Any Guesses As To Where This 1954 Topps Hank Aaron SGC 96 Ends Up?

JackWESQ · June 9, 2008 2:22PM

Any guesses as to where this 1954 Topps Hank Aaron SGC 96 ends up? The economy is tough, but that is one sweet card. And it appears to be a legitimate auction. Think it could cross over to a PSA 9? PSA 10? Well, maybe not a PSA 10.

/s/ JackWESQ

storm888 · June 9, 2008 2:27PM

Centering is a bit distracting.

psafan · June 9, 2008 3:45PM

Me thinks PSA would not grade that card. They would think its trimmed.

StanTheManMusial · June 9, 2008 4:03PM

I believe that is the card that was an SGC 8, just recently.

msassin · June 10, 2008 3:02AM

I'll guess $14,000

Morgoth · June 10, 2008 3:10AM

At the max for centering IMO but is not anywhere near the worst 9 I have seen. Given it's graded by SGC and it is a little OC (most advanced collectors expect high end cards in SGC holders to be OC to some degree) I wouldn't expect over 10K.

44Magnum · June 10, 2008 3:20AM

Not sure what you guys are talking about on the centering? It looks like 45/55 to me (40/60 at worst). PSA's own standards for a 9 are "Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better..." Either way, a very nice card and my guess is $12K.

storm888 · June 10, 2008 3:53AM

<< Not sure what you guys are talking about on the centering? It looks like 45/55 to me (40/60 at worst). PSA's own standards for a 9 are "Centering must be approximately 60/40 to 65/35 or better..." Either way, a very nice card and my guess is $12K. >>

////////////////////////////////////////////////

The "issue" with the centering does not have to do with grading-standards.

The problem is that the eye-appeal suffers because of the distraction; many
folks like expensive 9s to be "perfectly" centered.

If I was buying for longterm investment purposes, I would pass.

ALOT can be learned about the likely future monetary importance of centering by
studying prices realized for investment-grade stamps. Perfection brings staggering
premiums.

envoy98 · June 10, 2008 4:12AM

I think you're looking at close to $20k for that card.

Stingray · June 10, 2008 4:19AM

<< I think you're looking at close to $20k for that card. >>

I agree, I do not think the centering distracts from that card at all, though not perfect, IMO.

WinPitcher · June 10, 2008 4:25AM

Nice card, regardless of the slab it is in. I agree that the centering is not perfect nor does it have to be.

IMO unless I could get that card below retail I'd pass. It is not a premium for the grade card IMO. (not to say that it doesn't fetch a premium
price.

BTW the seller of that card is a board member here.

I have no idea where it ends up. I only know it does not end up in my collection.

I already have one.

Steve

Mickey71 · June 10, 2008 8:17AM

It appears to be an awesome card. It appears to be accurately graded. I actually like the centering. The centering top to bottom looks to be right on and better than 60/40 side to side. Many times PSA and SGC are very lenient with the top to bottom centering on 1954's. ====Just to add- neither company has a standard for grading the Banks rookie in regards to side to side centering. Ask all collectors familiar with the Banks card and they will know what I'm talking about.

otwcards · June 10, 2008 9:21AM

<< I believe that is the card that was an SGC 8, just recently. >>

I'm guessing you're suggesting it is the same card that sold in the Robert Edwards auction last month as an SGC 88. The only reason I would think that it isn't the same card is that the holder is the hologramed holder and SGC has been using the etched holder for several months, at least.

I'm fine with the l/r centering and it's spot on t/b. The slight tilt to irks me a bit, though.

I'm guessing that auction closes at around $14,750.

StanTheManMusial · June 10, 2008 9:43AM

<< 

<< I believe that is the card that was an SGC 8, just recently. >>

I'm guessing you're suggesting it is the same card that sold in the Robert Edwards auction last month as an SGC 88. The only reason I would think that it isn't the same card is that the holder is the hologramed holder and SGC has been using the etched holder for several months, at least.

I'm fine with the l/r centering and it's spot on t/b. The slight tilt to irks me a bit, though.

I'm guessing that auction closes at around $14,750. >>

I have an opinion, but I will keep it to myself for the time being.

otwcards · June 10, 2008 9:49AM

<< 

<< 

<< I believe that is the card that was an SGC 8, just recently. >>

I'm guessing you're suggesting it is the same card that sold in the Robert Edwards auction last month as an SGC 88. The only reason I would think that it isn't the same card is that the holder is the hologramed holder and SGC has been using the etched holder for several months, at least.

I'm fine with the l/r centering and it's spot on t/b. The slight tilt to irks me a bit, though.

I'm guessing that auction closes at around $14,750. >>

>>

If they are the same card, there is certainly less of the 88 sitting in the 96 holder as the lower left and upper right edges would've been worked to reduce the tilt and clean off the corners.

StanTheManMusial · June 10, 2008 9:51AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< I believe that is the card that was an SGC 8, just recently. >>

I'm guessing you're suggesting it is the same card that sold in the Robert Edwards auction last month as an SGC 88. The only reason I would think that it isn't the same card is that the holder is the hologramed holder and SGC has been using the etched holder for several months, at least.

I'm fine with the l/r centering and it's spot on t/b. The slight tilt to irks me a bit, though.

I'm guessing that auction closes at around $14,750. >>

>>

If they are the same card, there is certainly less of the 88 sitting in the 96 holder as the lower left and upper right edges would've been worked to reduce the tilt and clean off the corners. >>

It makes you wonder.

RawPlusSlabbed · June 10, 2008 10:00AM

Not the same card. There are several print imperfections that do not match.

StanTheManMusial · June 10, 2008 10:03AM

<< Not the same card. There are several print imperfections that do not match. >>

What imperfections are you going by? You do realize that the REA scans are professional pics to enhance an item, and don't always show everything? Just something to keep in mind.

RawPlusSlabbed · June 10, 2008 10:12AM

<< 

<< Not the same card. There are several print imperfections that do not match. >>

What imperfections are you going by? You do realize that the REA scans are professional pics to enhance an item, and don't always show everything? Just something to keep in mind. >>

A couple of dots on the cap on the right do not match up to the left. Also a dot below the Indian on the right, but not on the left. There is a pronounced line by the ear on the left, but not on the right. An additional clincher is the slab. The card for sale has the old SGC sticker on the back. Those stickers have not been used since around November 2008. With the REA acution a month ago, a time machine would be needed to get the card in the old slab.

StanTheManMusial · June 10, 2008 10:20AM

<< 

<< 

<< Not the same card. There are several print imperfections that do not match. >>

What imperfections are you going by? You do realize that the REA scans are professional pics to enhance an item, and don't always show everything? Just something to keep in mind. >>

A couple of dots on the cap on the right do not match up to the left. Also a dot below the Indian on the right, but not on the left. There is a pronounced line by the ear on the left, but not on the right. An additional clincher is the slab. The card for sale has the old SGC sticker on the back. Those stickers have not been used since around November 2008. With the REA acution a month ago, a time machine would be needed to get the card in the old slab. >>

You ever think that could be a scratched holder, and dust in the scans?

And SGC might not have a few of those slabs laying around? It's well known that cards companies have used whatever slabs they had on hand at the time. For example, Beckett used some old label slabs in the last couple of years when they were running low on, out of, the new BGS labels. It's totally possible.

RawPlusSlabbed · June 10, 2008 10:26AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< Not the same card. There are several print imperfections that do not match. >>

What imperfections are you going by? You do realize that the REA scans are professional pics to enhance an item, and don't always show everything? Just something to keep in mind. >>

A couple of dots on the cap on the right do not match up to the left. Also a dot below the Indian on the right, but not on the left. There is a pronounced line by the ear on the left, but not on the right. An additional clincher is the slab. The card for sale has the old SGC sticker on the back. Those stickers have not been used since around November 2008. With the REA acution a month ago, a time machine would be needed to get the card in the old slab. >>

You ever think that could be a scratched holder, and dust in the scans?

And SGC might not have a few of those slabs laying around? It's well known that cards companies have used whatever slabs they had on hand at the time. For example, Beckett used some old label slabs in the last couple of years when they were running low on, out of, the new BGS labels. It's totally possible. >>

Anthing is possible, but there certainly is some decent evidence that has to be ignored to jump into the conspiracy theory. I think there are enough conspiracy theories floating around.

44Magnum · June 10, 2008 10:33AM

Stevie Wonder could clearly see that those two cards are obviously not the same card. Look at the circle with the Indian. The SGC 9 is a perfect circle as opposed to the SGC 8 where the lines of the circle over lap at the bottom.

aconte · June 10, 2008 10:33AM

<< I have an opinion, but I will keep it to myself for the time being. >>

It's not the same card. This is a fact. I know the seller. He's had this card for some time.

Stantheman,

If you have questions you should ask the seller a question through ebay. I'm sure he would reply since I believe he's
a big Musial fan.

aconte

StanTheManMusial · June 10, 2008 10:38AM

Well, that's a matter of opinion. If you don't think questionable stuff happens on the high end cards, you are kidding yourself. I know one of the highest graded 48' Bowman Musials was "worked" by a professional, from the owner's own admission. It went from an 8 to a 9. It happens.

StanTheManMusial · June 10, 2008 10:41AM

<< 

<< I have an opinion, but I will keep it to myself for the time being. >>

It's not the same card. This is a fact. I know the seller. He's had this card for some time.

Stantheman,

If you have questions you should ask the seller a question through ebay. I'm sure he would reply since I believe he's
a big Musial fan.

aconte >>

That's great to know if this is the case. I guess I am just a bit skeptical of alot of the grading anymore. The cards sure appear very similar, if it's not the same one.

Thanks, aconte.

aconte · June 10, 2008 10:45AM

Stantheman,

No problem. I can understand your concerns.

I share them as well. Even a bigger problem for me in this case is that I wish I had the dollars to buy such a nice card. I do not.

aconte

aconte · June 10, 2008 10:59AM

I do think it is actually a nice mint nine Aaron rookie card.

Here is a Psa 9 one:

aconte

StanTheManMusial · June 10, 2008 11:01AM

I agree, the SGC does look better to me, as far as eye appeal.

Tvac897 · June 10, 2008 11:14AM

$14,000?

perkdog · June 10, 2008 11:18AM

<< I agree, the SGC does look better to me, as far as eye appeal. >>

I agree, that tilt on the PSA 9 card is annoying.

JeffD27177 · June 10, 2008 11:51AM

Here's another 96/9. Final price on this one from 4 months back was about $21,000:

Beckett Graded Card Investor Guide has two other 96's listed that sold last April for about $15,000 and $16,000.

I say the one in question will sell for $14,899.

WinPitcher · June 10, 2008 12:16PM

I too know the seller and I too do not think it is the same card.

Steve

JackWESQ · June 10, 2008 12:28PM

Gentleman,

By way of comparison. PSA 10? Yes. But 50/50 all the way around? Close, but not quite.

/s/ JackWESQ

cardbender · June 10, 2008 1:13PM

I think there's two PSA 10 Aaron rookies. One of them use to be in a 9 holder for what that's worth. Bump-a-rooski.

In my opinion, that's a very sweet looking Aaron SGC 96 rookie.
I would guess it should sell for $17,500 to $20,000 .
I'd be happy to own any of the one's shown in this thread.

psafan · June 10, 2008 2:34PM

That PSA 10 looks great. The printing on the flip is perfectly centered, wish I could say that about the card.

JeffD27177 · June 19, 2008 11:10AM

Just thought I would bump this as I just saw the final ending price. Wow...

A little more than anyone thought

cardbender · June 19, 2008 11:18AM

Strong price. I'm happy for Ron the seller. Great guy.

The buyer is probably buying that for some major leaguer who buys cards..........maybe D. Young.

WinPitcher · June 19, 2008 12:45PM

The winner Cbailey is the buyer for Dimitri Young?

Congrats to RGold!

Steve

packCollector · June 19, 2008 1:41PM

just saw this thread ,they are not the same card. the sgc 96 was bought in a memory lane within the last few years ago. The seller more than doubled his money on the card , great for him!

royalbrett · June 20, 2008 1:52AM

<< Strong price. I'm happy for Ron the seller. Great guy. >>

I agree about Ron.
He sent me some Brett SGC 96 and 98 cards for free just because he saw that I was a Brett fan.

That Aaron is definitely a nice card.

Any Guesses As To Where This 1954 Topps Hank Aaron SGC 96 Ends Up?

Comments