I'll guess this one.

Sounds good to me!

Mathewson suit in mid grade would blow by 100k, more likely 250+ which is the area Wagner suits have brought and the Mathewson has just slightly lower known population as Wagner. Cobb is now many multiples of the 100k, doubtful that 1m would buy one now.

I will add that the buyers of the modern super cards and the vintage key cards are two separate groups of buyers for the most part, each having little interest in the other's area. The modern super card buyer insist on pristine cards and have little regard for cards less than perfect, thus even the T206 Wagner does not get them as excited due to having condition issues of various kinds in each and every example. Plus the Wagner is 1 of 70ish, they want 1 of 1, even if it is a newly minted variance of many, many other very similar cards, created solely to be slightly different and thus it's 1 of 1 status(or some other ratio of created scarcity).

1991 Fleer Bob Milacki PSA 10 - so rare!

The smart money doesn’t discuss these things. Just saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never would have guessed that a mid-grade Ruth from the 1933 Goudey set is a six-figure card, but one sold for $90,000 this week, so maybe $100K isn't far off.

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=75530

I've seen other cards with the "coating" on them, along with examples without it. Is there a premium one way or another? Or are the ones with "coating" basically equivalent in price/desirability to ones without?

It's hard to say for sure and it probably varies by issue. PSA does treat them as different items in the population report. For example, PSA will list a 1996 Kobe Finest and a 1996 Kobe Finest w/Coating. If there is a significant difference in the population of PSA 10 examples with or without the coating, there could be a price difference in prices realized.

1996 is Jeters rookie 1993 he’s still got years in the minors to go.

So is 1960 Topps no longer Yaz's rookie card?

In the 90's the first cards made in the major league card issues were always a players RC. In the mid-late 2000's mlb started doing the whole "rookie label" thing. I think younger collectors of modern are used to rookie season, rookie logo stamped "RCs" but that wasn't the case or the norm in the 90's.

To further muddy the situation, Jeter has numerous 1995 issues that were produced after and make mention of his major league debut. So theoretically I can see people, depending on their own criteria, making cases for 1993, 1995, and 1996 cards. Although I never see the 1995 considered for whatever reason.

To me and I think the overwhelming majority of Jeter collectors, the 1993 issues are what we call his Rookies. But , people can collect whatever they want and different opinions are allowed :D.

there are 9000 psa 8 93' sp foils on the pop report...that's a lot!

$100,000 Card
 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I fully understand how things have changed over the years. The reason for the rookie shield was because people didn’t know what to call a true rookie. Yes because people were calling guys first cards a rookie even before they ever played a game. But the truth of the matter is there is a hobby definition of what a rookie card is. Jeter had cards in 1992 so are these his rookies? Is a card print 3 years after a player retired his last card?

A 1988 Donruss Wax Box .

No, people knew what rookie cards were. The hobby agreed on it in the early 80s. It is new collectors who have decided to try to change the definition. A rookie card is the first card issued in a nationally distributed major league set. It is pretty simple.

Jeter had minor league cards in 1992. His first major league cards are 1993, Topps, Score, Pinnacle, Upper Deck, SP and Stadium.

For example Carl Yastrzemski's RC is 1960 Topps not 1961 Topps even though he didn't play in the majors until 1961.

Eddie Murray's RC is 1978 Topps not the 1977 Orioles team issue because that is a regional.

Delino DeShields RC is 1990 Leaf (and other brands) not 1988 OPC because OPC was not issued in the USA.

The real confusion came when MLB said companies couldn't issue cards before a player's debut in 2006. This was because Topps signed players instead of signing with the Players Association. So Upper Deck and Playoff rarely had rookie cards in their sets. Topps got around this ruling in their Bowman sets by still making prospects but numbering them as inserts. Collectors at the time treated them as rookie cards, such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout. Newer collectors were confused and believed what Topps told them that the 2011 Topps Mike Trout was his RC. Topps pushed this narrative because it allowed them to sell more cards.

So, no the rookie shield isn't because people didn't know what the rookie is. It is because of a ruling in 2006 by MLB due to complaints from Upper Deck and Playoff about Topps almost monopoly on producing rookie cards.

.

How about a Colgan Chip of Joe Jackson in high grade?

I think the Ryan rookie in PSA 9 is on deck to hit 100k, especially if a strong nine hits the auction circuit. Though maybe one already has, as it is hard to keep up these days.

Did everyone see this card in Goldin's current auction? We're going to have to add more than a few zeroes to the $100,000 card limit when talking about this card. Amazing! Sorry about discussing a current auction, but I doubt that this is flying under the radar!

Your not wrong in the case of what finally cause topps to make this move. But it wasn’t the only factor that was just the straw that broke the camels back. In order to be a true rookie the player must reach the highest point of competition. They should also be In a major league uni.

1979 Gretzky opc would not be a rookie because it’s not Nationally distributed .