1984 Donruss Don Mattingly PSA 10 vs BGS 9.5

DeutscherGeist

I do track some of the cards I want to buy on ebay and have noticed that the PSA 10 graded card of the Mattingly rookie is twice the value compared to a BGS 9.5 graded card. Is PSA the more valued grading company for early 1980s and older cards? What justifies such a price difference?

As with most collectibles, I have noticed that pristine examples go up faster in value than even slightly frayed ones. The PSA 10 grades of modern cards have more upside potential than PSA 9's, which seem to stay stagnant. I want to get a GEM MINT Mattingly card before it becomes too expensive with his HOF induction in the distant future.

I know that all GEM MINT 10s are not the same, so I will be carefully looking at the card before buying.

Odessafile

BGS creates problems with their half grades that scare off buyers and can adversely effect the prices that you are seeing with the MAttingly.....conversely, when a MAttingly achieves the pristine quad 10's grade from BGS i.e. (Black Label) its given GOD LIKE premiums .... I only buy PSA personally..... and with autographs now en vogue I aim for the double PSA 10 both DNA auto grade and the card grade.......its just my preference. I would recommend the PSA 10 Mattingly over the BGS 9.5 ...its a perceived cut above that you are seeing materialize in the price disparity. IT is a reality in the hobby. IF you are shrewd you could cherry pick a solid BGS 9.5 and try to cross it over into a PSA 10 holder .... its time consuming and depending on the price you pay for the BGS it may not be a tremendous savings but that depends on how shrewd you are. The Mattingly you are seeking is rather plentiful so you can be very methodical in your search. PSA is king in the vintage world for certain...... their PSA 10 holder removes the inferiority a BGS 9.5 and 9.0 grade add to the equation........ Best~DL

BGS_Buyer

@Odessafile said:
BGS creates problems with their half grades that scare off buyers

Really?
I thought it provided a better understanding of what you have in a grade.

Centering & Corners are most important to me & I seek those out.

I guess if you want a grade all baked in & don't want to know all the attributes,
then one final grade is what you're looking for

Personally, I don't think the 4 sub-grades go far enough
and should go as far as:
photo registration
cut of the card (any tilts)
back surface
back centering

but this takes time
and time is money
and money is business
and the amount of cards pumped in and out
there is no time for it

DeutscherGeist

BGS_Buyer,

I also thought the subgrades offered a better understanding of the grades. When I look at a PSA 10 for purchase, I take some time to look at the centering both on the front and the back as well as the print and photo registration. Since there are many PSA 10's of the cards I collect, its important that I scrutinize the cards some more.

Odessafile,

Thank you for your response as well! I do not feel too comfortable about a cross over from BGS to PSA. A GEM MINT card can easily be a MINT card when graded a second time. Also, there is the risk of damage each time the slab has to be cracked open.

Odessafile

If PSA crosses over into a PSA 10 Gem Mint holder an '84 Mattingly RC BGS 9.5 Gem Mint with sub-grades of 9.5, 9.0, 9.5, 9.5....why would you take less for a BGS 9.5 upon selling the card? The gentleman above stated in his investigation of MAttingly RC's that PSA 10's are selling for 2 times BGS 9.5's....the half grades are screwing collectors over. The BGS holder is losing collectors money unless they achieve a Black Label...which is quite difficult.

BGS_Buyer

PSA has a half grade also
and what if they switched to a BGS format ?
would you still feel the same way, that collectors are getting screwed ?

Black labels are not the only ones
BGS 10's / non black label do quite well also
cant tell you of every story
but a Jagr premier Rookie is well over $1,000 in 3 (10's) 1 (9.5)
you don't need a black label for that

not sure why subgrades are so horrible
but to each his own

ndleo

BGS 10 = 11 on the Marshall amp.

BGS_Buyer

yes, "Pristine" is a gimmick
but some people seem to have short memories
that for decades in the card pricing world ... MINT was the highest grade

PSA rolled out "GEM" mint ... what's that ? minter than mint ?

was "Pristine" that hard to see coming in a competing world ?

DeutscherGeist

For modern cards, I can see how MINT and GEM MINT have their roles. There were so many printed that MINT cards were not scarce at all. GEM MINT helps lower the population of a certain rookie cards that can exist in that condition. MINT 9 is a very good grade for a 1950s card. However, something from the 90s needs to be GEM MINT as MINT cards often fall to PSA submission price or below.

BGS_Buyer

@DeutscherGeist said:
For modern cards, I can see how MINT and GEM MINT have their roles. There were so many printed that MINT cards were not scarce at all. GEM MINT helps lower the population of a certain rookie cards that can exist in that condition. MINT 9 is a very good grade for a 1950s card. However, something from the 90s needs to be GEM MINT as MINT cards often fall to PSA submission price or below.

I'm not sure what you mean by this
maybe you're making a different point
but I thought ALL cards were supposed to be graded based on condition
regardless of age
and that age would not be taken into consideration
at least that's what I remember from long ago

DeutscherGeist

What I meant was that for modern cards, GEM MINT is the way to go in terms of condition. For Cards before the 1980's, a MINT card already stands out.

For example, Tom Glavine is a HOF, yet his rookie cards in PSA 9 are a dime a dozen. If one submits a Glavine rookie to PSA and it gets a PSA 9, one could only hope to sell it for the cost of grading it, unless its the glossy version of a rookie which can fetch a bit more. However, the same card in PSA 10 will range from $25-$120 (depending on which card manufacturer and if its glossy or not).

If you have a HOFer whose rookie card is from the 1970's or older, a PSA 9 is already serious money and relatively low in POP.

[Edit for grammar]

DeutscherGeist

That Mattingly rookie is PSA 10 is now double the value from when I first posted this. I did not think it would go from $600 to $1200 in such a relatively short time.

BuckHunter68

It happened overnight. Two loons bid like madmen and ran one up...now the norm is 1000-1300.
It will likely "settle" in around 800 bucks if you're patient. The 600 days are over for now.
How many did you purchase at the 600 level? I can't fathom how a card that is so plentiful literally doubles in a month without the subject playing a single game, Lol.

DeutscherGeist

I was preparing to purchase some at the $600 level and then all of a sudden, I see it sky rocket. I missed the chance. Now in hindsight, it looks like a bargain compared to what it is now. Even though he is not playing, action with the Baseball Modern Era Committee voting is keeping him relevant. When a seemingly unexpected candidate suddenly makes it to the HOF, the rookie card skyrockets and some people are on the lookout for that. The induction of Harold Baines is exactly what I am talking about. It caught many people off guard. Mattingly makes it to the final 10 candidates on the Baseball Modern Era Committee every time, so there is always a chance he can get voted in.
He is also manager of the rebuilding Marlins who can break out at any given moment. This year might be pivotal since several losing seasons are behind them and the young players are only gathering more experience. A successful Marlins run could put him back in the spotlight too and create momentum with the Modern Era Committee voting.

BuckHunter68

Speaking of Harold Baines...had dinner with him Sunday and talked about the honor and the committee. It's great for the baseball community. The writers know one tiny side of things. Peers know more. Mattingly will, indeed, likely get in. In particular if he builds any sort of successful baseball managing resume.

DeutscherGeist

Awesome you got to meet him! I hear he is personable and approachable.