View Full Version : King Kelly on eBay:
Archive
10-31-2007, 03:45 PM
Posted By: <b>James</b><p><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/N172-King-Kelly-GAI-1-5-Best-OJ-image-Ive-ever-seen_W0QQitemZ110183601064QQihZ001QQcategoryZ10617 8QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/N172-King-Kelly-GAI-1-5-Best-OJ-image-Ive-ever-seen_W0QQitemZ110183601064QQihZ001QQcategoryZ10617 8QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem</a><br /><br />Hello everyone, I am from the vintage hockey board. I do, however like some of the old baseball cards, especially the dudes with big mustaches and their funky hats. I was watching the above auction and was surprised it hit that high. But realized that if you could somehow find a way to remove the glue marks on the back, it would then grade a 6 or maybe even a 7. <br /><br />What do you guys think? Did it go for too much? Good investment even though graded 1.5 GAI? Is it possible to get it past a good grading company after removing the glue marks?
Archive
10-31-2007, 04:00 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Given that I was outbid by several hundred, I think so. <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14><br />I think it got such a high price because of the excellent image.<br />JimB
Archive
10-31-2007, 04:07 PM
Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>The image on that Kelly is as nice as any I have seen on an Old Judge card.<br /><br />
Archive
10-31-2007, 04:55 PM
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>OJ collectors give more than usual weight to the quality <br />of the image, and damage to the back is consider much less <br />significant. Obviously, back damage on a blank back card <br />is considered less an issue than with say an Allen & Ginter <br />or an OPC. <br /><br />Many OJ collectors would take any day the superior image with <br />back damage to the lesser image with no back damage. This is<br />because advanced OJ collectors treat OJs as little photos, which<br />they are. And if you treat something as photos, image quality<br />will always be of big concern. Away from baseball cards, if you<br />have a beautiful, crystal clear 8x10" photo of Willie Mays, does <br />it even matter that there's an errant pencil mark on the back?<br />Obviously baseball cards are treated differently than 8x10<br />photos, but the Mays gives an example of how the front can be<br />given an inordinate weight over the back.
Archive
10-31-2007, 05:40 PM
Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p>Somebody got a great deal, IMO. We've all seen high-grade encapsulated cards that make it appear the player is lost in a blinding snowstorm. Would an A-Rod rookie card with the same characteristic grade as high?<br /><br />As noted, the image is everything with N172s. This card is a beauty.
Archive
10-31-2007, 06:18 PM
Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Looking at the top edge blown up, does it look to anyone else that the front and back layer don't match up? Front layer seems at touch shorter...wondering if maybe the piece is re-backed....<br /><br /><br />Daniel
Archive
10-31-2007, 08:04 PM
Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>That OJ has a spectacular image. The price was consistent with nice OJs. Actually, I thought it was a pretty good deal. You wont find many OJ images cleaner than that one.
Archive
10-31-2007, 08:09 PM
Posted By: <b>bigfish387</b><p>I thought it was a great deal. The image was awesome. The grade does not matter when you have a front like that one. The back is another concern.<br /><br />Good point Daniel.
Archive
10-31-2007, 08:10 PM
Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Daniel,<br /><br />It looks that way to me as well.
Archive
10-31-2007, 11:45 PM
Posted By: <b>James</b><p>Hey, I did notice the thin black line on the top edge. I thought it was a little miscut or something. By "re-backed" do you guys mean that the card is still stuck to the paper it was glued on and then glued again for the second time?
Archive
11-01-2007, 12:13 AM
Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Card actually has scrapbook damage/paper missing on back (see rougher area around glue stains). It should never grade better than it is. It is the front that brought the good $$, very nice contrast.<br /><br />Many N172 card were intentionally "skinned" (cardboard backing removed from real photo front) in order to make them easier to glue into Victorian Scrapbooks. Modern collectors sometimes will add a piece of period cardboard to the back of a skinned card to make it closer to the real thickness of a whole card. This is called "rebacked". Rebacked cards look nicer than a skinned card, but will never grade. Its basically a restored card. <br /><br />After saying that...... I dont think this card was rebacked. Why would someone reback a card with a scrapbook damaged back?? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Nice card!
Archive
11-01-2007, 10:10 AM
Posted By: <b>1880nonsports</b><p>I have never considered that anything was "skinned" to facilitate glueing images or cards into an album, I have seen it in a couple/three cases but the primary reason something ends up skinned is from the physical REMOVAL of cards glued into albums - secondarily from poor soaking in which there is seperation - and finally (usually with mounted photos) when the mount has been damaged and the person was concerned with the aethetics.....