purchases over the years such as buying a weak Jerry Rice PSA 10 rookie 3 years ago which has gone up in value 4-5 times as smarter and better collectors than people like you who try and most of the time fail to bump strong 9's to 10's. >>
I don't feel you're even listening to what I'm saying. I am not having a debate as to what outperforms what. Obviously, a 10 is going to do better than a 9 because there are less of them. That is just plain common sense.
What I am saying is that I'm personally not going to buy 8's, 8.5's, or 9's for 10 money just because they managed to slip in to a 10 holder. If people want to do that, then more power to them.
I don't try and fail most times to cross 9's to 10's because I do my homework and know what to submit based on what is acceptable to get in to a 10 holder.
But joking aside, who really cares if some random dude buys a card in any grade that even triples in value in a year; even if it's like a 50k card. It's no Powerball. And who cares if some other dude has a card that "goes down" in sixteen months? Schadenfreude is karmically no bueno.
There will be always be downs and ups; there will always be economic cycles. A collector can hold a card through numerous ups and downs-- it's all about personal horizon. When a collector's horizon of holding a card is on the order of decades, or if he buys to keep for a lifetime of joy in collecting, such a collector doesn't give a flying %&*# what the value is in one year or five or ten. Such a collector is enjoying the beloved cards, not sweating auction results.
Also, it was posted above that cards like the 1980 Henderson are not modern or mass produced; it's all relative; the 1980 Henderson is certainly common and mass produced relative to the likes of any popular Pre War card, like a CJ Shoeless or a Gehrig Rookie '25.
If someone wants to buy a 10 or a 2, as long as they're happy with their collection. It's all good. If one is collecting older cards, even from the 50s, let alone Pre War, the whole 10 versus 9 thing has no bearing whatsoever, for the most part.
Talking about 10s and 9s, yes, the resellers and investor/flippers seem to do quite well on resale. There is also a reason a lot of these cards change hands so much on the sale market in somewhat short periods of time: they are good investments but also hot potatoes to a degree-- in that if anything happens to the company printing the little sticker or if more pop up, there are risks. There's also no denying the fact that the best card in any grade can often equal or even surpass cards in the next grade up. That's the subjective grading game. There's also no denying that when one is evaluating what to buy for their collection or flipping portfolio, there is a huge price jump from 9 to 10, for a very small actual increase in card quality. Some will look at that noteworthy relationship between price and card quality and choose the lower grade, seeing value and the ability to secure a desired image for their collection while also retaining resources to expand their collection. Others will go for the 10, whether to flip because they prefer that for fun and profit (and for some profit is fun in and of itself, which is cool) or because they like simply the card. Both choices are great for whoever makes them.
It's also true that there are plenty of guys who can afford a higher graded card, but choose a lower graded one. I wanted a Montana RC. I could grab a 10. I went with a 5 that I loved the look of. Cost me like thirty bucks; I get to see the image in my collection and I don't have to ever stress it being a big chunk of change. Again, it's all good for all parties. Personally, I'd be thrilled if every card in the world cost only a dollar and could only ever be sold for a dollar
<< <i>Man, so psyched about this new pickup below. There's some tilt, but the sheer image, with that green grass, blue sky, and the player's batting stance-- it really brings be back to youth and gives me such enjoyment...
But joking aside, who really cares if some random dude buys a card in any grade that even triples in value in a year; even if it's like a 50k card. It's no Powerball. And who cares if some other dude has a card that "goes down" in sixteen months? Schadenfreude is karmically no bueno.
There will be always be downs and ups; there will always be economic cycles. A collector can hold a card through numerous ups and downs-- it's all about personal horizon. When a collector's horizon of holding a card is on the order of decades, or if he buys to keep for a lifetime of joy in collecting, such a collector doesn't give a flying %&*# what the value is in one year or five or ten. Such a collector is enjoying the beloved cards, not sweating auction results.
Also, it was posted above that cards like the 1980 Henderson are not modern or mass produced; it's all relative; the 1980 Henderson is certainly common and mass produced relative to the likes of any popular Pre War card, like a CJ Shoeless or a Gehrig Rookie '25.
If someone wants to buy a 10 or a 2, as long as they're happy with their collection. It's all good. If one is collecting older cards, even from the 50s, let alone Pre War, the whole 10 versus 9 thing has no bearing whatsoever, for the most part.
Talking about 10s and 9s, yes, the resellers and investor/flippers seem to do quite well on resale. There is also a reason a lot of these cards change hands so much on the sale market in somewhat short periods of time: they are good investments but also hot potatoes to a degree-- in that if anything happens to the company printing the little sticker or if more pop up, there are risks. There's also no denying the fact that the best card in any grade can often equal or even surpass cards in the next grade up. That's the subjective grading game. There's also no denying that when one is evaluating what to buy for their collection or flipping portfolio, there is a huge price jump from 9 to 10, for a very small actual increase in card quality. Some will look at that noteworthy relationship between price and card quality and choose the lower grade, seeing value and the ability to secure a desired image for their collection while also retaining resources to expand their collection. Others will go for the 10, whether to flip because they prefer that for fun and profit (and for some profit is fun in and of itself, which is cool) or because they like simply the card. Both choices are great for whoever makes them.
It's also true that there are plenty of guys who can afford a higher graded card, but choose a lower graded one. I wanted a Montana RC. I could grab a 10. I went with a 5 that I loved the look of. Cost me like thirty bucks; I get to see the image in my collection and I don't have to ever stress it being a big chunk of change. Again, it's all good for all parties. Personally, I'd be thrilled if every card in the world cost only a dollar and could only ever be sold for a dollar
This is all too well reasoned for 12:30 AM on a Fri/Sat night. Does this mean no hangover and no cards? It's not too late for a drink! I wanna see some centered Mantles tomorrow morning. Seriously, it only took 109 posts for me to get to throw one of these out here:
+1
<< <i>
<< <i>
Of course collectors would like to have the strongest PSA 10's possible. But you fail to recognize the same point that people who buy weak 10's have in many cases made good investments as the weak 10's have generally outperformed the strong 9's. So the collectors with what you consider have a weak 10 actually made a good purchase. You keep saying the strong 9 was the better purchase for a fraction of the price.
But you are in this to make money as you try to bump 9's to 10's. That rarely happens.
I would say people who buy what you consider weak 10's have made better purchases over the years such as buying a weak Jerry Rice PSA 10 rookie 3 years ago which has gone up in value 4-5 times as smarter and better collectors than people like you who try and most of the time fail to bump strong 9's to 10's. >>
I don't feel you're even listening to what I'm saying. I am not having a debate as to what outperforms what. Obviously, a 10 is going to do better than a 9 because there are less of them. That is just plain common sense.
What I am saying is that I'm personally not going to buy 8's, 8.5's, or 9's for 10 money just because they managed to slip in to a 10 holder. If people want to do that, then more power to them.
I don't try and fail most times to cross 9's to 10's because I do my homework and know what to submit based on what is acceptable to get in to a 10 holder. >>
PSA graders knows that they are doing. There is a reason it was given a 9 in the first place such as surface imperfection or corner or edge wear.
<< <i>PSA graders knows that they are doing. There is a reason it was given a 9 in the first place such as surface imperfection or corner or edge wear. >>
Of course the graders know what they are doing, but I'm not sure that you fully understand the subjectivity of the grading process. It's not a science. I just showed you two 10's with corner wear. The Winfield and Montana rookies. So what's the point? A 10 number on the holder doesn't mean that is the best conditioned card you can buy for the money. Also, a 10 does not truly mean perfect because I have never seen a 10 from any grading company that didn't have a flaw somewhere under close examination.
The bottom line in this. There are 10's in 9 holders if you know what you are looking for. I have done very well over the years finding those cards and crossing them over to 10's. You can take the free advice and use it to better your collection, or you can ignore it. It's your choice.
<< <i> By the cert no., it was originally graded by 4SC. >>
How can this be determined? Would love to know.
It is my understanding that any flip label with the grade on the 2nd row was graded before 4SC was in existence.
<< <i>
<< <i> By the cert no., it was originally graded by 4SC. >>
How can this be determined? Would love to know.
It is my understanding that any flip label with the grade on the 2nd row was graded before 4SC was in existence. >>
That is incorrect. 4SC was a prominent PSA graded card seller long before the advent of the half point grading system.
Back then, larger submitters like 4SC and DSL had assigned cert # ranges. For 4SC, they began with 812XXX and ran through 819XXX (IIRC, the range may have gone a bit higher or began a bit earlier, but this is what I recall from buying from them at the time). Shortly thereafter, these assigned cert # sequences were abandoned in favor of the sequential cert # format you see today.
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>Which products are you referring to? If we're talking pre 1980s than yes there is a shortage, and it will just get "shorter" over time. You also need to look at things from a much wider perspective, at least when it comes to time. In the decades and centuries to follow many of these cards will be lost or destroyed. Fewer and fewer raw cards will be submitted to replace these relics and over time the population will only decrease.
Again, what do you refer to as "modern"? Also, IMO if you knew how to spot the difference between a 9 and 10 then you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. For those in the know, there is, most times, a quite evident difference between a pre 1980s 9 and a 10. Many times it has to do with centering (front AND back) and how clean the photos and borders are.
It's fine if you don't care about these qualities, there's nothing wrong with owning a 9, 8, raw or anything that you enjoy. But to say what you say about people who own 10s, well that just says to me that you don't really know how to spot one. >>
These modern high grade rookie cards are not dinosaurs. They are not going to grow extinct so I find that argument laughable.
And I assure you I know how to spot the difference between a 9 and 10. I can't tell you how many 9's I have turned in to 10's upon re-submitting since about 2000.
Like I said before, no card is truly perfect. I can find a flaw on every 10 I have ever handled. They key to grading is to find a card that might not be flawless, but is good enough to get in to the next level's holder. When you finally figure that out, and don't just buy a card blindly for what the label says, that is when you finally have a full understanding of the grading game. And in the process, you can build a nice collection and not spend silly amounts of money just so you can have bragging rights of owning that 10 on a label. I have seen those guys, and in the end, they tie up tons of money in cards that are in 10 holders, but if cracked and re-submitted, might be 9's at best. Or in this latest Winfield's case, maybe an 8-8.5 at best on a good day.
Like my dad used to say, some people have more money than brains, and if they are not careful, they will end up with little of either. >>
Which years are you referring to? Again you are ignoring my question so you can go off on an unrelated tangent where you make predictions that don't seem to have any logic to support them. I can't take any of your novellas seriously and I'm pretty sure you're just trying to get people riled up by attacking those who covet the best of the best.
You're just taking pot shots at collectors. And like others have said it sounds like simple sour grapes here. There can be many reasons for this, if you want to share your frustrations in a polite or honestly curious way then please do. But attacking learned collectors here isn't the way.
As I said earlier, and even if we're talking about stuff from the 1980s and moving forward, there is simply a finite amount of these cards. In time many will vanish one way or another and the ones that have been preserved, especially the higher grade and higher quality ones, will only increase in value.
There is a distinction between the best card and the highest grade assigned by some grader; there is similarly a distinction between those who want the "best of the best" CARDS and the best of the best GRADES. And it's also worth noting that for many of the hobby's "best" cards-- or I prefer the term "legendary" or "iconic," since best implies some sort of competition (and despite the Registry's efforts, I personally have grown over the years to abhor the notion of pitting one lover of baseball cards "against" another, especially when the "weapon," so to speak, is some random guy's opinion-- who often knows less than a very experienced collector)-- 10s and even 9s just don't exist (Balt News Ruth, Just So Young, M101 Ruth, T206 Wagner and Cobb, T210 Old Mill, The CJs, the list goes on). While technical condition, which the TPGS tend to grade, can often be easy to compare (declaring one card in "better" condition), eye appeal is an enormous factor that for many utterly trumps the numeric grade.
Take for example, someone with a PSA 10 of any card. If that is really "the best of the best," then of course it would reason that it is "better" than a PSA 9 of the same card. But Lo & Behold, let's now say the owner of what was a nanosecond ago the "inferior" MINT 9 example, now reviews or crack-subs that very card into a 10. Is this new 10 not the very same card it was a moment ago in the 9 holder? Has it become any "better?" Of course not. So in truth, the 9 and the 10-- the cards themselves-- were always equal, or perhaps, depending on how collectors' eyes see it, the "new" 10, the card that was just moments ago a 9, is even "better." So back when they were a 9 and 10, the 9 was really just as nice or even "better" than the 10. Now someone who bought the 10 in the 10 holder might not like to see another essentially obtain the very same card for a small fraction of the price, but that's the nuance of the grading game. Hence why it's all about the cards we love.
The same situation can hold true for any card in any grade in a comparative analysis to a card in a higher grade. I have personally had cards jump up two or even two and a half grades-- it's a subjective opinion, the grade, after all-- prone to the same errors in judgement as umpires have with their own calls on the field. One ump's strike is another's ball, and so forth. There is rarely an absolute, though some crave an opinion they can hold as absolute, perhaps to create a sense of definitive order in an always gray world.
Also germane to this discussion is the notion of condition rarity versus true rarity. Across the spectrum of collectors, some embrace grades as a way to effectively create a finite or smaller population of a card, and other collectors simply see thousands of a 1980's card versus the likes of say a Lou Gehrig Rookie Card or Joe D Zeenut card. No right or wrong view there, just two schools of thought or philosophies that peacefully coexist.
Another interesting example for discussion among collectors would be a PSA 5 1956 Koufax I once saw on eBay. My eyes told me I would grade it a 7.5 or even an 8. Now some might think it crazy for me to say, "This 5 is in as good condition or better than that 7 over there." Yet guess what, the eyes of your fellow collector later proved to be more on point than "the system," as the card later became a 7.5. Examples like this abound. Just food for thought in this discussion.
<< <i>Perhaps I am not reading the same posts, but I don't see Sultan Of Swat taking any "potshots" at fellow collectors or reeking of sour grapes. Rather, he seems to merely be pointing out that there are cards currently residing in 9 holders that are literally of equal quality to those in 10 holders. This is absolutely true. One need not spend the premium that 10s command at auction, to obtain the exact same eye appeal and quality of actual card. Sultan is also correct in his assessment of traffic flowing the other way, from 10s to 9s, meaning that many 10s, if resubbed raw, would often come back 9s. I have effectively "bought" several 10s over the years for 9 or even raw prices, as have many of us. The same can be said of other grades, meaning the collector who buys what to his eye is GRADE X, even though he bought it raw or in a GRADE X-Y holder-- and he can later find the grader agrees with him on a review or crack resubmission, if he so desires. Lately myself I just save the fees and keep buying cards, LOL.
There is a distinction between the best card and the highest grade assigned by some grader; there is similarly a distinction between those who want the "best of the best" CARDS and the best of the best GRADES. And it's also worth noting that for many of the hobby's "best" cards-- or I prefer the term "legendary" or "iconic," since best implies some sort of competition (and despite the Registry's efforts, I personally have grown over the years to abhor the notion of pitting one lover of baseball cards "against" another, especially when the "weapon," so to speak, is some random guy's opinion-- who often knows less than a very experienced collector)-- 10s and even 9s just don't exist (Balt News Ruth, Just So Young, M101 Ruth, T206 Wagner and Cobb, T210 Old Mill, The CJs, the list goes on). While technical condition, which the TPGS tend to grade, can often be easy to compare (declaring one card in "better" condition), eye appeal is an enormous factor that for many utterly trumps the numeric grade.
Take for example, someone with a PSA 10 of any card. If that is really "the best of the best," then of course it would reason that it is "better" than a PSA 9 of the same card. But Lo & Behold, let's now say the owner of what was a nanosecond ago the "inferior" MINT 9 example, now reviews or crack-subs that very card into a 10. Is this new 10 not the very same card it was a moment ago in the 9 holder? Has it become any "better?" Of course not. So in truth, the 9 and the 10-- the cards themselves-- were always equal, or perhaps, depending on how collectors' eyes see it, the "new" 10, the card that was just moments ago a 9, is even "better." So back when they were a 9 and 10, the 9 was really just as nice or even "better" than the 10. Now someone who bought the 10 in the 10 holder might not like to see another essentially obtain the very same card for a small fraction of the price, but that's the nuance of the grading game. Hence why it's all about the cards we love.
The same situation can hold true for any card in any grade in a comparative analysis to a card in a higher grade. I have personally had cards jump up two or even two and a half grades-- it's a subjective opinion, the grade, after all-- prone to the same errors in judgement as umpires have with their own calls on the field. One ump's strike is another's ball, and so forth. There is rarely an absolute, though some crave an opinion they can hold as absolute, perhaps to create a sense of definitive order in an always gray world.
Also germane to this discussion is the notion of condition rarity versus true rarity. Across the spectrum of collectors, some embrace grades as a way to effectively create a finite or smaller population of a card, and other collectors simply see thousands of a 1980's card versus the likes of say a Lou Gehrig Rookie Card or Joe D Zeenut card. No right or wrong view there, just two schools of thought or philosophies that peacefully coexist.
Another interesting example for discussion among collectors would be a PSA 5 1956 Koufax I once saw on eBay. My eyes told me I would grade it a 7.5 or even an 8. Now some might think it crazy for me to say, "This 5 is in as good condition or better than that 7 over there." Yet guess what, the eyes of your fellow collector later proved to be more on point than "the system," as the card later became a 7.5. Examples like this abound. Just food for thought in this discussion. >>
Thank you for being the voice of reason here. I have no ill will, soured grapes, or any people that I want to take pot shots at or whatever else member gregf falsely accused me of. Some people just have a hard time accepting the realities of grading subjectivity when it's something they don't want to hear. That's ok. All you can do is plant seeds.
I remember one time in college, I slaved on a paper and handed it in-- professor gave it a C+. I was devastated. Later that same term, in another class, we had a paper due on the same book. I handed in the same paper and it got an A. Grades were never the same for me, after that. The same pitch can be called a game breaking Ball Four by one ump, or a no-hitter clinching strike by another ump. Grading cards is no different. One reviewer can rave over a restaurant or movie, another loathe it. It's all subjective. The good thing with cards is that by and large the beauties in any grade will strike most collectors' eyes the same way.
On the topic here, I remember when I first jumped hard into cards again as an adult (in numerical age, that is, haha), I looked at the flips as little missives from God. Then one day I was staring at a card I paid a lot for, right beside another I paid a lot less for-- and I simply could not logically justify why I should have paid so much more for what was, to my eye, clearly the lesser-looking card. After this happened a few times, it was like an epiphany and I just changed the way I collected and purchased. The great thing about our hobby is that it's so easy to change direction or taste-- due largely to the market confidence that TPGs do bring, which is great.
<< <i>And some people like me have had far too strong a cup of coffee this morning! Sorry for the long post! >>
LOL! No problem. You had something worth saying and I'm glad that you shared.
Is that M101 Ruth yours? If so, I am a jealous man. That thing has some amazing eye appeal
It is a low grade example, but was for years on display in the Dreier Museum up in Santa Barbara. Mr. Dreier could have bought any grade he wanted, but went with this one, which makes it more than good enough for me
<< <i>Thanks, yes, it's a cornerstone of my collection. It was 'the' dream card for me ever since I learned of the M101 Ruth many years ago, alongside the 52 Topps Mantle. I mean Babe Ruth is...beyond words. Just The Man. Global icon before mass media as we know it.
It is a low grade example, but was for years on display in the Dreier Museum up in Santa Barbara. Mr. Dreier could have bought any grade he wanted, but went with this one, which makes it more than good enough for me
Wow! Great job securing that one. As you can see from my user icon, I am a big, big fan of "The Babe".
Mr. Dreier had a great eye, as do you. Enjoy that treasure!
own a 74 ryan 10. however, is not listed in my #1 set. i have a 9 in there, because it's a better looking card, imo. my gpa is lower, but so what.
with that being said, i'm certainly not regretting what i picked my 10 up for....and consider it to have been a "wise investment".
<< <i>interesting debate and i fall in the middle.
own a 74 ryan 10. however, is not listed in my #1 set. i have a 9 in there, because it's a better looking card, imo. my gpa is lower, but so what.
with that being said, i'm certainly not regretting what i picked my 10 up for....and consider it to have been a wise investment. >>
I wouldn't say it's much of a debate. Everyone knows grading is subjective. And yes bumps happen on occasion and some cards appear overgraded. But it's a tired story where some people take gabs at those who enjoy PSA 10s. PSA says they are best of the best, anyone can agree or disagree, but making fun (as IMO SultanOfSwat has done in this thread) of those who enjoy these 10s does no one good.
As for 10s, there's much more to the technical grade of a 10 than is often seen in a scan. Way too often people debate the strength of a card based on a scan of the front versus holding it in hand. Some might say a PSA 6 looks better because it has slightly better centering than a 10 and yet has veins that don't show up in the scan. Others simply don't know what to look for when they applaud or criticize a card. That's why so many rely on PSA and why their opinion has and will carry so much weight over time.
I would still like to hear SultanOfSwat comment on the finite amount of cards that exist for a given issue. There will be a point when there are simply no more left to grade, and I'm pretty sure the collector holding the only PSA 10 in the world (if that's the case) will feel pretty good about their purchase regardless if one bumps later or if some collectors say it's not worthy of such a grade (usually only by a scan from VCP). I'd also like him to answer what he considers to be "modern". Of course he's free to ignore these points and questions, as he has, for whatever reasons he may have ... but they do have a bearing on why some pay what they do for "the best of the best" PSA 10s.
<< <i>
<< <i>interesting debate and i fall in the middle.
own a 74 ryan 10. however, is not listed in my #1 set. i have a 9 in there, because it's a better looking card, imo. my gpa is lower, but so what.
with that being said, i'm certainly not regretting what i picked my 10 up for....and consider it to have been a wise investment. >>
I wouldn't say it's much of a debate. Everyone knows grading is subjective. And yes bumps happen on occasion and some cards appear overgraded. But it's a tired story where some people take gabs at those who enjoy PSA 10s. PSA says they are best of the best, anyone can agree or disagree, but making fun (as IMO SultanOfSwat has done in this thread) of those who enjoy these 10s does no one good.
As for 10s, there's much more to the technical grade of a 10 than is often seen in a scan. Way too often people debate the strength of a card based on a scan of the front versus holding it in hand. Some might say a PSA 6 looks better because it has slightly better centering than a 10 and yet has veins that don't show up in the scan. Others simply don't know what to look for when they applaud or criticize a card. That's why so many rely on PSA and why their opinion has and will carry so much weight over time.
I would still like to hear SultanOfSwat comment on the finite amount of cards that exist for a given issue. There will be a point when there are simply no more left to grade, and I'm pretty sure the collector holding the only PSA 10 in the world (if that's the case) will feel pretty good about their purchase regardless if one bumps later or if some collectors say it's not worthy of such a grade (usually only by a scan from VCP). I'd also like him to answer what he considers to be "modern". Of course he's free to ignore these points and questions, as he has, for whatever reasons he may have ... but they do have a bearing on why some pay what they do for "the best of the best" PSA 10s. >>
Here you go again with your false accusations trying to twist the facts. I am not making fun of, or taking jabs at anyone. I am merely discussing the subjectivity of grading and why not all 10's are created equal. Others have detailed that for you, but you keep on putting your false narrative out there. Maybe this is an attempt to get the masses on your side and upset with me? I don't know, but I must say your accusing me of something that I am not doing is not appreciated.
A scan that clearly shows soft corners, chipped edges, surface marks, and other flaws, while being in a 10 holder, speaks for its self. You're defense is sounding like a denial of reality, or as if our eyes can't see what is right in front of us.
These modern graded cards are not going to go the way of the dinosaur. In my opinion, to continue to make that argument is silly. That is why I have no desire to keep addressing that issue.
IMO, your comments come off as pretty arrogant, saying "if some people want to buy based solely on the label, and not the actual card in the holder, they can have at it. It's just not for me".
Also, when you compared the PSA 9 to the PSA 10 Winfield you didn't post the back of the card. The back sometimes plays a great role in the grade a card receives. And, as I've said before, there are other issues that popup only when a card is in hand. Linking a scan to say conclusively that one card has better eye appeal than another is simply not telling the full story.
You also mention a bubble bursting, which is an uncertainty, and yet refuse to acknowledge the reality that cards simply disappear over time for one reason or another, and eventually there will be no more left to grade for a particular year.
I keep asking you what you consider "modern" and you keep dodging the question. For cards pre 1980/81 the above point is even more evident in today's market, as it is even more when you go back further in decades.
You say stuff like "But who wants to own one that looks like a 7 or 8, and pay 10 prices for it, when a sharp PSA 9 can be had for thousands less?". That's your opinion that they look like a 7 or 8, in general. Clearly no one wants to pay strong money for a card that's in the wrong holder but you're acting like you know better than, for example, the person who bought the Dave Winfield. You're entitled to your opinion, yes, but it's your opinion and not the final word on the grade.
You say "There is no shortage of these products out there so far, and more and more of these cards will be submitted over time." For which years? Some there are shortages of, others there aren't, but over time all will decrease due to the chaos of existence, do you agree or disagree?
You say "You can also find most of these modern gem mint rookies up for auction yearly as they are passed like hot potatoes from auction house to auction house, then Ebay, and on down the line." Again what do you consider modern?
You say "No, cards like the Henderson are overpriced." That's your opinion and not a fact. Saying a blanket statement like that insults those who have spent a lot of hard earned money on this card. I haven't bought it, but if I had I would take offense to what you said here.
I agree with you when you say that under magnification you can (sometimes) find errors in 10s, sometimes you can't. The same holds true for 9s. Just because you have a 9 that you consider sharp doesn't mean if you resubbed it it wouldn't come back an 8 or less. Having a 10 means something, even the ones you call "soft". Yes we all know that grading is subjective, mistakes do happen, but in general, there is a reason why 10s get the grade that they get, and IMO, I don't like some of how you question why people buy these 10s.
You say "What I said was that I find it silly to pay insane amounts of money for soft 10's when you can often find better cards in 9 holders." That, once again, is YOUR OPINION, these aren't "better" cards by PSA standards but by your own. I would phrase your comments more appropriately and then your point might be welcomed more softly.
You say "I don't try and fail most times to cross 9's to 10's because I do my homework and know what to submit based on what is acceptable to get in to a 10 holder." Do you have any examples you can post of this? Do you have a PSA Registry I can see so I can get a better understanding of what you consider to be strong?
You say "Of course the graders know what they are doing, but I'm not sure that you fully understand the subjectivity of the grading process. It's not a science. I just showed you two 10's with corner wear. The Winfield and Montana rookies. So what's the point? A 10 number on the holder doesn't mean that is the best conditioned card you can buy for the money. Also, a 10 does not truly mean perfect because I have never seen a 10 from any grading company that didn't have a flaw somewhere under close examination." I think everyone who posts on this forum understands the subjectivity to the grading process. And a 10 on the holder means that according to PSA, the card has a summary of values that properly put it in that holder. I don't think anyone here is saying that any 10s are perfect, but I do believe that 10s are supposed to be "the best of the best" according to PSA.
You say "Here you go again with your false accusations trying to twist the facts. I am not making fun of, or taking jabs at anyone. I am merely discussing the subjectivity of grading and why not all 10's are created equal. Others have detailed that for you, but you keep on putting your false narrative out there. Maybe this is an attempt to get the masses on your side and upset with me? I don't know, but I must say your accusing me of something that I am not doing is not appreciated." I've quoted you in many places above to point out what I'm saying and to show I'm not making any false accusations.
You say "A scan that clearly shows soft corners, chipped edges, surface marks, and other flaws, while being in a 10 holder, speaks for its self. You're defense is sounding like a denial of reality, or as if our eyes can't see what is right in front of us." As I've said before IMO a scan doesn't tell the whole story, especially when it doesn't show the back and when it's low resolution. A card in hand is the only way to truly see all the detail that may or may not merit a 10 holder.
You say "These modern graded cards are not going to go the way of the dinosaur. In my opinion, to continue to make that argument is silly. That is why I have no desire to keep addressing that issue." You are entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong, and that it's silly to say something is "silly" without explaining why. There was a finite number of cards produced for any given year. There are only so many that are worthy of being graded, there are only so many that will survive the test of time, this is the nature of existence, and why, over time, the populations of any given year will simply decrease.
I do hope you consider what I've written here, and if not that's fine. Enjoy collecting for whatever reasons you enjoy it, and let others do the same for just like cards all of our days are numbered.
There are people who are in love with buying what the holder says, thinking they obtained the "best of the best" card available, and until they finally realize there is more to it than that, it will be like banging ones head on the wall trying to explain it to them. Such as this debate with you is going.
You keep acting as if most of these cards are going to suddenly disappear. Where are they going to go? Do you know something the rest of us don't?
I hope you realize this day and time is not like it was 50 years ago when cards weren't big business. Now they are. These things are entombed in plastic and fawned after with kid gloves, and when that owner passes, their family members have the internet to use to search and find out exactly what they have. In the end, most of the cards end up at an auction house or Ebay where they are sold and the cycle repeats. Like I said, they are not going to become dinosaurs.
<< <i>You say "A scan that clearly shows soft corners, chipped edges, surface marks, and other flaws, while being in a 10 holder, speaks for its self. You're defense is sounding like a denial of reality, or as if our eyes can't see what is right in front of us." As I've said before IMO a scan doesn't tell the whole story, especially when it doesn't show the back and when it's low resolution. A card in hand is the only way to truly see all the detail that may or may not merit a 10 holder. >>
I took the time to search completed auctions for that 9, so you can't continue to suggest I was trying to hide something by not showing the back.
If both labels were covered up so no one knew the grades, tell me which one of the two they would more than likely pick? Be honest.
Personally, I'll take the 9 and the thousands in cash that I would save in the process. Clearly, it's the better card of the two.
The Pujols card is not mine. It's just something I ran across when searching completed auctions this evening. The owner of this card went from a $3000-$4000 card, to a card that should bring around $16,000-$18,000.
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
Greece continued issues. Puerto Rico debt talk.
Finally some action in the VIX.
SP 500 failed to break topside and is heading for the bottom of the channel at 2070.
It is going to be an interesting week for sure.
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link?
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses.
<< <i>
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses. >>
And your answer is precisely why some collectors get so frustrated. They try to determine a grade based on a scan when nothing compares to a card in hand.
Since you refuse to share your Registry would you share a 9 you have that you bumped to a 10 or that is superior to a 10?
I don't know how to csi overlap those autographs, but I've seen it done on a 54 jeter thread, but they appear to be the same
...
<< <i>it's the same card, isn't it?
I don't know how to csi overlap those autographs, but I've seen it done on a 54 jeter thread, but they appear to be the same... >>
Haha Duh. Same cert.
I missed that one.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses. >>
And your answer is precisely why some collectors get so frustrated. They try to determine a grade based on a scan when nothing compares to a card in hand.
Since you refuse to share your Registry would you share a 9 you have that you bumped to a 10 or that is superior to a 10? >>
So are you telling me you can't see chipping on the edges, the big print dot to the right of his hat, the black speckling on the surface on the front, or the less than sharp top two corners on the Winfield 10?
I never said I had a 10 that was superior to a 10. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is that not all 10's are created equal.
<< <i>
<< <i>it's the same card, isn't it?
I don't know how to csi overlap those autographs, but I've seen it done on a 54 jeter thread, but they appear to be the same... >>
Haha Duh. Same cert.
I missed that one. >>
LOL! Yeah, it's the same card.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses. >>
And your answer is precisely why some collectors get so frustrated. They try to determine a grade based on a scan when nothing compares to a card in hand.
Since you refuse to share your Registry would you share a 9 you have that you bumped to a 10 or that is superior to a 10? >>
So are you telling me you can't see chipping on the edges, the big print dot to the right of his hat, the black speckling on the surface on the front, or the less than sharp top two corners on the Winfield 10?
I never said I had a 10 that was superior to a 10. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is that not all 10's are created equal. >>
You said in an earlier post:
And I assure you I know how to spot the difference between a 9 and 10. I can't tell you how many 9's I have turned in to 10's upon re-submitting since about 2000.
Please provide at least one example of the above.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses. >>
And your answer is precisely why some collectors get so frustrated. They try to determine a grade based on a scan when nothing compares to a card in hand.
Since you refuse to share your Registry would you share a 9 you have that you bumped to a 10 or that is superior to a 10? >>
So are you telling me you can't see chipping on the edges, the big print dot to the right of his hat, the black speckling on the surface on the front, or the less than sharp top two corners on the Winfield 10?
I never said I had a 10 that was superior to a 10. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is that not all 10's are created equal. >>
You said in an earlier post:
And I assure you I know how to spot the difference between a 9 and 10. I can't tell you how many 9's I have turned in to 10's upon re-submitting since about 2000.
Please provide at least one example of the above. >>
I have posted examples of public cards that prove my point. I'd rather not post my private collection.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses. >>
And your answer is precisely why some collectors get so frustrated. They try to determine a grade based on a scan when nothing compares to a card in hand.
Since you refuse to share your Registry would you share a 9 you have that you bumped to a 10 or that is superior to a 10? >>
So are you telling me you can't see chipping on the edges, the big print dot to the right of his hat, the black speckling on the surface on the front, or the less than sharp top two corners on the Winfield 10?
I never said I had a 10 that was superior to a 10. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is that not all 10's are created equal. >>
You said in an earlier post:
And I assure you I know how to spot the difference between a 9 and 10. I can't tell you how many 9's I have turned in to 10's upon re-submitting since about 2000.
Please provide at least one example of the above. >>
I have posted examples of public cards that prove my point. I'd rather not post my private collection. >>
Exactly. Because you are hiding information, just like a scan on a computer screen hides information that a professional grader would use to grade a card.
Nothing lasts forever, and those who understand that best make the wisest decisions.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>SultanOfSwat, IMO a scan of a card does not show enough information to determine whether a card is truly the "best of the best."
Do you have a PSA Registry and can you please provide a link? >>
When you see a card with obvious surface flaws, soft corners, and chipped edges, they are self explanatory. Anything to deny this are just excuses. >>
And your answer is precisely why some collectors get so frustrated. They try to determine a grade based on a scan when nothing compares to a card in hand.
Since you refuse to share your Registry would you share a 9 you have that you bumped to a 10 or that is superior to a 10? >>
So are you telling me you can't see chipping on the edges, the big print dot to the right of his hat, the black speckling on the surface on the front, or the less than sharp top two corners on the Winfield 10?
I never said I had a 10 that was superior to a 10. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is that not all 10's are created equal. >>
You said in an earlier post:
And I assure you I know how to spot the difference between a 9 and 10. I can't tell you how many 9's I have turned in to 10's upon re-submitting since about 2000.
Please provide at least one example of the above. >>
I have posted examples of public cards that prove my point. I'd rather not post my private collection. >>
Exactly. Because you are hiding information, just like a scan on a computer screen hides information that a professional grader would use to grade a card.
Nothing lasts forever, and those who understand that best make the wisest decisions. >>
Oh, so I am hiding something because I don't want to post my collection? Really? Isn't that like me saying prove you don't beat your wife or else you are hiding something?
You just don't want to accept reality or the evidence that has been laid out here. That is your choice.
<< <i>hi, i'm tom.
I've skimmed through this thread and got to this. My kind of humor, thanks!
Back on topic, that is one ugly 10. Anyone wanting to invest in cards should look at that card and read Sulton's comments. Class is in session: card investing 101.
I certainly learned a lot lurking on this forum for years. Entirely changed my buying behavior for the better.
Forgive me for my ignorance, but how do you get the same cert # when you bump your card from a 9 to a 10? has that always been the case for bumps?
thanks in advance
Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks.
Prefer to buy in bulk.
sdub,
anytime! glad ya got it. very few seem to and appreciate that you appreciated it!
<< <i>This whole argument is absurd, and the intrusion of alts just exacerbates it. However I do want to say one thing: I have seen a good portion of Sultan's collection and it is SPECTACULAR!!! >>
i remember your original question being ignored as well dan!
Forgive me for my ignorance, but how do you get the same cert # when you bump your card from a 9 to a 10? has that always been the case for bumps?
Yes.
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.