Jackson 90-1 SGC 5.5 in last night's Leland auction [Archive]

Archive

12-17-2006, 06:57 AM

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman Final sale with juice was 77K. I'm curious what people think of this price. <a href="http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?lot=756&auctionid=611" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?lot=756&auctionid=611</a>

Archive

12-17-2006, 07:02 AM

Posted By: barrysloateIt's about what I expected. Didn't think it would reach 100K, but it was clear early in the bidding it would easily surpass 50K. So it ended up right in the middle. Very nice card indeed.

Archive

12-17-2006, 07:03 AM

Posted By: JayIf you go by that number then I guess the T210 Jackson is about a $500,000 card by now.

Archive

12-17-2006, 07:04 AM

Posted By: BrianI don't think its worth a penny more than $75.5K

Archive

12-17-2006, 07:12 AM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethI don't understand collecting cards that bear no resemblance to the player being depicted.

Archive

12-17-2006, 08:54 AM

Posted By: Richard MassonI don't often shake my head at prices paid, but this one is hard to understand. The card is simply not that rare or special. It is a condition rarity only.

Archive

12-17-2006, 09:00 AM

Posted By: barrysloateIf it's a condition rarity then you have just explained it. I still think it is a little tougher than the average common- I bet there are more E90-1 Eddie Collins out there than Jacksons. With all the levels of scarcity it might be on one of those lower tiers.

Archive

12-17-2006, 09:12 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJEFF L The +'s for this Jax are....that it is one of the finer examples of this card....it's registration is better than most....his "lipstick" is not all over his face....and it's back is clean. However, it troubles me is that this card, is not oversized and with the usual mildly rounded corners, typical of E90-1's. When I was putting this set together, back in the "paleolithic era", I kept upgrading my Joe Jax and most of them were oversized. I finally acquired an Ex one with great registration (but, it too, was oversized). What is my opinion on the selling price....Capitalism is great....it sold at whatever the market dictated. I have very few regrets in my collecting-trading-selling decisions....but, I wish I had never sold the 120 card E90-1 set I had, 8 years ago. T-Rex TED Edited to say DITTO to what Barry just noted, the Joe Jax, by no means is a tough card in this set.

Archive

12-17-2006, 09:17 AM

Posted By: barrysloateIn June, 2002, I auctioned a PSA-5 Jackson for $8737. Just wanted to let the winning bidder know that my lifetime money back guarantee is still in effect.

Archive

12-17-2006, 09:20 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanTed, that's interesting stuff. You had the entire set? Damn. Barry, I'm stunned at the price appreciation of this card.

Archive

12-17-2006, 09:28 AM

Posted By: Tony AndreaBarry's right. "Condition Rarity" is what made the card go for what it did. Although there are plenty showing on record in the pop reports, finding one above VG is real tough. Most are low grade examples with demand greatly out-weighing supply for this specific card of Jackson. Tony Andrea

Archive

12-17-2006, 09:28 AM

Posted By: barrysloateI know Jeff, and I remember at the time I sold it I was very pleased with the price. I didn't think it would have gone that high. Pretty amazing.

Archive

12-17-2006, 10:36 AM

Posted By: CatI bid on it but ended my bidding at $37,001 (roughly $43,400 with the vig). I thought it was a fair amount, but deep down I thought I would end up ONE bid short, but ended up five bids short. It is condition sensitive, but this is not even close to the highest graded. There are two SGC 70s, three PSA 5s, one PSA 7, and two PSA 8s. So there are five in similar condition or better. BUT, it has been quite some time since one of the higher end cards has been up for sale. In the end, with items like this, the free market system defines what someone WILL pay for it, but not necessarily what someone SHOULD pay for it.

Archive

12-17-2006, 10:47 AM

Posted By: barrysloateBidders undoubtedly get caught up in the "when am I ever going to see this again" syndrome. That's why special pieces tend to go so high.

Archive

12-17-2006, 11:08 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI think what needs to be realized, additionally, is that anyone who's spending this kind of coin for a piece of cardboard depicting a guy with lipstick under his nose probably isn't all that concerned about gettig it at the perfect price (I was a few spots ahead of Cat on this card and was very surprised when it went past me late last night).

Archive

12-17-2006, 11:57 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJEFF L Just to show you how the fickle "hobby winds" can change in just a few years. When I sold the set, the Jackson was no big deal. The Mike Mitchell (Cinc) and the 20 (or so) cards like Duffy, Speaker, Bill Sweeney, Wagner (throwing), etc. were the big $$$$ items; due to their relative scarcity. So, I was tempted to break the set up....but then, at the Philly Show, I was offered an amount that was hard to refuse (at that time). My point is....77K might be the going price in 2006....but, will this particular card hold this "market value" in 2013 ? Of course, it's anyone's guess....but I would be very skeptical. After all, it's not in the same "league" as a T206 Wagner (or Plank....or even Joe Doyle). TED Z

Archive

12-17-2006, 12:01 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanTed, I agree. Which is why I stopped where I did.

Archive

12-17-2006, 12:05 PM

Posted By: anthonyi dont remember ever seeing a high price card ($20k+) sell at a later date for less. it seems like the guys/gals who can afford them are the ones who are driving the prices up. sounds like the "it sold for $X amount last year so it must be worth more now" syndrome as well...either way, i cant afford it <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-17-2006, 12:15 PM

Posted By: Max WederAnthony I know this isn't vintage, but according to a recent thread on the board , a 1962 PSA9 Koufax went down from $66 K to $9K in auctions a month apart Max <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1165135017/last-1166048992/1957-1962+Topps+Koufax" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1165135017/last-1166048992/1957-1962+Topps+Koufax</a>

Archive

12-17-2006, 12:24 PM

Posted By: barrysloateMax- it was likely a situation the first time where two collectors battled to the death; and the second time, the first collector was no longer participating. That is how thin that market can be.

Archive

12-17-2006, 12:33 PM

Posted By: JayBarry--That's one, but not the only explanation.

Archive

12-17-2006, 12:40 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI know there could be centering issues and other specifics of the card, and certainly the 66K one could have been shilled. But a lot of these extravagant prices are usually attained by two "have to have it" bidders. Take one of them out and it's a completely different outcome.

Archive

12-17-2006, 12:40 PM

Posted By: anthonymax, i stand corrected but i was specifically referring to the vintage stuff that is not quite readily available. i'm sure there are far more high grade koufax's available than the joe "ugly lips jackson". the only post war stuff i would follow in an auction is the '52 topps mantle. which i cant afford anyways <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-17-2006, 01:09 PM

Posted By: LyleUnlike Cobb, Ruth, even Wagner, there is no debate that its Jackson's rookie card and that is one of the chief reasons it is so highly valued. Jackson has been unbelievably hot lately and I would imagine that I am in the minority when I say that I like the appearance of the card . Yes, the resemblance to Joe is somewhat lacking but I enjoy the leaning on the bat pose and the purple color. E107's are also highly valued because of their importance but not for their eye appeal.

Archive

12-17-2006, 01:22 PM

Posted By: joe brennanBarry, Some collectors wish they had a time machine to pick up cards in a by gone era. Do you wish you had one to tell yourself to hang on to that 5 for just a wee Bit longer? What's the old saying, "If I only know then what I know now." Just kidding. I'm sure the price you got for it in 2002 was a good price then. Joe People said it was a million dollar wound. But the government must keep that money, cause I ain't never seen a penny of it.

Archive

12-17-2006, 01:33 PM

Posted By: barrysloateJoe- I would guess every card I have ever sold is worth more today. If I thought about it it would make me crazy. Did you know that van Gogh had a favorite tavern that was willing to accept his paintings in return for a meal? Would you trade a van Gogh for a hamburger? You can't hold onto everything, especially when selling baseball memorabilia is your sole source of income. That said, sure, I'd love to have that Jackson back. Who knew?

Archive

12-17-2006, 03:52 PM

Posted By: Dan Kravitz"wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then" Bob Seger

Archive

12-17-2006, 04:16 PM

Posted By: AnonymousBut if your a dealer you cant look at it like a collector. Also what if you took the 8,000 for the Jackson and spent it all on high grade E94 or something of the like? Since prices in 2002 were much lower then now you could almost throw a dart at names of rarity sets and make a huge profit.

Archive

12-17-2006, 05:02 PM

Posted By: anthony(i think it while i was in the marines) "what if? what if my sister had a d*ck? she'd be my brother"

Archive

12-17-2006, 05:14 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Anthony, How would your sister having a duck my her your brother?

Archive

12-17-2006, 05:22 PM

Posted By: anthonyjudge, let me get out my 6th grade health book, hold on... ok, page 65 paragraph 2: a female (one with a va-j-j) is considered to be a sister to a sibling. a male (one with a pe-ni-wee) is considered to be a brother to a sibling. (not only am i trying to be politically correct, but sarcastic as well...)

Archive

12-17-2006, 05:26 PM

Posted By: Chris McTo each his own, tats sa lata doe for one ole Joe.

Archive

12-17-2006, 05:46 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Anthony, What's that got to do with a duck?

Archive

12-17-2006, 11:23 PM

Posted By: JimBLike it or not, it is a classic card in the hobby. I love the pose, but the face has always been a turnoff for me. To each their own. It is a great card. Congrats to the new owner. JimB edited for spelling

Archive

12-17-2006, 11:48 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackThat it's Joe Jackson's rookie card means there will lots of demand for it, and overides any other percieved or real deficiencies. In demand RCs aren't always great lookers-- Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, Paul Molitor, Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, Mike Schmidt, Carlton Fisk. In fact, the Jackson might be better looking that all of those. It's interesting that the most popular Post-War player (Mantle) may have what is the best looking rookie card (51 Bowman). Yankee fans always get the breaks.

Archive

12-18-2006, 12:47 AM

Posted By: anthonydavid, you're right on there about the rookies...i buy my cards based on overall look of the card and it being my favorite players. i went with the higher graded '71 ryan, '65 rose and the '70 carew. i never really liked mantle, but i figured he will be a $ draw down the road and i'm partial to "horizontals". i'm glad the '51 bowman is cheaper than the '52 topps, maybe i'll be able to get it someday. (sorry for the non-vintage chat)

Archive

12-18-2006, 04:18 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJEFF L....et al The more I "mull" over this ridiculous 77K figure, the more it troubles me. And, this is why.... I am strictly a Sportscard set collector, BB, FB, & Basketball, and to me this Joe Jackson card is just one of 120 cards in the E90-1 set. A fascinating and certainly a real challenging set to put together. Now, a $$$$$ figure like this will undoubtly discourages 99% of any future set collectors out there. For, it sets a precedent that will "trickle-down" to even a less than Vg card of Jax being unaffordable for most. If I ever had any intentions of collecting a 2nd set, that idea is definitely dashed, now. This card does not merit such $$$$$ price....it is not a rare card One might argue that the Wagner, Plank, Magie or Joe Doyle cards' values do not discourage col- lector's from putting together 520-card T206 sets; but, those 4 cards are legimate scarce cards and many are content to live without them or have their reprints. This same scenario in recent years, abnormally Hi $$$$ figures for Rookies and Major star cards, has really put a "dent" into set collecting and I have seen this across the spectrum in pre-War and post-War set collecting. Just my subjective thoughts on this subject. TED Z

Archive

12-18-2006, 04:16 PM

Posted By: Paul KaufmanTed, I respect your opinion, BUT when you say "this card is not rare", I think you need to qualify that statement. It IS a condition rarity, as are many caramel cards. If an SGC 5.5 goes for $77K, don't you think all those "common" high grade Shoeless Joe Jackson rookies would be coming out of the woodwork ? Please send me a baker's dozen SGC 70's next time you go into your card vault. Have a great Holiday Season ! Regards, Paul

Archive

12-18-2006, 05:20 PM

Posted By: cmokingThe SGC 70 seems to have a very flattened nose. Is that the way all E90-1 Shoeless cards are? Just looks funny IMO. As for the price, I think it reflects the current interest in E90-1 cards, Joe Jackson cards as well as the trust collectors have in SGC graded cards. <img src="http://www.lelands.com/App_Themes/Images/Auctions_Images/611/popups/46395a.jpg">