+1 agree

+1 for Adam, seeing that the corners of the card are suspect. And while I have sometimes bid on PWCC stuff, I share and concur with his concern.

That is responsive to what I thought the initial post was about.



But so many want to contrast Gehrig with Foxx, or discuss PEDs, or both. So on PEDs... I see a distinction between using something that isn't prohibited with something that is prohibited. Seems for some folks the line blurs where the substance initially isn't banned, but later on it is. My possibly faulty recollection was that what McGuire and Sosa (for example) used were not banned at the time of use, and that use stopped slightly before or contemporaneously with prohibition. That wouldn't be true for Clemmons and A-Rod (again, for example), because what they were using was banned prior to and during use.

It's a weird netherworld, Frank. Steroids weren't banned but they were illegal w/o a prescription, so McGwire and Sosa and the rest of them never should have had them at all. I guess in a sense they were banned before they were banned. :eek:

Yes, I am a lawyer.

But I digress.

The first thing I thought when I saw that Gehrig (esp the LL corner) was that it was intentionally rounded, maybe to aid in flipping it or doing something else with it, like this O'Doul:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...21%20ODoul.jpg

If I submit that card I get an "A" 99% of the time a "1" the other 1%.

So these two cards are the same grade?


https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...20Snookums.jpghttps://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1674818502

Yeah, that makes sense.

Massively overgraded! That is a 1.5 at best, one of the worst looking 3’s you will ever see!

To me it does, as it appears Ruth has been downgraded for getting second billing to Snookums.

Brian

According to Game of Shadows, Bonds began using steroids in 1998, starting with Winstrol, and by 2000 was also taking testosterone, HGH, trenbelone (a steroid used for cattle), insulin, and Clomid (a female fertility drug). That's quite a cocktail.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I believe the "compromise" on Bonds and Clemens is that both were going to be Hall of Famers, no doubt, and need to be elected sooner rather than later. However, to me, the staggering numbers for both should be taken with a grain of salt and I don't put Bonds in the top 10 all-time nor do I place Clemens nearly as high as his numbers would warrant. I think that's where we should be drawing the line, not keeping them out of the Hall, that's just plain silly. However, I would keep them out of the conversation of top 10 all-time hitters/pitchers.

Thoughts on this?

I like this approach...but also think they should get the dreaded asterisk next to the induction, denoting steroid era.

I think it is a bit ridiculous to ask voters to imagine an alternate universe where players made different choices to see how their careers may have panned out. I don't believe in any case that Bonds numbers through 1997 would have put him in the Hall of Fame.

I also don't believe we should ignore the damage that PEDs did to the game of baseball, or give a pass to the players and owners that furthered it.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I did not read all the post, but most of them. Another point to be made is- this card has traded many times in the last several years. People are sick of seeing the card for auction. And as many others pointed out- its a 1.5 at best.

It would be nice for a representative from SGC comment on the grade. I’m sure they steer clear of message boards unless they can control it like Collectors Universe.

Agreed. The bad part is that it was “reviewed” and somehow crossed over to their new style holder! They can’t claim changing standards or anything like that when they have recently “verified” that a 3 was the accurate grade. They just did not want to be held liable for the obviously needed downgrade on a 80-100k card.

I don't think they're going into the HOF in our lifetime. Maybe some future generation will see things differently. Likewise, I think there are going to be many more going into the HOF that I myself do not think of as HOFers that apparently most other people do.

I went the poor man’s rout and picked up a 27’ exhibit and 25’ w590. Would love to know if the w590 was actually printed in 25’

I recently read two good threads on here about the W590 issue. I think even the guys who seemed to have some pretty good theories about the issue were not 100% convinced that the Gehrig could be pinned down as only a 1925 printing.

From the independent research that I have done based on the printing font, and it’s been a while now, there was no reason why the Gehrig W590 would not have been printed in 1925 considering the player/team identifications of the other 9 cards from the Gehrig strip of 10 that I have seen. Could these have continued to have been printed beyond 1925, sure, but the same can be said for numerous other vintage issues. You kind of have to draw the line somewhere with this kind of stuff or you will drive yourself crazy. Could the Gehrig also have been printed on a different panel of 10? Maybe, I have never seen another different one though.

To me the W590 has an upside and a downside when compared to the 1925 Exhibit. It obviously fits the definition of a card (although strip cards may not be as popular as caramel, tobacco, etc.) much more precisely than the Exhibit, which is essentially a blank backed postcard. The downside is that it is categorized as a 1925-31 issue, for what that’s worth, and I think it can be pretty safely assumed that cards from this series were issued at least over multiple years so the date can never be as definitive as the ‘25 Exhibit. (But who’s to say that the Exhibit Supply Co. didn’t have leftover cards from 1925 and refilled their vending machines with them in 1926?) Anyone willing to bet their life on that not happening? You get the picture.

I would love to see your research, Phil. Please publish it and explain your conclusion. If you already did, I guess I missed it, so please post a link to it.

Here is one of the links from here on the general dating of the W590...
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=185679

I could have sworn there was another.

Here is a link to a 10 card strip with Gehrig...

https://huntauctions.com/phone/image...140&lot_num=18

My edit is to add that I am not sure what, if anything, can be inferred from the boxers on that strip but with the inclusion of Hank Gowdy as a NY Giant, it closely supports Phil's theory. Gowdy was on the Giants for a minute in 1911 but would return as a back up catcher in the 1923-25 seasons.

Adam:

Any research that I did regarding the W590’s, including the Gehrig and Lindstrom cards as potential rookies was probably a decade or more ago when I was doing the HOF rookie card collection. Without recalling all of the details, I believe that the set was issued in two separate printings, one during the first year of the date range, 1925, and the other during the last year, 1931. Player/team changes factored into it as well as font type, position designations, etc. At the time I was collecting the rookies, I owned both the Exhibit and W590 Gehrig, with the first being worth around $3K and the strip card being closer to $1K so there was no self-serving purpose for me to unjustly favor one over the other for my own benefit.

If I recall correctly, in more recent years, someone maybe a Dan posted a thread documenting multiple card issues where the date(s) had been in question over the years. I don’t recall if W590 was part of that one but it would be very helpful if somebody could find and post it. I had no luck searching for it.

Taking a closer look at the 5 boxing cards, and I defer to Adam’s expertise in this area, it appears that all were at “peak” times in their careers around 1925 as opposed to 1931 so this would correspond with my theory that this strip was produced in 1925 and not the later printing. The Gowdy baseball card certainly favors this theory as well and doesn’t make sense that it would be issued as late as 1931 when he was playing in Boston for the previous two seasons.

The boxers aren't any help; all were active before and after 1925 and are in numerous sets from the era.

Seems like the rookie prices are alive and well for nice looking ones! His PSA 3.5 sold for $206k this week at Goldin. Night and day nicer looking than the original 3 that started this thread.

Great looking card and under valued where someone got a great deal. Some folks just don’t give Gehrig or Exibits much love. I am not one of those people.

Hi Jay - Pardon my widespread ignorance of Gehrig cards in general and this Exhibit specifically, but I'm not used to hearing the figure of $200k+ and the words "under valued" used in the same sentence. If I had been consuming a beverage while reading your post, I probably would have achieved some impressive spray.

Is the value here primarily based on this exhibit being Gehrig's rookie?

Unloved for years, close to 100 of them, now it's 200k.


New money is something else

Yes.

The card has gone from about $2K 25-30 years ago to the stratosphere.

I bought a (now) PSA 6 raw, in about 1998 for 2600 dollars.....wish I still had it :eek:

.

Totally get that.

I guess I’m not following the concept that it’s undervalued now that it’s into the stratosphere. But maybe I misunderstood that part. Maybe it used to be undervalued back when it could be had for cheap, and now it’s no longer undervalued?

To me it feels like they have been discovered like the Sporting News 1916 Ruth that wasn’t as appreciated as it is today. There are so many variations of that 1916 the Gehrig is actually a lot scarcer too so I can see why prices have skyrocketed.

Is it "undervalued"? As compared to Ruth, I don't think it is. Ruth is ... Ruthian. All others fade into the background. As compared to Mantle, it gets more complicated. If you offered me a 1925 Gehrig or a 1951 Bowman/1952 Topps Mantle to have for my PC (not to flip) with comparable grades, I would take the Gehrig every day and twice on Sunday. But that is my collector, not investor, take, no doubt influenced by the fact that my favorite Mantle is the 1952 Bowman. Slipping on my investor hat, however, I gotta go with the comparably valued 1952 Topps Mantle because i think it has a higher ceiling. So, undervalued is a loaded term.

I would be happy for either the Gehrig or the Mantle which ever do not choose.

Both cards have upside potential and both are great cards. But since I am a pre 1939 collector I would prefer the Gehrig.

Agree totally! It’s not Ruth and Ruth will sell for more all else equal but I just think it’s become discovered more like the Ruth rookie was years ago now.

A somewhat overlooked mistake here is the " new holder" . If it were in an old PSA holder getting it in a current PSA holder definitely adds value. Not the case with SGC and for sure not in this situation. It looks like a somewhat typical, older overgraded SGC card. For sure SGC and PSA are grading much tougher than they use to. While I also agree demand has softened, a new holder is a good stategy before auctioning a PSA card but probably not with SGC

Love exhibits
 

Love. Mine

OMG, my condolences. Kudos for being early though.


.

At the time, I sold it for a record price, 10k....that's life.

That doesn't sound like a weird netherworld, it sounds like a place where you could have easily answered any critics by showing your prescription.

Maybe I am too lawyerish, Doug. What I meant was that if it is illegal but not against the rules of the job, it inhabits a gray area between employer sanctionable and non-sanctionable misconduct. My personal view is that illegal activity is always grounds for dismissal but I appreciate that the line grays out with some offenses. Illegality is differentiated into what legal theorists call malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses. Malum in se offenses are things that no civilization ever tolerates: murder, rape, arson, pineapple on pizza, etc. Malum prohibitum offenses are those that are wrong only because a particular society has labeled them as wrong, while others do not. Marijuana is a perfect example. What I can buy and get high on here in Cali at a nice storefront next to a falafel place will get me arrested in Texas. In baseball 'law' steroids were more the latter: not against the rules but definitely against the law without a scrip. Does a team fire a player for something not against the rules (malum in se) but illegal activity, just not the sort of illegal that would be universally condemned. That's where money and marketing come in. Trevor Bauer got run out of MLB over an accusation of a malum in se activity that he was not even tried and convicted of doing because the "ick" factor of the behavior (even if consensual as he claims) itself was too ugly for the game's marketers to tolerate. MLB has lost enough audience share already without being seen to coddle pervs, even if not convicted; call it the Michael Jackson Rule: the fact that he was in a position to be accused of kiddie fiddling in the first place destroys his marketability for a sizable number of fans, so if you can, you get rid of him. Or Kapernick: basically got blacklisted in the NFL for speech because it really ticked off a lot of the fans. Yet, a guy who shoots up steroids and gets caught gets a suspension...because fans like how guys play when they are jacked on 'roids. Same with cards: lots of collectors don't care whether some honest wear is removed because they like the results; others pitch a hissy fit over using a glasses cleaning cloth to remove wax from a card front. As long as the money flows, the net result will be nothing. This is America: it's all about the Benjamins.

It would be interesting to see someone do a projection of what Barry Bonds final numbers would have been based on his pre-steroid numbers. I don't think people who used steroids should be in the Hall of Fame though.