I'm just putting it out there. Here's the interpretation of a Silver sticker claiming excellent eye appeal while elevating the value of a '68 Topps Bench RC in PSA MINT 9. Whomever consigned it should be very pleased with the final outcome.
@mintonlypls said:
Nice! Thanks, ElMagoStrikeZone pointing out that Bench RC auction…
Not to be Johnny rain cloud, but what are all of the white dots on the Ron Tompkins side of the card? I was looking at the auction earlier but decided not to bid after seeing them.
@mintonlypls said:
Nice! Thanks, ElMagoStrikeZone pointing out that Bench RC auction…
Not to be Johnny rain cloud, but what are all of the white dots on the Ron Tompkins side of the card? I was looking at the auction earlier but decided not to bid after seeing them.
No argument. I think it's wise to examine cards like this to understand what MBA is looking for in presentation. While some of us may not necessarily be attracted to such a card, it's good to know that being able to secure a sticker on one of your own could potentially increase its value. It's pertinent to this discussion. It was also intended for the OP to compare with his own PSA 9 example. As we know, there will be opinions about it and some may differ.
Here is mine (non-error version also)...which came back today as a diamond candidate. I looked up the certification number...and its image likewise shows those print fisheyes...there also is one fish eye in the blue circle on the 0xxxxxxx.
I would think that a sticker on a 9 would imply it should be a ten, which I don’t see with either of these benches. The eBay one seems to have print issues and the one above is out t/b front and the back being OC.
I normally wouldn’t be critical of cards on a thread like this but really wondering how MBA makes calls on cards that are already high grade. There are lots of 5s that look like 7s, but a sticker on an already really nice 9 has to mean it is presents like a ten IMO.
Monty - to be clear, you have fantastic cards and I really respect the way you collect. And if these stickers improve the value or your collection, that is awesome. Just very skeptical of these schemes.
On 68s and others like it when there is clearly an undefined border such as 54s too…I measure centering of the undefined border as the percentage of the two defined borders. In case of 68s…the undefined border is the top when viewing horizontally. I measure then 55/45 the top to bottom centering on my 68 Bench RC.
A gold diamond means that the assigned technical grade is low by 1/2 or 1 grade.
A silver diamond means that the card has exceptional eye appeal for the assigned grade.
The special running thru August for a digital review to determine candidates for a diamond credits submitters to the full amount of a digital review charge towards the charge to physically submit a card to MBA to be assigned either a silver or gold diamond. I have accrued a $550 credit for an actual submission which has a sliding price point based on value of the card. I have not tallied up the total charge upon submitting the 27 cards…and counting (10 additional cards come back today from a digital review). These final charges in the process are not only based on card value…but also turnaround time.
A digital review is cost effective in that only diamond candidates will be submitted.
Does anybody know if MBA sets up at the Philly show?
Steve Saldutti sjjs28@comcast.net Collector of Baseball Hall of Famer's and Stars, 1965 Embossed, 1968 Topps Game and 1969 Topps Decals Registered Sets: 1965 Embossed, 1968 Topps Game, 1969 Topps Decals
MBA seems to be more critical of centering on the reverse than PSA or SGC or BGS. I had two (2) cards rejected for a diamond based only on centering of the reverse. I very much like the very specific notes on why a card is NOT a candidate...much more so than PSA notes. Here are the two (2) cards rejected for a diamond...solely on the reverse centering.
I agree about the registration issue…but a 7 is ridiculously harsh. I would give it an 8.5. I paid $3300 in 2008. The nameplate is flawless…and a cherry red as opposed to the tomato red on most..and centering is very, very nice on the front of the card. Corners are exceptional. Little toning...bright colors on the front of the card.
I did a bunch at the National a few years ago and I believe it was around $40 a card then. Sounds like it’s quite a bit more now. I thought it was affordable enough that I paid to re-MBA a gold that I had cracked for auto and r received back from PSA. In that case it did again receive its gold sticker but lost its PSA 10. Sad. Trombone.
Monte - The 58 mantle is a stunner on the front side. I think in looking at the back the centering is probably 95/5 and almost a miscut so I would have to say I agree with his assessment. Still does not take away from the fact the card is absolutely gorgeous on the front which is really all anyone looks at on a card.
@80sOPC said:
I would think that a sticker on a 9 would imply it should be a ten, which I don’t see with either of these benches. The eBay one seems to have print issues and the one above is out t/b front and the back being OC.
I normally wouldn’t be critical of cards on a thread like this but really wondering how MBA makes calls on cards that are already high grade. There are lots of 5s that look like 7s, but a sticker on an already really nice 9 has to mean it is presents like a ten IMO.
Monty - to be clear, you have fantastic cards and I really respect the way you collect. And if these stickers improve the value or your collection, that is awesome. Just very skeptical of these schemes.
The claim is that Silver means it's top 15% and Gold means top 5% and technical grade of +.5 or higher.
I just don't see how he can say top 5% unless he's seen all the cards in that grade for comparison.
A card is beautifully centered with great eye appeal. Top 5% right?
What if 75% of the others in that grade he didn't see, have the same attributes? Are they all top 5%?
No doubt Monty's stickered cards will increase in value, as long as the public accepts the sticker hype.
I mean, people believe that PSA 10s should be worth more than other grading company's 10s.
I saw this in the coin world years ago, when CAC became a thing.
A coin with a CAC sticker now costs 1.5-2x what it did before, even though it's the same coin it always was.
A decades long coin dealer I spoke with thought CAC was a sham, but he also had a stack of coins ready for submission.
He didn't have to believe in it, but if it meant he could charge a lot more for stickered coins, why not take the gamble.
1 -- if the card is centered and has sharp corners and looks like a 9 or 10, it should be a 9 or 10.
2 - like the Koufax above, everybody probably thinks it looks better than a 7, so why not grade the card an 8 or 9?
3 - overall the curb appeal is what matters, there are many 9's and 10's that are off-centered and don't look like 9's or 10's, so why would they grade them 9's or 10's?
4 - I think there are just to many variables for the graders to get the cards graded similarly. SGC won't give 8's for print dots usually, many PSA cards have the dots and have 8's. is a print dot acceptable or not? variables
5 - if you have a 1967 mantle perfectly centered and sharp cornered and CGC graded it an 8 and it looks like an 8 to you, why wouldn't it get PSA prices, when maybe it looks better than most PSA's?
6 - in the video of the Griffey's comparison from the National (i think) or from You tube. 3 companies think it's a 9 and PSA thinks it's a 6. The card looks like a 9 to me and to the guy holding the card, so why would PSA put a 6 on it? Just because?
7 - a slight cardboard issue, PSA gives it a 6, CGC gives it an 8, SGC gives it 7. who's right? to me it goes by appeal of the card. if it looks really sharp without using a microscope to see the issues, then it's sharp, maybe not a 10, but probably not a 6.
8 - i have many great cards graded by PSA from 2007 - 2020. Many 10's many 9's. A lot of the vintage has slight cardboard issues, but the 10's are centered and sharp like they should be, no print dots. Are there flaws on most, YES!! The card board that TOPPS used costs about .000000001 cent per card. it wasn't pristine.
9 - Mike or PWCC or 4sc has created this Label market and it works because most of us, don't think a small microscopic indention should make the card a 6 or 7 instead of an 8. The real change starts with the graders themselves. They should take a step back, see how the card looks and base their card mostly on that, just like 10 years ago.
Man, you are so correct. If customers were happy with how the grading companies were performing then these add-on companies would have a hard time generating business.
I'd guess they'll be around and not be going anywhere anytime soon.
OLB31 - Excellent points above and really hits the point about the difference between what graders see and what collectors see. Obviously, opinions are very subjective whether you’re the buyer or the seller of a particular card, but I think, at the end of the day collectors are starting to gravitate towards IPO and centering along with grades. Since the grading companies seem to have lost their way people now take into account the numerical grade as well as what the eye sees - Never has the old saying been more true of buy the card and not the holder.
In the 1990s when I first started collecting PSA graded cards I was admittedly a PSA 8 or higher snob. If the card was not a PSA 8 grade or higher I wouldn’t buy it. Over the years I’ve learned from veteran dealers and collectors, many from this board like Matty and Jeff amongst others, And I learned to target cards based on overall I appeal rather than grade. If the card is not well centered I won’t even consider it, and this focus has allowed me to go after cards and be more discerning in what I purchase. It is a fun challenge but also more fulfilling when you find a great example of a card. And also last year budget further, and purchase more cards overall
My question is since Baker was head of grading at GAI, why wouldn't there be more of a premium placed on GAI graded cards?
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.
@mintonlypls said:
Mike Baker is unbiased ….providing an honest assessment of graded cards…
He has rejected my cards for candidates which had PWCC stickers…twice!
To me that just says people have different opinions. So Brent (to the extent he wasn’t stickering the trimmed cards he had a hand in) thought it was top x %, Mike Baker doesn’t and one guy at PSA thought it was a typical card in a grade band unless it is a .5. The only opinions that matters is yours when you buy and the next owner if you sell.
I was trying to convey…even though Brent is associated with MBA and placed PWCC stickers…Mike is not influenced by those PWCC stickers….and he draws his own assessment.
To illustrate some of my long post above, there is currently 1 1983 topps wade boggs psa 10 on ebay. and it's not a 10. No company today would grade this card a 10. Because its all about eye appeal. disregard the grading standards, no one believes this card is a 10. I would give it an 8 or 8.5. BUt you will find perfectly centered 9's of Wade on Ebay right now. ANd this is why the PSA grading is in total flux and "needs" to have other sources tell you that this card is not a 10 or a high quality of a particular grade.
The BGS subgrades solved all of this for you. 10 centering will give you the best price for a Beckett card every time.
I have no idea why anyone at PSA would grade that card a 10. any employee from 1990 - 2025, should not have given this a 10 nor should it had got by the technical reviewer.
@mintonlypls said:
GAi as you know is defunct..MBA is not!
Yes, but the same individual for whose opinion a premium is being sought is doing the evaluation. If we are placing a premium on Baker's opinion with MBA, why wouldn't we be placing a premium on his opinion when he was head grader at GAI? In fact, most collectors have the opposite opinion about GAI graded cards. That seems rather odd to me.
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.
Still trying to determine that. I need to talk to Mike Baker…what my cost will be in submitting the 36 cards. When I return home from vacation…I will be in contact with MBA.
So far…my cost for digital reviews is $0…since the August special credits digital reviews towards a physical submission. I have a credit of $610.
I believe it is a tiered charge based on the value of the card. '51 Mantle costing more than '61 Mays. I'd ballpark it around $3000 or so. Obviously, a play to increase value.... more power to you. Hope you hit 50% or better on the diamond reviews.
Comments
The Soccer card might receive a gold label for a 9, maybe. Definitely not as a 10.
IMHO with the centering and weak left edge 10 might have been a gift. It certainly does NOT present at high end of grade.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
8/10 today...see list above, if interested!
Folks read this other current thread about MBA. Glean what u want from it...
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1116041/mba-mike-baker-authenticated-crossover-attempt-psa-says-altered#latest
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
6/10 today...see list at top of page 1.
I'm just putting it out there. Here's the interpretation of a Silver sticker claiming excellent eye appeal while elevating the value of a '68 Topps Bench RC in PSA MINT 9. Whomever consigned it should be very pleased with the final outcome.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/146758759290
Farewell Ryno.
Nice! Thanks, ElMagoStrikeZone pointing out that Bench RC auction…
Not to be Johnny rain cloud, but what are all of the white dots on the Ron Tompkins side of the card? I was looking at the auction earlier but decided not to bid after seeing them.
No argument. I think it's wise to examine cards like this to understand what MBA is looking for in presentation. While some of us may not necessarily be attracted to such a card, it's good to know that being able to secure a sticker on one of your own could potentially increase its value. It's pertinent to this discussion. It was also intended for the OP to compare with his own PSA 9 example. As we know, there will be opinions about it and some may differ.
Farewell Ryno.
Here is mine (non-error version also)...which came back today as a diamond candidate. I looked up the certification number...and its image likewise shows those print fisheyes...there also is one fish eye in the blue circle on the 0xxxxxxx.
A very deserving candidate. Vote Yes on Johnny. I'm kinda biased anyways. It's always been one of my favorite cards. Good luck.
Farewell Ryno.
I would think that a sticker on a 9 would imply it should be a ten, which I don’t see with either of these benches. The eBay one seems to have print issues and the one above is out t/b front and the back being OC.
I normally wouldn’t be critical of cards on a thread like this but really wondering how MBA makes calls on cards that are already high grade. There are lots of 5s that look like 7s, but a sticker on an already really nice 9 has to mean it is presents like a ten IMO.
Monty - to be clear, you have fantastic cards and I really respect the way you collect. And if these stickers improve the value or your collection, that is awesome. Just very skeptical of these schemes.
On 68s and others like it when there is clearly an undefined border such as 54s too…I measure centering of the undefined border as the percentage of the two defined borders. In case of 68s…the undefined border is the top when viewing horizontally. I measure then 55/45 the top to bottom centering on my 68 Bench RC.
A gold diamond means that the assigned technical grade is low by 1/2 or 1 grade.
A silver diamond means that the card has exceptional eye appeal for the assigned grade.
What was the final cost to get these stickers on the cards you sent? It isn’t cheap from what I can tell.
The special running thru August for a digital review to determine candidates for a diamond credits submitters to the full amount of a digital review charge towards the charge to physically submit a card to MBA to be assigned either a silver or gold diamond. I have accrued a $550 credit for an actual submission which has a sliding price point based on value of the card. I have not tallied up the total charge upon submitting the 27 cards…and counting (10 additional cards come back today from a digital review). These final charges in the process are not only based on card value…but also turnaround time.
A digital review is cost effective in that only diamond candidates will be submitted.
Does anybody know if MBA sets up at the Philly show?
sjjs28@comcast.net
Collector of Baseball Hall of Famer's and Stars, 1965 Embossed, 1968 Topps Game and 1969 Topps Decals
Registered Sets: 1965 Embossed, 1968 Topps Game, 1969 Topps Decals
MBA seems to be more critical of centering on the reverse than PSA or SGC or BGS. I had two (2) cards rejected for a diamond based only on centering of the reverse. I very much like the very specific notes on why a card is NOT a candidate...much more so than PSA notes. Here are the two (2) cards rejected for a diamond...solely on the reverse centering.
The 63 Koufax has a registration issue which is really distracting on a PSA 9.
This is a 7, much better registration....
I agree about the registration issue…but a 7 is ridiculously harsh. I would give it an 8.5. I paid $3300 in 2008. The nameplate is flawless…and a cherry red as opposed to the tomato red on most..and centering is very, very nice on the front of the card. Corners are exceptional. Little toning...bright colors on the front of the card.
I did a bunch at the National a few years ago and I believe it was around $40 a card then. Sounds like it’s quite a bit more now. I thought it was affordable enough that I paid to re-MBA a gold that I had cracked for auto and r received back from PSA. In that case it did again receive its gold sticker but lost its PSA 10. Sad. Trombone.
8/17 updated list...6/10 Diamond candidates today.
Monte - The 58 mantle is a stunner on the front side. I think in looking at the back the centering is probably 95/5 and almost a miscut so I would have to say I agree with his assessment. Still does not take away from the fact the card is absolutely gorgeous on the front which is really all anyone looks at on a card.
KC
The claim is that Silver means it's top 15% and Gold means top 5% and technical grade of +.5 or higher.
I just don't see how he can say top 5% unless he's seen all the cards in that grade for comparison.
A card is beautifully centered with great eye appeal. Top 5% right?
What if 75% of the others in that grade he didn't see, have the same attributes? Are they all top 5%?
No doubt Monty's stickered cards will increase in value, as long as the public accepts the sticker hype.
I mean, people believe that PSA 10s should be worth more than other grading company's 10s.
I saw this in the coin world years ago, when CAC became a thing.
A coin with a CAC sticker now costs 1.5-2x what it did before, even though it's the same coin it always was.
A decades long coin dealer I spoke with thought CAC was a sham, but he also had a stack of coins ready for submission.
He didn't have to believe in it, but if it meant he could charge a lot more for stickered coins, why not take the gamble.
Only four (4) cards to come back tomorrow from a digital review…then determine the cost of actually submitting the candidates.
1 -- if the card is centered and has sharp corners and looks like a 9 or 10, it should be a 9 or 10.
2 - like the Koufax above, everybody probably thinks it looks better than a 7, so why not grade the card an 8 or 9?
3 - overall the curb appeal is what matters, there are many 9's and 10's that are off-centered and don't look like 9's or 10's, so why would they grade them 9's or 10's?
4 - I think there are just to many variables for the graders to get the cards graded similarly. SGC won't give 8's for print dots usually, many PSA cards have the dots and have 8's. is a print dot acceptable or not? variables
5 - if you have a 1967 mantle perfectly centered and sharp cornered and CGC graded it an 8 and it looks like an 8 to you, why wouldn't it get PSA prices, when maybe it looks better than most PSA's?
6 - in the video of the Griffey's comparison from the National (i think) or from You tube. 3 companies think it's a 9 and PSA thinks it's a 6. The card looks like a 9 to me and to the guy holding the card, so why would PSA put a 6 on it? Just because?
7 - a slight cardboard issue, PSA gives it a 6, CGC gives it an 8, SGC gives it 7. who's right? to me it goes by appeal of the card. if it looks really sharp without using a microscope to see the issues, then it's sharp, maybe not a 10, but probably not a 6.
8 - i have many great cards graded by PSA from 2007 - 2020. Many 10's many 9's. A lot of the vintage has slight cardboard issues, but the 10's are centered and sharp like they should be, no print dots. Are there flaws on most, YES!! The card board that TOPPS used costs about .000000001 cent per card. it wasn't pristine.
9 - Mike or PWCC or 4sc has created this Label market and it works because most of us, don't think a small microscopic indention should make the card a 6 or 7 instead of an 8. The real change starts with the graders themselves. They should take a step back, see how the card looks and base their card mostly on that, just like 10 years ago.
^^^
Man, you are so correct. If customers were happy with how the grading companies were performing then these add-on companies would have a hard time generating business.
I'd guess they'll be around and not be going anywhere anytime soon.
OLB31 - Excellent points above and really hits the point about the difference between what graders see and what collectors see. Obviously, opinions are very subjective whether you’re the buyer or the seller of a particular card, but I think, at the end of the day collectors are starting to gravitate towards IPO and centering along with grades. Since the grading companies seem to have lost their way people now take into account the numerical grade as well as what the eye sees - Never has the old saying been more true of buy the card and not the holder.
In the 1990s when I first started collecting PSA graded cards I was admittedly a PSA 8 or higher snob. If the card was not a PSA 8 grade or higher I wouldn’t buy it. Over the years I’ve learned from veteran dealers and collectors, many from this board like Matty and Jeff amongst others, And I learned to target cards based on overall I appeal rather than grade. If the card is not well centered I won’t even consider it, and this focus has allowed me to go after cards and be more discerning in what I purchase. It is a fun challenge but also more fulfilling when you find a great example of a card. And also last year budget further, and purchase more cards overall
KC
1/1 today…REA win (‘62 Clemente PSA-8.5) is a Diamond candidate.
Ok, regardless of what happens with the reviews, that list in your first post is just absolutely sick.
Farewell Ryno.
My question is since Baker was head of grading at GAI, why wouldn't there be more of a premium placed on GAI graded cards?
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.
Peeps be wanting shiny stickers...
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Mike Baker is unbiased ….providing an honest assessment of graded cards…
He has rejected my cards for candidates which had PWCC stickers…twice!
GAi as you know is defunct..MBA is not!
To me that just says people have different opinions. So Brent (to the extent he wasn’t stickering the trimmed cards he had a hand in) thought it was top x %, Mike Baker doesn’t and one guy at PSA thought it was a typical card in a grade band unless it is a .5. The only opinions that matters is yours when you buy and the next owner if you sell.
I was trying to convey…even though Brent is associated with MBA and placed PWCC stickers…Mike is not influenced by those PWCC stickers….and he draws his own assessment.
To illustrate some of my long post above, there is currently 1 1983 topps wade boggs psa 10 on ebay. and it's not a 10. No company today would grade this card a 10. Because its all about eye appeal. disregard the grading standards, no one believes this card is a 10. I would give it an 8 or 8.5. BUt you will find perfectly centered 9's of Wade on Ebay right now. ANd this is why the PSA grading is in total flux and "needs" to have other sources tell you that this card is not a 10 or a high quality of a particular grade.
The BGS subgrades solved all of this for you. 10 centering will give you the best price for a Beckett card every time.
I have no idea why anyone at PSA would grade that card a 10. any employee from 1990 - 2025, should not have given this a 10 nor should it had got by the technical reviewer.
Yes, but the same individual for whose opinion a premium is being sought is doing the evaluation. If we are placing a premium on Baker's opinion with MBA, why wouldn't we be placing a premium on his opinion when he was head grader at GAI? In fact, most collectors have the opposite opinion about GAI graded cards. That seems rather odd to me.
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.
The slab has become a top loader. An expensive one.
Hold on, Brent is associated with MBA?
I would not send raw cards into MBA….just PSA and SGC already slabbed cards. So….there is no way the card can be altered.
2/3 today…finishing with 36/59 as candidates. Now to send into MBA 36 cards….to see if each is a silver or gold.
I think what he meant was that they use the same concept - Brent in the past, Mike currently.
Farewell Ryno.
I can’t validate but after doing some research….lots of chatter online that Brent is a partner/owner of MBA.
Is it fair to say you both trust and dont trust Mike Baker with your cards? It's simply not a glowing endorsement
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
I don’t buy raw cards…so any cards sent would be holdered in PSA or SGC slabs. It’s as simple as that …
And feel very good about my season ending batting average. More often than not…I recognize a diamond in the rough.
What was the final cost?
Still trying to determine that. I need to talk to Mike Baker…what my cost will be in submitting the 36 cards. When I return home from vacation…I will be in contact with MBA.
So far…my cost for digital reviews is $0…since the August special credits digital reviews towards a physical submission. I have a credit of $610.
I believe it is a tiered charge based on the value of the card. '51 Mantle costing more than '61 Mays. I'd ballpark it around $3000 or so. Obviously, a play to increase value.... more power to you. Hope you hit 50% or better on the diamond reviews.
There are a lot of people that are hesitant on purchasing older labelled cards. I can see this product as a way to ease some minds.