Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

1955 Topps Cello Pack RIP -- CLEMENTE GRADED

12346

Comments

  • 80sOPC80sOPC Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Grade seems right to me. I has great centering but also has PD, some touched corners and some registration issues. The PD itself is a two point downgrade.
  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,680 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: 80sOPC
    Grade seems right to me. I has great centering but also has PD, some touched corners and some registration issues. The PD itself is a two point downgrade.


    What I'm confused abut is that the submitter seemed to suggest he didn't request no qualifiers. So in that case what determines when a qualifier is given vs. a straight grade?
  • If all other attributes of the card were NM-MT (except for the PD), it would get an 8(PD).



    Given that it had multiple characteristics of an EX-MT card (corners and PD), it got a 6.
  • PaulMaulPaulMaul Posts: 4,680 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: charrigan
    If all other attributes of the card were NM-MT (except for the PD), it would get an 8(PD).



    Given that it had multiple characteristics of an EX-MT card (corners and PD), it got a 6.


    That makes sense, thanks!
  • 80sOPC80sOPC Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: PaulMaul
    Originally posted by: 80sOPC
    Grade seems right to me. I has great centering but also has PD, some touched corners and some registration issues. The PD itself is a two point downgrade.


    What I'm confused abut is that the submitter seemed to suggest he didn't request no qualifiers. So in that case what determines when a qualifier is given vs. a straight grade?


    The qualifier is baked into the grade. I would think you would have to argue this card is a straight 9 without the PD to believe it deserved a 7. I think the corners and the registration (around his face) are straight 8 range, and the PD bumps it down to a 6.


  • PSA 6 is probably the right grade, but that is going to be a more desirable 6 than most if you ever put it on the market. Congrats on the hit!
    'Sir, I realize it's been difficult for you to sleep at night without your EX/MT 1977 Topps Tom Seaver, but I swear to you that you'll get it safe and sound.'
    -CDs Nuts, 1/20/14

    *1956 Topps baseball- 97.4% complete, 7.24 GPA
    *Clemente basic set: 85.0% complete, 7.89 GPA
  • 80sOPC80sOPC Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: WalterSobchak
    PSA 6 is probably the right grade, but that is going to be a more desirable 6 than most if you ever put it on the market. Congrats on the hit!


    Agree, it will go for 7 money anyways.
  • May sound retarded but I hate that this card will now be reduced to or referred to as "a 6".



    I may have chosen to keep it raw and enjoyed the "what if" factor. At least for a little while.







    BTW: That old thread about the Jordan pull had me in tears! Danke.
  • For 60 years it slept comfortably inside its cellophane blanket, only to be exposed in all its youthful glory.



    I shall know him as Rip Van ClementeWinkle6.
  • gemintgemint Posts: 6,066 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I agree with what others have said. You can't tell surface issues and corner indentations/deformation from a scan. It has high end eye appeal and will sell for above 6 money but I'm not surprised that it got a 6.
  • and no way it would ever hit "the market"...



    who would sell a clemente they personally pulled outta a 50+ year pack, esp w that centering?
  • addicted2ebayaddicted2ebay Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭✭
    6? Pack Fresh dead center card gets a 6?
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,480 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: addicted2ebay

    6? Pack Fresh dead center card gets a 6?




    I've got a stack of pack fresh dead centered cards in that same category, lol..it's why high grade cards command the premiums they do.


    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.
  • KendallCatKendallCat Posts: 2,966 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The Clemente is a beautiful card with very rare great centering, and unfortunately the large print mark on the front, printing on the back, and upper right corner pull it down to a 6. Eye appeal from a centering standpoint is excellent, and based on all factors the card seems to be graded correctly. As far as pack fresh IMO once the card is graded and stabbed I don't think it really matters since all of the cards were printed in 1955, and being cracked out then or now any card would stand on its features and condition. I also love the example of the PSA 2 earlier in the thread - talk about buying the card and not the holder. That is a great card with unreal eye appeal.
  • bouncebounce Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭
    The "technical grade" may be correct, but I have a stack of 6s from this set and not one of them can compare to this card.



    If this is a 6, then most other 6s are 4s.



    I think the lesson to be learned here is that high dollar cards get a different level of scrutiny than commons, as they probably should.



    Still a magnificent card, congrats again to Josh.
  • gemintgemint Posts: 6,066 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: bounce
    The "technical grade" may be correct, but I have a stack of 6s from this set and not one of them can compare to this card.

    If this is a 6, then most other 6s are 4s.

    I think the lesson to be learned here is that high dollar cards get a different level of scrutiny than commons, as they probably should.

    Still a magnificent card, congrats again to Josh.


    Not all 6s are created equal. In fact, I have a 5 of Clete Boyer from this year that looks dead mint in the scan but downgraded due to deformed corners that don't show in the scan. I may be able to get it bumped to a 6 on resubmission but I don't see it getting a 7 or better.

  • JWBlueJWBlue Posts: 487 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: 49ersGuy
    image


    Is there any idea what year this card was graded?

  • cardbendercardbender Posts: 1,831 ✭✭
    The above Clemente 7 was graded between 1997-99.
  • olb31olb31 Posts: 2,900 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: bounce
    The "technical grade" may be correct, but I have a stack of 6s from this set and not one of them can compare to this card.

    If this is a 6, then most other 6s are 4s.

    I think the lesson to be learned here is that high dollar cards get a different level of scrutiny than commons, as they probably should.

    Still a magnificent card, congrats again to Josh.


    Totally disagree with you. The rules are the rules. If PSA specified that high dollar cards will get more scrutinized than commons, then ok. I didn't see that anywhere. And according to PSA the old cards are graded just like the new cards. A 6 is a 6. Before the graded came out, I would have guessed a 7. PSA should have at least recognized the centering and gave the card a 6.5.

    Work hard and you will succeed!!
  • dtkk49adtkk49a Posts: 2,484 ✭✭✭
    If this was just slabbed, why is there no hologram on the front of the slab?
    Follow me - Cards_and_Coins on Instagram



    They call me "Pack the Ripper"
  • LarkinCollectorLarkinCollector Posts: 8,975 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't think a scan of this card in the holder has been shown yet (likely isn't back to the OP). The graded ones shown thus far are from others.
  • mintonlyplsmintonlypls Posts: 1,711 ✭✭✭✭✭
    olb31...Agree with the 1/2 point bump reward for exceptional centering. Let's hear it for a 6.5!
    mint_only_pls
  • dtkk49adtkk49a Posts: 2,484 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: Stewie

    I rarely post in this forum




    But when you do.....



    image





    His cards are all PSA 11's



    Follow me - Cards_and_Coins on Instagram



    They call me "Pack the Ripper"
  • lahmejoonlahmejoon Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭
    Did anyone save a picture of the cello pack? I just went back to the Huggins website to look at the pack again and it appears to have been removed.
  • LarkinCollectorLarkinCollector Posts: 8,975 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: lahmejoon
    Did anyone save a picture of the cello pack? I just went back to the Huggins website to look at the pack again and it appears to have been removed.

    The old link isn't working, but this should: 55 Cello
  • lahmejoonlahmejoon Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: LarkinCollector
    Originally posted by: lahmejoon
    Did anyone save a picture of the cello pack? I just went back to the Huggins website to look at the pack again and it appears to have been removed.

    The old link isn't working, but this should: 55 Cello


    Awesome. Thanks!
  • StingrayStingray Posts: 8,843 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: LarkinCollector
    Originally posted by: lahmejoon
    Did anyone save a picture of the cello pack? I just went back to the Huggins website to look at the pack again and it appears to have been removed.

    The old link isn't working, but this should: 55 Cello


    Kind of find it funny that they don't mention the Clemente card as a possibility!!
  • Originally posted by: Stingray
    Originally posted by: LarkinCollector
    Originally posted by: lahmejoon
    Did anyone save a picture of the cello pack? I just went back to the Huggins website to look at the pack again and it appears to have been removed.

    The old link isn't working, but this should: 55 Cello


    Kind of find it funny that they don't mention the Clemente card as a possibility!!


    I thought the same exact thing when I read that! Of all the cards you omit?!

    It never leaves you...
  • KendallCatKendallCat Posts: 2,966 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: Raulsmaster
    Originally posted by: Stingray
    Originally posted by: LarkinCollector
    Originally posted by: lahmejoon
    Did anyone save a picture of the cello pack? I just went back to the Huggins website to look at the pack again and it appears to have been removed.

    The old link isn't working, but this should: 55 Cello


    Kind of find it funny that they don't mention the Clemente card as a possibility!!


    I thought the same exact thing when I read that! Of all the cards you omit?!



    That makes no sense at all for them to miss that. Of all the cards you would highlight as a possibility of being in this pack that would be the one I would for sure highlight, put in bold, have flashing lights.... How could they miss that?

  • bouncebounce Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭
    Totally disagree with you. The rules are the rules. If PSA specified that high dollar cards will get more scrutinized than commons, then ok. I didn't see that anywhere. And according to PSA the old cards are graded just like the new cards. A 6 is a 6. Before the graded came out, I would have guessed a 7. PSA should have at least recognized the centering and gave the card a 6.5.


    You can disagree all you want, I'm just telling you what happens. You can choose to believe it, or you can start submitting stacks of cards and find out for yourself.

    When's the last time you heard anyone talk about "potential market value" of a common when it comes to grading?

    Again, maybe the technical grade as a 6 is accurate, but from an overall appeal standpoint that card is WAY better than most other 6s. Way better.
  • DarinDarin Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The grade seems perfect. An 8 all day long without the print defect, a 6 with the huge print defect. Its too unsightly to grade higher without the PD qualifier.

    DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21
    In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
  • bouncebounce Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: Darin
    The grade seems perfect. An 8 all day long without the print defect, a 6 with the huge print defect. Its too unsightly to grade higher without the PD qualifier.


    But that's the thing - he didn't submit it as a no qual grade.

    Which means the grader felt like it wasn't good enough for an 8(PD). It's just a 6, qualifier or not. I think that's incorrect, and I expect to see this card in a different holder somewhere down the line.
  • Bounce: corners. As Joe O said. It wasn't just the PD.
  • KendallCatKendallCat Posts: 2,966 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Upper right corner was rough, and as nice as the card looks from a centering and eye appeal standpoint the print mark is huge on that card. I have had cards where the grade and card don't match up close to where I thought they would but I still enjoy the card. Take this 1953 Mantle for instance. Show me a current Mantle in a 7/8 grade that has stronger features? If you saw this card without the grade what would you pay for it?







    image









    The essence of collecting is finding cards you enjoy, that look great to "your" eye, and if you make some $$ that is a bonus. Obviously we don't collect cards in a monetary vacuum, and values on cards are important since selling a card that has increased in value might allow you to buy a card on your list that is more expensive but now in reach. The Clemente is a great card and will sell for what the market deems it is worth. The pack questions still exist on this one, but should have no value increase due to where it came from - just judge the card on its merits.
  • belzbelz Posts: 1,217 ✭✭✭
    KC, I'm right here when you're ready to get rid of that fine 53!!!!
    "Wots Uh The Deal" by Pink Floyd
  • StingrayStingray Posts: 8,843 ✭✭✭
    Is there some wrong with the top boarder above Mantle's hat that is hurting that grade??
  • It looks like there are multiple stains along the top border and one large tan colored stain coming over, occupying, the entire top right corner although light in color. Which I didn't see at first but now can't help but see.

    Im not familiar with grading exactly. Meaning, do those stains make it a 5? Why not an ST? Otherwise its a great looking card that would be well above a 5. Congratulations.
  • KendallCatKendallCat Posts: 2,966 ✭✭✭✭✭
    In hand they are barely visible and some of it is a shadow on the scan, but no question that the reason the card is not in an 8 or higher holder is on the top border. Have had multiple high grade 53 Mantles, and this one is as in regards to nice corners, centering, and especially the lower red corner than any I have seen not in a PSA 8.5 holder or higher. This is one of my untouchable cards that will be the last to sell from my collection. Would not sell for $7-8k even if offered since it would take $30-40k to replace in this condition.
  • Perhaps the OP would care to adjust the title of his thread to include "+ Obsessive Mantle Fanatics Discussing Mantles Again". Geez, guys. Give it a rest. The entire forum knows you all love your expensive Mickey cards. Could the OP be allowed to have his "Clemente" thread be just that?
  • CWCW Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭
    Quick question for the OP, or anyone else that has an opinion... would you have preferred an 8 PD instead of the straight 6 and, if so, why?



    Regardless of the number, it's obviously still the same card, but wondered if there would be a preference to have a qualifier since the OP has asked Joe why it didn't get one and since the card was submitted without the no qualifier request.
  • MULLINS5MULLINS5 Posts: 4,517 ✭✭✭
    I'd prefer the 8PD because that tells me the condition of the card is NM-MT without the PD. A 6 tells me the condition of the card is EX-MT. Just my preference, though.



    The reason for the PSA 6 grade is because of the corner.
  • Originally posted by: Stewie
    Perhaps the OP would care to adjust the title of his thread to include "+ Obsessive Mantle Fanatics Discussing Mantles Again". Geez, guys. Give it a rest. The entire forum knows you all love your expensive Mickey cards. Could the OP be allowed to have his "Clemente" thread be just that?


    "Allowed to have" I think is definitely met by the 15 pages and 300 replies so far. But sorry. I just had a question on what made a great card a 5. How else can I go about it? Transfer it somewhere else where the cards owner probably won't see it? I think its in the range of what makes a grade. Someone just asked the same thing. As far as "expensive Mantles" Im with your jealously and know there are certain Mantles that Ill never have. So I don't read threads I don't like. But its not KendallCats fault. It seems that people are being very strict here lately. The holidays are a major time of stress. Realx. ESPN people know what I mean by realx. Its just pieces of cardboard people. But Im sorry and apologize Stewie. Forgiven for my faux pax? Plus Ive asked questions about the Clemente which no one is addressing. About the legitimacy. But no need to now.


    Hey, can't your reply be placed in the vent section. Give the OP his "Clemente" thread.


    Wink, wink.
  • Dude. I'm jealous of Sean Penn.

    There's no blame to toss around. I vented. Seems that too many discussions divert into the Mickey Zone. Heck, there's a thread titled "Mickey Mantle". It, amongst plenty, provides a comfortable place to carry on about him and his cards.

    So it goes. Realxing. Like a drifter in a canoe.
  • Hey, Im with you stewie. And theres a threat titled "vents rants" And I could say your vent belongs in the vent. I asked what makes a 5 a 5 grade wise? Cant be so strict.



    When you say "your guys expensive Mantles" it has the whiff of socialism or communism. But if you owned a '52 Mantle PSA 8 I bet you'd gladly join that club. Good for whoever owns the best of the best. Looking at PWCCs top 30 cards by price I know Ill never own them but I like looking.

    I like the mansions I drive by but don't begrudge them for it. But I see what you're saying. Just negativity and complaints will kill your heart. Im with you. Realxing on tube down the river.



    Whats to envy about Sean Penn? Im not with you on that one. Though I think he was dating Charlez. Then Im with you.
  • 19541954 Posts: 2,866 ✭✭✭
    Um KC said he was selling the Mantle to me when he was ready to sell. image I will pay the most for that card when you are ready.
    Looking for high grade rookie cards and unopened boxes/cases
  • Whiff of Communism? Where do these guys come from?
  • JWBlueJWBlue Posts: 487 ✭✭✭
    When is it better to have a lower grade without a qualifier vs. a higher grade with a qualifier?



    I can't think of a time I would prefer the lower grade without a qualifier?



    Is it merely a personal preference?
  • 70ToppsFanatic70ToppsFanatic Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭✭
    A bit late for me to weigh in on this, but as far as I see it a PD is a PD. It doesn't make sense to say that a higher grade with a PD can equal a lower grade without a PD.



    I lived this experience with the card shown below. There is a slight orangish PD a little below Mantle's bat. When I had it reviewed I was told that it was either a 9 (PD)

    or a straight 8. But the print defect is still there, isn't it? I can see with centering how a higher grade (with tougher centering limits) can be called OC but come through

    without a qualifier in a lower grade, but things like print defects or miscuts don't change just because a there are more liberal grading tolerances at lower grade levels.

    The PD came that way from the factory. That's why people pay such premiums for truly unqualified gems, versus ones that seem to be artificially de-qualified like this.



    This Clemente that was pulled is exquisite and has great eye appeal even with the print defect, but to say that its a straight "6" and ignore the PD really cheapens the

    whole idea of the grade. If it's a PD in a higher grade, then its a PD in a lower grade too. IMO having a way to get qualifiers that really are not subject to grading tolerances

    at the various grade levels effectively "dropped" by assigning a lower grade just makes it seems like the standards can be manipulated.



    image


    Dave
  • DragnetDragnet Posts: 635 ✭✭✭
    Finally got the card back. Have scanned it one final time, as I've decided to sell. It was NOT an easy decision, but as a recent medical school graduate, money is tight as I was afforded an offer by a fellow board member that I simply could not refuse.

    Thank you again to everyone and will be sure to post an update once the Mays submission pops.


    image
  • Congratulations. Thats a long 4 years after a long 4 years. In general. I don't know how you found the time for baseball cards. What residency are you going into? How long will that be?
Sign In or Register to comment.