Goodwin is up
 

Here's the link

http://www.goodwinandco.com/Catalog.aspx

Gotsta love the grading of Old Judges:

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...100&category=1

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...100&category=1

that's insane...this grading thing is such a crock.

As the highest grade example, the Hogan will do well, I predict.

Are there any serious OJ collectors who go after "highest graded?" How can these grading companies not take photo quality into account in grading OJ's?

1 Donald E. Spence - The Lone Star Collection 16.67% 4.77

Anyone buying that PSA 4 just because it's the highest graded should reassess why they are collecting.

write ups
 

Where are the flowery write ups when you need them? :eek:

Those OJ's are "nice for the grade". :D

E95 Merkle
 

Me likey...

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...100&category=1

Bill

I was particularly fond of
 

this PSA holder debacle:

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotImage...t240a_med.jpeg
http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotImage...t240b_med.jpeg

Peter-Dan said "serious" Old Judge collector

Anyone have any idea why the starting bid on the PSA 4 T-206 lundgren (Kansas city) has a starting bid of $200? That starting bid is higher than any documented sale price of that card, which is a common. It sells regularly for $60-80 on eBay with a few low to mid $100s sprinkled in...

I love the expertise being flashed regarding d304's.

I'm gonna send all my Brunner's to PSA to be rarified!

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...100&category=1

....maybe somebody skipped class during that boring D card lecture.


"A true One of One, no other PSA graded Butter Krust Crawford examples are known. Under other bakers and variations within the D304 designation, 12 Crawford have been graded, with two PSA 6’s and one PSA 8.5 of Crawford’s more common Brunner’s variation grading higher--but none of those examples carry the scarcity of the Butter Krust back. What makes this offering of even greater interest is the fact that no Chicago or New York designation exists on the Butter Krust panel. Only four other D304 examples (1 of Nap Rucker and 3 of Frank “Home Run” Baker) have ever been graded with this highly scarce back panel "

That's a little on PSA and a lot on the auction house - how do you not straighten the card out in the case before scanning it? I can't imagine the consignor was happy to see that.

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...100&category=1

Not so sure this is Brown...factory cut..which I've never seen on a Brown Old Mill...also way too dark IMO. :confused:

Brown Back
 

That's funny, John. Sure looks black to me!

I've got a Magee T206 card labeled as a PSA 5 Magie error. Maybe Goodwin will take it on consignment?

Ron R

Who would bid on that card anymore at PSA7 pricing? The corners are sure to get dented moving around like that.

Yikes! Somebody made a big mistake. SGC better get that pulled before they have to pay $1000s for it.
JimB

Agreed. For years I thought the difference was minimal and thought I owned several. Then I saw one in person and saw that the difference is MAJOR. Just compare the scan from the brown back in the last auction to this one. Doesn't even seem remotely similar in color.

EDIT: Damn you Jim, you beat me by a minute!

Wow.

I don't know what was going on at PSA when they were grading those OJ's,,,,and the one floating around in that slab,looks like it may have done a little corner damage?:confused:

I also once thought my Ike Rockenfeld T206 was a brown back,,,but,of course,just faded black.That "brown back" looks pretty "black".Maybe it's just the scan?:confused:

Clayton

Edit to add:Just saw your post Gary-agreed.I would be pissed if I submitted that beautiful card to PSA and they sent it back floating around in their slab like that!!!:eek:

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...t460b_lg_1.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ot98b_lg_1.jpg

Even with Goodwins very own scanner so the color should be good...the Old Mill brown from his last auction and the current one.

You have to chuckle a bit the last one was missed and wasn't labeled as brown until towards the end, and this one which is labeled up front but most likely isn't brown.:)

Bill did say (Hi Bill) he had one coming up that he was on the fence on this has to be it. I would say that card is not brown IMO. The label should say boomerang because that card is coming back to either Goodwin or SGC.

Cheers,

John

That's a black back Old Mill, no question about it.

And it's time some of the hobbyists petitioned the graders to hold a seminar about grading Old Judges, and explain to them that they don't have a clue. If collectors know more than the graders, what's the point?

No doubt that is a black old mill. It doesn't reflect well on Goodwin that they are trying to profit on an obvious mislabel. I don't see REA trying to pull this.

Those OJ's are so mis-graded its hilarious. I like your suggestion John, but although the grading problems are most acute with Old Judges, in my opinion it also very evident in whatever issue the companies are grading, because the image quality counts for nothing (see recent thread on REA Plank grades).

Fat chance they'll listen to us though, the grading companies think of themselves like great oracles of wisdom that we must bow down to...

Yeah it is a really good thing for the winner that SGC has that "guaranty".

That blacker shade of brown "Old Mill" is a perfect example of why SGC no longer employs former members of Procol Harum.

I've been in communication with Bill Goodwin, and he will be sending SGC the card for re-evaluation. It has been withdrawn from the auction at this time.

Thank you,

Brian Dwyer
SGC

Regarding the N172 Nicholson that's moved around in the holder.....problem with trying to straighten it out is that you could end up doing more damage to the card. I've tried it myself with a 1974 Topps stamp that had become diagonal in the holder.....after I tried to straighten it out, it had become so wedged into the holder's edges, that there's now absolutely no way to straighten it out, and no way that it's still in the grade it was in at the time of encapsulation :(

Steve

That seems like a pretty radical way of dealing with this issue! Couldn't we have ragged about it a little longer? After all, so far we've only crucified Goodwin and SGC. We haven't had time to work on the consignor nor the potential bidders yet!

Please move a little more slowly next time. ;)

I assume if it were sent back to PSA for re-holder it wouldn't make a difference?

got rare?

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...100&category=1

lol

Ok now I’m really confused apparently the OM in question belongs to the Levy’s? Was this card also turned down by REA recently Scott and why? :confused:

Scott you and your pop have seen enough of these what leads you think this one is brown curious to know?

Perhaps it is brown and I’m making a mistake?

For the record I can’t imagine these two passing off a card in a mislabel. If any two collectors know the pain of getting a bogus card in a graded holder these guys would.

Sorry if I made a mistake it just looks so black Scott….:o

John

How do you know that it belongs to Scott, Wonka?

I got sent an email from Jim R from Jerry T asking our thoughts on the card this was after I posted the images last night. He asked if this was the example the Levy's owned. Jim also remmbers the Levy's talking about a factory cut Dolly Stark brown OM, but Jim never saw an image.

I assume this is Scott's but I could be wrong? That's why I asked above, also Rob Lifson mentioned in passing on a Stark brown OM from the Levy's as he thought it didn't quite muster up to being a true brown card. Rob saw this post and thought it may be the same card...once again though I could be wrong.

I'm going to call Scott Levy in the AM.

Another reason I think this can't be brown is the southern league brown Hindu players are not found on Texas league players hence no brown Hindu no brown OM.

All the confirmed brown OM's are also found with Brown Hindu.

Cheers,

John

Wonka...
 

Is right at least about the ownership of the card. And while I generally tend to remain anonymous about the cards that I own ... given that the card is being questioned, I'm not ashamed to admit that this is ours or that we consider it to at least possibly be a legitimate variation.

Dad and I purchased this card years ago because we happened to compare it against several black examples and saw a difference in ink color.

While I admit the color at first blush appears so dark that it must be black, when compared directly against a black OM back there are notable visual differences.

You and I both know that there are many trimmed Old Mill cards that have much lighter tones of browns --- these have traditionally been the ones we all have seen (and the one that you have pictured). However, I think that it is at least possible that a darker shade of brown (not black) exists with Old Mill. Somewhat similarly, I have personally viewed Brown Lenox cards that significantly vary with the darkness of brown - although admittedly to a lesser degree.

In all, given the uncertainty, my dad has agreed with Bill and with SGC to have a second review determine the card's final fate. If SGC deems it upon further review to be a variation I will stick with that finding. If SGC wants to take it out of circulation ... that will probably be OK too. But it's not as simple a case as it appears.

Regards,
Scott

Scott,

Thanks for the reply, I understand what you are saying in reagards to diff color varations on OM. In fact I can lay dozens of standard OM's next to each other and some will appear off perhaps even brown...

A lot of that has to do with the strike on the card, the tone of the paper etc. However IMO brown Old Mill and even Lenox are night and day to next to the black.

I also understand the dark chocolate Lenox you're talking about but IMO it seems even more brown...images below

I hope I'm wrong and the card is brown I still need one! :)

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...e/lenoxblk.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...lfCA0WQ8UT.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ot98b_lg_1.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...t460b_lg_1.jpg

These are the real tough color combos..Jim R sold me these for 50k.

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...e/carolina.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...size/polar.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...size/hindu.jpg

Ted Z has a theroy about purple Carolina Brights-they are only found on players that were under 5'3" tall

Well done - both of you.

I think a decent rule of thumb for brown cards is this: If you have to try to decide if it's brown, it's not.

But I may be oversimplifying it! :rolleyes:

J

T206 carolina, polar bear, hindu
 

Jim and John,

WILD CARDS!!i have never seen a "purple" carolina, "apple " hindu.....

THEY ARE AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!
are there anymore????

WOW!!

Regards,

Johnny

Joann may be on to something. If it's a genuine brown back it will be pretty obvious. If you have to look at the card a hundred times and you're still not sure, it's almost certainly black.

And the one in question IMO is black (sorry Scott and Hank:()

Johnny - Wonka is a Photoshop guru - those are not real.

This is Joe Tinker not Frank Chance ...ugh


http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...100&category=1

Sean,

I noticed that cabinet too. But I bet that the auction house submitted as Chance to SGC.

Mike

I dont understand who they have working for them? This is a pretty easy one. I remember about two years ago The Tribune in Chicago put out a magazine about the Cubs showing a lot of the 1908 cubs. They had a team picture of the 08 cubs in which they only bothered to try to name half of them (and nearly every one was wrong).
In the case of this Tinker card, if someone assumes its frank chance why dont they take three seconds and look at the 1906-1910 cubs? Companies like this are making millions of dollars per auction yet know I have to double check every lot to make sure its not a completely different players then whom they say it is.

Why did SGC label it Frank Chance? Where is the quality control?

rare?
 

First of all this isn't meant as a slam against Bill Goodwin. I think he runs a fine auction and I have never had an issue with him or his auctions. He has gotten some wild prices before but I have never seen any definitive evidence that anything was awry. Each time I have had a question Bill has answered satisfactorily (for me). All that being said whoever wrote this on the Brunners card:

"but none of those examples carry the scarcity of the Butter Krust back"

is just wrong. It's like saying "the ultra rare Sweet Caporal backed T206's"

Both of those statements are similar. The Brunners (Butter Krust) are in fact the MOST COMMON backs in the set by far.

Every example of the brown Old Mill I have seen is a significantly lighter shade of brown than even the brown Lenox. Even the brown Lenox, which is darker is obvious when lined up next to a black Lenox, but the brown Old Mills are very clear IMHO.
JimB

I just like how "ink color" can lead to both a big debate and huge price differences. The crazy minds of collectors.