This is a weak 6, right? [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

View Full Version : This is a weak 6, right?

Archive

09-03-2006, 07:07 PM

Posted By: T206CollectorAm I missing something, with the off-center borders and apparent chipping/paper loss on the lower left border -- how is this a 6? And at $1,800 already, people are buying the slab, not the card, right? <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/1909-11-T206-T-206-Christy-Mathewson-Portrait-PSA-6-HOF_W0QQitemZ230021911100QQihZ013QQcategoryZ31718Q QrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/1909-11-T206-T-206-Christy-Mathewson-Portrait-PSA-6-HOF_W0QQitemZ230021911100QQihZ013QQcategoryZ31718Q QrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem</a>

Archive

09-03-2006, 07:10 PM

Posted By: JoannDeleted until after auction ends. J

Archive

09-03-2006, 07:17 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesI agree, this is a slider 6 = the highest grade this card could ever achieve under the most favorable conditions + it will never cross.

Archive

09-03-2006, 07:24 PM

Posted By: Steve M.to discuss this card after the auction closes.

Archive

09-03-2006, 07:39 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Why does THIS card deserve to be above scrutiny until after the auction ends? I realize that we don't want to damage an auction but in the past people would opine what they felt while an auction was live. Heck, people have "held court" on an items in Mastro auctions before. With that said I'm surprised the flip doesn't say Harris Collection on it.

Archive

09-03-2006, 07:50 PM

Posted By: steve yawitzGood gawd, people. I'll say it: That card is a turd.

Archive

09-03-2006, 08:23 PM

Posted By: bigfish#$@#$@#!?????

Archive

09-03-2006, 08:32 PM

Posted By: Frank EvanovLooks short top to bottom. Terrible side to side centering. Frank

Archive

09-03-2006, 08:43 PM

Posted By: warshawlawworst cut job I've seen since Joan Rivers.

Archive

09-03-2006, 09:48 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethLeon can set board policies against discussing live auctions, but until he does, hell, all we are doing is expressing our opinions what's wrong with that do we owe it to people to crawl under a cone of silence or something? To me the card looks quite short and I agree with Paul it appears there may be paper loss.

Archive

09-03-2006, 10:29 PM

Posted By: jay behrensShort? That thing needs a condom so it won't slide around so much in the holder. The black on the left boarder doesn't look good. Either ink is missing or there is paper loss. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-04-2006, 01:20 AM

Posted By: Lee BehrensWhere are the PSA defenders? This is another great example of PSA ineptitude. I think Sean could have seen this card was trimmed. Always curious who actually submitted cards like this. I would be very wary if I was a PSA collector of high grade cards, examples like this put the whole lot in question. Lee

Archive

09-04-2006, 05:38 AM

Posted By: John SBad grading job, no doubt. As far as discussing auction items before they end, I see no true problem. What is wrong with critiquing a card...kind of like taking a car for a spin with some friends before the purchase. The only exception that comes to mind would be if one of us had a personal issue with the seller. It is still a very presentable Matty, just not worth PSA 6 dollars. If someone wants to spend PSA 6 money for the card that is their business.

Archive

09-04-2006, 05:55 AM

Posted By: Steve M..

Archive

09-04-2006, 08:27 AM

Posted By: BobbyI think this post is alright...it's not by the seller trying to promote the listing...and if it was it would be a big mistake.

Archive

09-04-2006, 11:32 AM

Posted By: T206Collector...this card was once in a PSA 6 holder. I just think it is a better example of the grade -- it is the best card I own, hands down. At the 6 level, there shouldn't be this much disparity in the obvious appearance of the same two T206 cards. <a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c322/T206Collector/T206%20Collection/MathewsonPortraitSGC80.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

Archive

09-04-2006, 12:08 PM

Posted By: jackgoodmanT206 collector - At first I thought you had stolen my card. But mine is safe and sound. BTW, very nice card! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1157306736.JPG">

Archive

09-04-2006, 12:34 PM

Posted By: T206Collector...that's a nice one, too! We should get them together sometime and brag about how we have the two nicest cards in the world.

Archive

09-04-2006, 12:39 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldFirst, the bid price has exceeded the card's value. Second, the bidders must be "blinded by the slab", they are bidding on it because it is graded; forgive them, they know not what they do. And finally, I see no transgression in commenting on that Matty card in the slab that is offered on eBay even though the auction is in progress.

Archive

09-04-2006, 01:09 PM

Posted By: MikeYou're right, it should be a 7.

Archive

09-04-2006, 11:26 PM

Posted By: Josh K.That card would grade a 30 (if not trimmed) if presented to SGC. Not sure how the grader missed the paperloss on the left border.

Archive

09-05-2006, 01:21 AM

Posted By: fkwCard in auction (PSA) is Obviously short top to bottom...... especially when compared to those 2 SGC cards. The PSA card looks like a nice PRO-6 to me.

Archive

09-05-2006, 01:41 AM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Absolutely right about the PRO card reference but I think it would have been a PRO-8. Too bad the buyer paid a PSA price for it. It's almost difficult to feel sorry for someone like that. How the heck does someone spend that kind of money for a card and not know much about T206's in general. Like people have been saying, the buyer bought the holder, not the card.

Archive

09-05-2006, 05:31 AM

Posted By: dennis anyone who has owned a t206 should question this card as a possible trim job. the concensus here is that this card is trimmed, or at least it is short. the reality (because of the slab)is that this is an ex/mt 6 matty card. the bidders put 100% faith in PSA, and as long as the card remains in that slab, it is a 6. it could be a factory short cut, a vintage trim,or a modern($)trim. that is all speculation. any card that is this old and in a slab with sharp corners and a grade of 6 or higher should be looked at in the same light as we look at this card.but the reality is they are not. some are just more obvious that others.

Archive

09-05-2006, 06:58 AM

Posted By: Steve M.the final price took all of your concerns into consideration. The last 3 PSA 5's at auction sold for between $2,000 and $2,250. The last SGC 60 at auction sold for $2,250. Plain and simple it's a 5 in a 6 holder. There have been no reported auction sales of a PSA 6. A PSA 7 went for $8,500+ in Mastro's Spring auction. Might the original poster opine for us what he beiieves a "true" PSA 6 should bring?

Archive

09-05-2006, 09:21 AM

Posted By: Josh K.Sorry, but its not even a 5 if its trimmed or has paperloss.

Archive

09-05-2006, 11:25 AM

Posted By: T206Collector...would not have posted if he thought it might just be a 5 in a 6 holder. That would not have been significant enough to take the time to write about. Yes, if it was a true 5, it would've sold for what this one sold for. But if that's paper loss on the front left border, then that ain't a 5.

Archive

09-05-2006, 02:20 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethMine sucks in comparison lol. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1157401194.JPG">

Archive

09-05-2006, 05:28 PM

Posted By: NoelThat is a very nice Matty 4. Certainly beats the crap out of the one that just sold. I have a GAI 3.5 that is at least as nice and no paper loss.

Archive

09-05-2006, 05:56 PM

Posted By: BcDit would be a typical 6 O/C. It just looks funky because we have so many more T-206's to compare this card to including the two scanned above that are centered so much better. I don't think its short but does command poor eye appeal.It's a psa 6 that needs the qualifier but we all know about their quality control.

Archive

09-05-2006, 06:11 PM

Posted By: JohnI’m with BCD on this one, really bad eye appeal. But as you know T206’s can come in funky shapes and cuts, and there are so many nicely centered versions to compare to that sometimes they can really stand out. My guess is OC, spotting not paper loss. As for trimming I would have to see the card in person to come to that conclusion.

Archive

09-05-2006, 06:13 PM

Posted By: John"Might the original poster opine for us what he beiieves a "true" PSA 6 should bring?" Paul, I think this was Steve's question and point, your thoughts?

Archive

09-05-2006, 06:20 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Did anyone take a close look at the card in question with respect to the holder. That card has a lot of room between the top border of the holder and the top border of the card. A 6-OC? I'm inclined to agree with the earlier assesments that indicate that the card shouldn't even be graded if it's trimmed. I've got cards that are T/B the same size and I'm certain PSA wont encapsulate them. I'm pretty sure that PSA uses a standard size T-card holder for most T206 cards. Look at the PSA4 scan and the card in question. There's a little (huge) difference between the two cards.

Archive

09-05-2006, 06:42 PM

Posted By: John_B_CaliforniaI wouldn't call myself a PSA "defender", but yes I own some of their cards. On a 6, centering can be 80/20 or better on the front. Eyeballing it, I know it's not 90/10, (9 of the left border fitting in the right border, no). Is it exactly, 80-20, I don't know, it's extremely close. Clearly the buyer discounted for any centering or paper loss and didn't pay a wild and inflated price just because it's in a PSA holder. The card books for $1,100, $1850 and $4000 for a PSA 5, 6 and 7. If 5's have sold for $2,000-2,200 and the 7 brought $8,500, clearly in this hot market, there was a sizable discount for the card.

Archive

09-05-2006, 08:26 PM

Posted By: T206CollectorI already did respond above. I've pasted my comments again below for your convenience. The original poster [i.e., me] would not have posted if he thought it might just be a 5 in a 6 holder. That would not have been significant enough to take the time to write about. Yes, if it was a true 5, it would've sold for what this one sold for. But if that's paper loss on the front left border, then that ain't a 5.

Archive

09-05-2006, 08:44 PM

Posted By: Steve M.When I asked my question of the "original poster" it had nothing to do with the subject card. It was a simple request that based on the information I presented regarding recent 5 and 7 auction sales what he though a PSA 6 should go for. Why he persists in denegrading the card quite honestly is beyond me. I think everyone who has posted has agreed with his initial question, i.e. "This is a weak 6, right?" Simple answer: Right.

Archive

09-05-2006, 09:06 PM

Posted By: JohnHmmm…Paul are you always this nebulous??? Actually you did not answer the question, but whatever. Take Care.

Archive

09-06-2006, 06:56 AM

Posted By: T206Collector1) I continue to denegrate the card because I like PSA pile-ons. Find me a good thread about PSA pile-ons, or better yet, let me start one, and I'm all in. I have dozens of scans to add to the mix, and if you'd like to send me some more, please send them to -- pmifsud3d@gmail.com I'll take the SGC mess-ups, too, by the way, but no one seems to have any of those. [Oh, Paul, your pro-SGC act is getting so tired. Would you mind shutting up, I still have some cards graded by PSA that I'd like to sell for ridiculous amounts of money, and if you don't shut up, someone might start to believe you that PSA is not a particularly good grading company.] 2) I suspect a PSA 6 would sell from $3,500 to $4,000. And while I did not technically answer that question, I answered the response, which is, "Well, Paul, the PSA 6 sold for a 5, so therefore the market took into account the problems with the card and adjusted accordingly." My response is, well, no, if it was a 5, I wouldn't have pointed out the problems with the card that I believe make it a 2, 3 or 4 -- depending on what the card would reveal in person. I wasn't being nebulous, I was anticipating the follow-up response to -- "Might the original poster opine for us what he beiieves a "true" PSA 6 should bring?" -- the only purpose behind this question was to point out that, in his opinion, the market had adjusted for the perceived issues with the card. It was hardly a fact-finding question, but instead a question designed to strengthen the argument made in the post in which the question was posed. Anyway, in short -- SGC rules PSA 6 Matty -- about $3,500+

Archive

09-06-2006, 07:14 AM

Posted By: ScottIngoldI am not a PSA fan.... But I guess everyone spends there time as they see fit. It's all good. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-06-2006, 07:20 AM

Posted By: Steve M.that's pretty much what I had a PSA 6 pegged at. P.S. Leon, I think we can lock this one up now.

Archive

09-06-2006, 01:42 PM

Posted By: JohnI think they all make mistakes IMO. I even have a few SGC bumbles in my collection, as for the amount of mistakes. I can see why PSA makes more seeing at any given moment there are 3x as many PSA graded pre-war items for sale. Not saying its right, but I’d place a bet that if SGC or GAI began to handle the volume of items that PSA does we would see swing in the trend to more SGC/GAI mistakes. I also have no vested interest per say in graded cards, other than the cards that reside in the plastic tombs and what they look like. I also have no personal favorite grading company I will only defend the cards themselves.I collect cards therefore my passion lays with the cards not their graders or grading companies. <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/websize/chance_1.jpg"> My Sovereign backed...Sweet Caporal Labeled Chance??

Archive

09-06-2006, 02:36 PM

Posted By: Steve M.that Chance is way over-graded. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>