BBCE grades popped. : ) and : (

lsutigers1973 · September 23, 2008 3:28AM

Almost all of these are cards pulled directly from packs from BBCE and went straight to penny sleeves and CS1's.

1 1 15115002 MINT 9 1972 TOPPS 334 RANGERS ROOKIES B.FAHEY/J.MASON/T.RAGLAND Card US From Bett (ymarea). One of his downgrades.
2 1 15115003 MINT 9 1977 O-PEE-CHEE 119 JIM BARR Card US POP 1
3 1 15115004 N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1977 O-PEE-CHEE 240 PETE ROSE Card US Same pack as Barr PSA 9
4 1 15115005 MINT 9 1977 O-PEE-CHEE 172 BUD HARRELSON Card US POP 1
5 1 15115006 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1978 TOPPS 20 PETE ROSE Card US ?????
6 1 15115007 MINT 9 1979 TOPPS 115 NOLAN RYAN Card US
7 1 15115008 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1979 TOPPS 369 BUMP WILLS Card US
8 1 15115009 N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1982 TOPPS 21 ORIOLES FUTURE STARS BONNER/RIPKEN/SCHNEIDER Card US BBCE cello pack, WTH??
9 1 15115010 MINT 9 1983 TOPPS 78 BILL CAUDILL Card US
10 1 15115011 MINT 9 1983 DONRUSS 120 OZZIE SMITH Card US
11 1 15115012 MINT 9 1984 TOPPS 8 DON MATTINGLY Card US
12 1 15115013 N8: MISCUT 1984 O-PEE-CHEE 64 RYNE SANDBERG Card US
13 1 15115014 N8: MISCUT 1984 O-PEE-CHEE 30 WADE BOGGS Card US
14 1 15115015 MINT 9 1984 DONRUSS 57 REGGIE JACKSON Card US
15 1 15115016 MINT 9 1985 FLEER 286 KIRBY PUCKETT Card US Last group break, card is flawless
16 1 15115017 MINT 9 1985 DONRUSS 325 ERIC DAVIS Card US Last group break, card is flawless
17 1 15115018 GEM MINT 10 1989 FLEER 616 BILL RIPKEN FF ERROR Card US WOOHOO!!
18 1 15115019 MINT 9 1989 FLEER 548 KEN GRIFFEY JR. Card US
19 1 15115020 GEM MINT 10 1999 TOPPS CHROME HOMERUN HEROS 11 ALEX RODRIGUEZ Card US From Clemasz contest, only PSA 10
20 1 15115021 MINT 9 2006 TOPPS UPDATES & HIGHLIGHTS UH138 MATT KEMP GOLD Card US
21 1 15115022 MINT 9 1984 TOPPS 63 JOHN ELWAY Card US BBCE Group Break
22 1 15115023 MINT 9 1987 FLEER 11 LARRY BIRD Card US PSA 10 pop of 1
23 1 15115024 MINT 9 1987 FLEER 97 DETLEF SCHREMPF Card US
24 1 15115025 GEM MINT 10 1987 FLEER 98 BYRON SCOTT Card US PSA 10 pop of 17
25 1 15115026 MINT 9 1987 FLEER 118 DOMINIQUE WILKINS Card US Not happy with this one, better condition than the Byron Scott w/ dead perfect centering
26 1 15115027 MINT 9 1985 TOPPS 620 DWIGHT GOODEN Card US
27 1 15115028 MINT 9 1986 TOPPS 712 DON MATTINGLY Card US
28 1 15115029 MINT 9 1986 TOPPS 100 NOLAN RYAN Card US Thought it was a $500 card, now worth $5
29 1 15115030 NEAR MINT 7 1986 TOPPS 370 VINCE COLEMAN Card US Don't ask
30 1 15115031 GEM MINT 10 1989 FLEER 381 RANDY JOHNSON MARLBORO AD ON SCOREBOARD Card US Another WOOHOOO!!
31 1 15115032 MINT 9 2005 BOWMAN 151 PHILIP HUGHES Card US
32 1 15115033 GEM MINT 10 2006 BOWMAN CHROME PROSPECTS BC153 MAT GAMEL Card US
33 1 15115034 MINT 9 2006 BOWMAN CHROME PROSPECTS BC113 CAMERON MAYBIN Card US
34 1 15115035 MINT 9 1978 TOPPS 173 ARCHIE MANNING Card US BBCE group break, may crack and resub
35 1 15115036 MINT 9 1991 UPPER DECK 13 BRETT FAVRE Card US
36 1 15115037 MINT 9 1991 FLEER 29 MICHAEL JORDAN Card US
37 1 15115038 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 2001 UPPER DECK GALLERY GG4 TIGER WOODS Card US Whatever
38 1 15115039 MINT 9 1989 FLEER 616 BILL RIPKEN FF ERROR Card US
39 1 15115040 MINT 9 1989 FLEER 548 KEN GRIFFEY JR. Card US
40 1 15115041 MINT 9 1989 FLEER 548 KEN GRIFFEY JR. Card US
41 1 15115042 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1989 FLEER 548 KEN GRIFFEY JR. Card US
42 1 15115043 GEM MINT 10 1989 FLEER 548 KEN GRIFFEY JR.

slantycouch · September 23, 2008 3:31AM

Seems pretty good to me... great work on the Johnson/Marlboro.

slantycouch · September 23, 2008 3:32AM

Oh and is that Bump Wills the corrected or the error?

thedutymon · September 23, 2008 3:33AM

Good Day,
Bill, I think you should be pretty happy with those, you did good if not Great!!, compared to my last 3-4 sub's.
Neil

lsutigers1973 · September 23, 2008 3:35AM

The Wills is the BlueJays version and looked better than the Ryan that got a 9.

BunchOBull · September 23, 2008 3:36AM

Bill...a 9 on the '79 Ryan...you've got to smile about that.

lsutigers1973 · September 23, 2008 3:37AM

Neil,
It was the 77 OPC Rose and the Ripken rookie that made me sick. They are both at least 9's IMO and both went straight from packs to CS1's. The Ripken especially because the centering looks 50/50 to me.

billwaltonsbeard · September 23, 2008 3:39AM

That's really weak on those EOTs. Someone mentioned a while back how PSA has seemingly done away with the 'Does not meet minimum size requirement' status, which includes a grading vaucher, and now just automatically gives every card that might be a bit smaller the dreaded EOT. that really sucks

Edited because I'm too retarded to read the actual Bird grade was a 9, not a 10. Congrats on that 79 Ryan by the way.

1989FleerBillRipkencollector · September 23, 2008 3:41AM

30 1 15115031 GEM MINT 10 1989 FLEER 381 RANDY JOHNSON MARLBORO AD ON SCOREBOARD

Do you have a pic of this one raw? Or just the ad?

lsutigers1973 · September 23, 2008 3:49AM

Donovan,

Here is the Johnson with ad. I have 3 more that I am going to sub now. Was waiting to see how they labeled the first one before I sent in the others.

11235813 · September 23, 2008 3:53AM

It just seems like PSA graders are not using common sense when it comes to "Evidence of Trimming", since it seems from reading threads about people's submissions that many of the cards that they claim are trimmed are low value-commons that nobody in their right mind would bother trimming. Just more evidence that a singificant portion of PSA graders have very little idea what they are doing.

That said, I don't have much sympathy for anybody who submits modern cards hoping for PSA 10's and is disappointed when they come back as PSA 9's instead. You are playing a fool's game, and are bound to be disappointed more often than not. Not when you don't receive the grade you receive, but also when you realize that modern PSA 10's are not scarce or valuable. The only reason that modern PSA 10's have low pop's is because nobody bothers to submit them. IMHO, PSA 10's are only truly scarce when they represent less than 1% of a card's population.

lawnmowerman · September 23, 2008 3:56AM

I am sorry this happened to you.

Really though, that sucks.

If it makes you feel any better, my wife is hotter than yous.

Thanks

nam812 · September 23, 2008 4:10AM

I understand a few cards bugged you, but the thread title seems a little excessive for the overall grades realized.

lsutigers1973 · September 23, 2008 4:10AM

To answer 1222548871516161 or whatever it is, the only cards that really PO'd me are the 77 OPC Rose and the 82 Ripken. The Rose came from the same pack as the Barr that got a 9 and the Rose had better centering. Even in a 9 the card is worth $100. The Ripken really irks me. I was absolutely sure that this card was at least a 9 with a good chance at a 10. I was so sure I even sold my PSA 8 and PSA 9 right after I pulled this one from the pack.

With the exception of the Nolan Ryan, I had no intention of trying to turn a profit on the 86 Topps cards. As for the 89 Fleers, I can make a small profit on the 9's and obviously a little more profit on the 10's. BTW, the 89's came from 6 wax boxes that I only paid $50 dlvd. The Griffey and the Ripken FF PSA 10's together will sell for double what I paid for the boxes and grading fees.

If it is possible to make a profit busting cheap overproduced modern wax and also have a little fun in the process, why would you criticize anyone for doing it?

fergie23 · September 23, 2008 4:28AM

Unfortunately the difference between a nice 9 and a 10 is pretty much in the eye of the grader. You should post scans of all the "under graded" cards (I count at least 8 from your comments) and have the folks on the board see if they can point out the flaws.

For a 42 card sub your grades are actually very good (33 of 42 PSA 9 or better). You also have to know that PSA makes you play the resubmit game with EOT now.

Robb

nam812 · September 23, 2008 4:29AM

Looks like you got lots of good, not too much bad, and some ugly.

lsutigers1973 · September 23, 2008 4:30AM

The Rose and the Ripken are definitely going back. The 84 OPC's also kind of puzzled me. Miscut? Of course they are, they are OPC's.

11235813 · September 23, 2008 4:39AM

<< If it is possible to make a profit busting cheap overproduced modern wax and also have a little fun in the process, why would you criticize anyone for doing it? >>

Because:

1) The hobby should be about collecting the cards you love, not making a profit (I know, many people disagree with my on this).
2) Because you are giving your hard-earned money to a company which in my opinion does not provide good value for money and therefore does not deserve it.
3) Because people who focus too much on the grades their cards receive and the profit that can be made from them often forget to actually enjoy the cards themselves.

I bust modern wax just as much as the rest of you (recently a 1979 Topps FB cello box, a 1979-80 Topps BKB wax box, a 1981 Topps BB cello box, a 1985 Leaf wax box, and a 1985 Fleer wax box)), but instead of sending cards in for grading, I give them away as prizes to the students at my tutoring center. I'm sure that I've given away plenty of cards that could have earned my a profit had I sent them in for grading, but that's not what the hobby is about for me.

MBMiller25 · September 23, 2008 4:39AM

Thats a sweet Ripken! I can't see where they are coming up with trimming

PM Sent!

nam812 · September 23, 2008 4:44AM

<< ........but that's not what the hobby is about for me. >>

Right, for you it's not about that. For him it is about that, but he didn't call you a fool for doing it your way. Do you put your left sock on first or your right? If it's the left one first you're an idiot. See my point?

11235813 · September 23, 2008 4:44AM

<< The Rose and the Ripken are definitely going back >>

The right edge of the Ripken looks really funny to me (although maybe it's just the tilt on the scan).

And look at how much more upset you are because the cards didn't get the grades you expected....

The more people focus on grades, the more they set themselves up for disappointment when they don't get the grade they wanted...

Leiascards · September 23, 2008 4:44AM

<< 

<< If it is possible to make a profit busting cheap overproduced modern wax and also have a little fun in the process, why would you criticize anyone for doing it? >>

Because:

1) The hobby should be about collecting the cards you love, not making a profit (I know, many people disagree with my on this).
2) Because you are giving your hard-earned money to a company which in my opinion does not provide good value for money and therefore does not deserve it.
3) Because people who focus too much on the grades their cards receive and the profit that can be made from them often forget to actually enjoy the cards themselves.

I bust modern wax just as much as the rest of you (recently a 1979 Topps FB cello box, a 1979-80 Topps BKB wax box, a 1981 Topps BB cello box, a 1985 Leaf wax box, and a 1985 Fleer wax box)), but instead of sending cards in for grading, I give them away as prizes to the students at my tutoring center. I'm sure that I've given away plenty of cards that could have earned my a profit had I sent them in for grading, but that's not what the hobby is about for me. >>

People are free to collect cards an make a profit on them at the same time. I bust modern wax and use to profits to buy things I want for my own collection.

A few of those cards in this sub will more than pay for the sub plus some more junk wax. On top of many that will probaly be added to Bills personal collection.

CDsNuts · September 23, 2008 4:45AM

Let's all collect how numbersguy wants us to.

billwaltonsbeard · September 23, 2008 4:47AM

Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

11235813 · September 23, 2008 4:47AM

<< Right, for you it's not about that. For him it is about that, but he didn't call you a fool for doing it your way.

<< 

And I didn't call him a fool. I just said that he was playing a fool's game and that I didn't have much sympathy for him.

Leiascards · September 23, 2008 4:48AM

I did not see him ask for any.

lsutigers1973 · September 23, 2008 4:51AM

<< A few of those cards in this sub will more than pay for the sub plus some more junk wax. On top of many that will probaly be added to Bills personal collection. >>

Not sure I could have said it better myself. There are quite a few cards (Manning, Mattingly, Arod) that will be staying in my personal collection. The rest will be resubbed or sold. The money from the ones that are sold will be used to buy more wax to bust and sub.

WinPitcher · September 23, 2008 4:55AM

The Ripken does not look trimmed to me.

Good sub except for the 2 you mentioned.

Steve

lsutigers1973 · September 23, 2008 4:59AM

The only way the Ripken and the Rose are trimmed is if Steve got bored, opened a few packs, took out one card, trimmed a few cards, stuck the trimmed cards back in the pack and sent them to me.

mtcards · September 23, 2008 5:24AM

So much is always made of "eye-appeal" and if Im not mistaken, that term is used when describing the differences in some of the grades.

Here's a question I have not seen debated yet? If a card is slightly trimmed, so what? I can understand if the card is missing 25% of its surface area, but if its only 5% or less, which would not really be much when viewed with the naked eye, should it really make that much of a difference? I realize a lot of scammers would bring out their zacto knives with glee if this were truly allowed, but recently there seems to be a lot of EOT returned lately. From what I remember, some were resubmitted and came back with a grade. If it is that difficult to tell on some of these cards, at least where two "expert" graders cannot decide, why even bother? Grade the card as is, label it smaller than normal size and let the buying public decide its worth. Sending a card back EOT when it is not trimmed and keeping the money is "feebay" level.

Clemaz · September 23, 2008 5:36AM

<< 19 1 15115020 GEM MINT 10 1999 TOPPS CHROME HOMERUN HEROS 11 ALEX RODRIGUEZ Card US From Clemasz contest, only PSA 10 >>

I run good contests.

11235813 · September 23, 2008 6:20AM

The point that I was trying to make is that if you focus too much on the grade a card receives (for whatever reason), you are setting yourself up for disappoinment if the card does not receive the grade you think it should.

Let's not forget one simple fact....the visual appeal of a card does not change during the grading process. It looks exactly the same after being graded as it did before being graded (aside from being in a holder with a label). If you like the card, it shouldn't make any difference at all what grade somebody else thinks it should be.

Because I almost never send cards in to be graded, I almost never am disappointed...

MeteoriteGuy · September 23, 2008 6:57AM

<< The point that I was trying to make is that if you focus too much on the grade a card receives (for whatever reason), you are setting yourself up for disappoinment if the card does not receive the grade you think it should.

Let's not forget one simple fact....the visual appeal of a card does not change during the grading process. It looks exactly the same after being graded as it did before being graded (aside from being in a holder with a label). If you like the card, it shouldn't make any difference at all what grade somebody else thinks it should be.

Because I almost never send cards in to be graded, I almost never am disappointed... >>

For some one that claims to never be disappointed, you have a lot of gripe comments.

That submission would pay for itself plus turn an easy $200 after product is covered. The OPC's or/and the Johnson pays for it, plus. What this means to the submitter, is free cards, plus money.

Without grading, let's look at your collecting model. Buy $300 in old wax, get lucky and pull cards you could have got on eBay for $30. Some might call that "foolish."

I like raw as well, so I would not call that foolish. You are just thinking in a box.

I would also disagree that eye appeal does not change. Getting it slabbed, is not much different then framing an item to some degree. Here is a great example. A somewhat beat up Fred Lynn notebook paper signed autograph. Worthless and with no appeal....until it is graded..

Looks kinda cool now I think.

jayhawke · September 23, 2008 7:09AM

Overall a nice eye. I remember when '89 fleer psa 10 griffey's were selling for $750.

SidePocket · September 23, 2008 8:12AM

Nice Elway rookie in addition to the Ripken.

lsutigers1973 · September 23, 2008 9:04AM

Surprised no one said anything about the 83 Topps Bill Caudill. No PSA 10's but in a 9 slab it is worthless.

One last note, I can't complain about the time. Shipped on the 11th, received on the 16th, grades pop and cards shipped on the 23rd.

detroitfan2 · September 23, 2008 11:04AM

<< The point that I was trying to make is that if you focus too much on the grade a card receives (for whatever reason), you are setting yourself up for disappoinment if the card does not receive the grade you think it should.

Let's not forget one simple fact....the visual appeal of a card does not change during the grading process. It looks exactly the same after being graded as it did before being graded (aside from being in a holder with a label). If you like the card, it shouldn't make any difference at all what grade somebody else thinks it should be.

Because I almost never send cards in to be graded, I almost never am disappointed... >>

Fib stirring the pot. What are the odds? Good grief.

lsutigers1973 · September 29, 2008 7:20AM

Once again, my wife was at home and didn't answer the door when the mailman knocked on the door.

AARRRGGHH!!

nightcrawler · September 29, 2008 10:12AM

That future stars is an incredible card, nice.

<< I bust modern wax just as much as the rest of you (recently a 1979 Topps FB cello box, a 1979-80 Topps BKB wax box, a 1981 Topps BB cello box, a 1985 Leaf wax box, and a 1985 Fleer wax box)), but instead of sending cards in for grading, I give them away as prizes to the students at my tutoring center. I'm sure that I've given away plenty of cards that could have earned my a profit had I sent them in for grading, but that's not what the hobby is about for me. >>

Ya... okie dokie numbers. So you they let teach the kids huh???

otwcards · September 29, 2008 10:55AM

Matt:

Can I get into one of the tutoring sessions and ask you to crack some Topps Mexican. I'll come back for follow-up sessions, I promise.

BBCE grades popped. : ) and : (

Comments