fielding $5520

batting $4080

Any chance of the not so popular Sweet Caporal Domino Disc PX7 to have a chance like the cards and post cards so see an increase

dare to dream!!!:p

A sarcastic way of saying In your dreams

Interpret as u wish!!!!! Rising tides tend to benefit all cards of a given player...look at ruth...but coins and pins...i have no idea...not my thing!!!

I disagree. The problem with the single number is people paying the same for all PSA 3 Cobbs, which here our buyer obviously did not do. The purpose of TPG, particularly in the internet age -- and with Heritage's super-bright scans, which the buyer here acknowledged above -- is to show the hidden flaws. That card would've been sold as EX-MT 25-30 years ago. Not today.

As I've said before here, grading is a pyramid. At the top, you have the 10s. 10 means perfection and thus all 10s will be identical. As you go down the pyramid, grades are set for a variety of reasons -- 9s almost all look the same, but 3s, 2s and 1s have a huge number of potential flaws, including paper loss on reverse, creasing, corner wear, etc. What makes a card a PSA 2 could be a variety of factors that tell you nothing about the eye appeal of the card without looking at it.

Professional grading is not designed to reflect eye appeal. It is designed to point out flaws, often hard to see or hidden, in a piece of card board. When you see a clean-looking SGC 30, you actually know there are a lot of hard to see flaws. When you see a badgered up SGC 30, what you see is what you get. But not all SGC 30s will look alike -- in fact, at that level of the "pyramid" you will have a lot of different looking cards.

This becomes problematic when sellers try to sell a PSA 2 for what a previous PSA 2 sold for. Without comparing both cards, going by the number alone gets you nowhere because what you don't know about the previous card is whether the damage was similar or whether the eye-appeal was comparable. Sometimes you can get a pretty good deal on a nice looking 2 when a seller is willing to use a previous ugly 2 as a comparable. This is why they say, "Buy the card, not the holder." Which is exactly what our buyer did this time -- kudos to an intelligent market decision!

right when you get down to cards with flaws.....i call it the 'authentic' principle...

not all authentics are alike..some can go for 2x and 3x mroe than the next..same with PSA 1s......and now people are starting to see it on the less flawed but still flawed cards in the psa 2-3 range....... huge spectrums on that range that can overlap the next or even next 2 grade ranges..... plus centered cards almost have their own range and not limited to the VCP range....needs to be a 'centered VCP" site..

But isn't eye appeal a big part of being exceptional for the grade and worthy of the half point bump? At a minimum, this card should have been a 3.5. It is better than any 3 Green Cobb that I have seen. It is better than the last 2 4s that sold and why it sold for more than those cards. I think the buyer has a 4.5 in a 3 holder and someone with pull will get it in a 4.5 holder one day.

I would think Heritage has pull, and would have tried to upgrade it if it had a shot.

" grading is not designed to reflect eye appeal. It is designed to point out flaws, often hard to see or hidden, in a piece of card board."

That is a very fair point. My modest proposal was not meant to imply that card with a hidden crease that looks gorgeous should rocket to a 7 due to eye appeal. I only suggest that grading companies shouldn't robotically treat all flaws the same. A more prominent crease is a more eggregious flaw than a hidden crease. Paper loss on an innocuous part of the card (i.e. On the back corners) is less eggregious than paper loss on the front where the image is affected. This isn't subjective. On a technical level as well as on visual appeal, this is the case. If a crease is more prominent than another crease, it is obviously a greater flaw and should be treated as such. Is it really that crazy to propose that some flaws are worse than others? The idea that "a crease is a crease is a crease" seems to me to lack any sort of nuance or common sense, and it leads to painfully disparate results in the lower grades. And this is just comparing a crease to a crease. What about when 1 hidden flaw = 4 rounded corners? We see that all the time. The tpg has hit a hidden flaw so hard that it puts it in the same grade scale as other far more eggregious and obvious flaws. I just think that the SEVERITY of the flaw needs to be weighed, and not just robotically give the same weight to all flaws equally. It will never happen, but that is all I am saying. Compare the cards below. Never mind eye appeal. Can you seriously tell me theses cards are technically equal?

I think that's rather the point. PSA's explanation of their half-grades seems to defy what happened here.

No chance. Maybe a tiny increase but nothing crazy like the T206s and the PCs.

Hi Barry,

I am not sure why the op decided to start an argument with me. I was not giving my opinion on whether the grading standards were right or wrong. Only trying to suggest that most times a card has a technical flaw that renders a grade much lower than the card would appear and upon examination in hand based on current grading standards, the grade would be justifiable.

Eye appeal should play apart in a grade but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the grading process is supposed to be an objective process following certain guidelines but at the end of the day we have people making these calls. The market has always been sophisticated and compensates where the grading process has "failed". A nice 4 might sell for more than an average 6. I see it all the time and support that market as both a buyer and a seller.

Greg

The question proves my point. I don't need PSA to tell me that the middle one has better eye appeal. I need PSA to tell me that the scan doesn't tell the whole story: the middle one has a crease or paper loss on reverse -- which I am certain it does -- and which will always keep it below a 4.

Copied from PSA website.



The Importance of Eye Appeal and Subjectivity in Grading


Over the years, more and more collectors have come to understand the basic guidelines behind PSA grading. After grading for well over a decade, PSA grading standards have truly become the official standard for the most valuable cards in the hobby. That being said, there are a host of grading questions that arise and the one basic question that comes up the most has to do with eye appeal and centering.

While it's true that a large part of grading is objective (locating print defects, staining, surface wrinkles, measuring centering, etc.), the other component of grading is somewhat subjective. The best way to define the subjective element is to do so by posing a question: What will the market accept for this particular issue?

Again, the vast majority of grading is applied with a basic, objective standard but no one can ignore the small (yet sometimes significant) subjective element. This issue will usually arise when centering and/or eye appeal are in question. For example, while most cards fall clearly within the centering guidelines for a particular grade, some cards fall either just within or just outside the printed centering standards. The key point to remember is that the graders reserve the right, based on the strength or weakness of the eye appeal, to make a judgment call on the grade of a particular card.

What does this mean exactly?

Well, take this example. Let's say you have a 1955 Topps Sandy Koufax rookie card that is right on the edge of the acceptable guidelines for centering in a particular grade. The 1955 Koufax card has a yellow background that tends to blend with the border of the card. In other words, the contrast isn't great, so poor centering may not be much of an eyesore – the borders are not clearly defined. In this case, if the card exhibits extremely strong characteristics in other areas (color, corners, etc.), an exception may be made to allow an otherwise slightly off-center card to fall within an unqualified grade (no OC qualifier). This is a rare occurrence but it does happen.

On the other hand, there are cards that technically fall within the printed PSA Grading Standards that may be prevented from reaching a particular unqualified grade because the eye appeal becomes an issue. For example, a 1957 Topps Sandy Koufax card has great contrast between the white borders and the picture because the background is very dark. It is possible that a 1957 Topps Sandy Koufax, one that technically measures for a particular grade – let's say 70/30, may be prevented from reaching that unqualified grade because the market would view that card as off-center – based on eye appeal issues. Again, this is a rare occurrence but it does happen from time to time when a judgment call has to be made on a card that pushes the limits for centering.

In conclusion, the issues discussed do not apply to the vast majority of cards that filter through the PSA grading process each day but this is an issue that needed some clarification in the marketplace. The bottom line is that there are times when a PSA grader must make a call on a card that falls on the line between two grades and that final determination is made based on experience, eye appeal and market acceptability.

Jeff, here are the final prices on the two cards. I disagree with you on the HA website. Once you get the hang of it, you will see navigating is pretty easy on it. Now, if you want to see a hard website to navigate through, then go to www.huntauctions.com and enjoy.

Jake, you are correct that not all authentics are alike. Eye appeal has a tremendous affect on buyers. Final hammer price was 33k on REA.

Pins, buttons, and Disc are all nitche items which will slowly gain popularity. Very undervalued over the years and as collectors are looking for items they don't have of a key player (like Cobb), they will start collecting these kind of items which will make them more mainstream. We saw this happen with the postcard market over the last 15 years.

There is a great book by Muchinsky "Baseball Pinback Buttons". The book doesn't show everything out there, but it's a great reference guide to educate collectors who want to start collecting these kind of collectibles.

Part of the problem with grading is that some cards are undergraded and some are overgraded. Not all grading is accurate.

If someone with better skills than me could post images of the two 1951 Bowman Mantles just sold in Heritage, it would be useful.

The one graded by PSA was poorly centered and out of register. Given those two crucial flaws, it never should have been graded higher than VG 3.

And the SGC example was as nice a VG-Ex as you could possibly hope for, with near perfect centering, very strong corners, and deep rich colors. It had two tiny gum stains on the reverse. At minimum, it was a very strong VG-Ex and should have easily qualified for the 4.5 grade.

So the latter was easily a grade and a half better than the former, which the market perfectly recognized. Had each been accurately graded, the cards wouldn't even be worth discussing.

I can live with grading disparities. What is far more troubling is the number of doctored cards in holders. FAR more troubling.

I agree Peter, but why have grading disparities? If you understand how to grade a card, it shouldn't be hard to be more consistent and accurate. It's doable.

Different people doing the grading is part of the reason. If it were all one guy there might be less variation. And there may be some politics.

Card A: should be a 6, but gets a 7 due to politics or incompetence.
Card B: was a 6, but dick Towle removed a wax stain. Gets a legit 7.

Both sell for the same price.
Which is worse again?

I don't care about wax stains. Not what I am talking about.

Thanks for the info , I will look in to it more

There shouldn't be any politics with card grading. You assess a card, give it the most accurate grade you can, and then move on to the next one. If any special favors are going on, then the system doesn't work (and since I believe funny stuff happens, that's why I think third party grading needs an overhaul).

Any small business heavily dependent on a relatively small group of customers and where people know each other is, to some extent, going to be subject to influence. Just the way of the world.

Graders are just giving a "unbiased" opinion. It's subjective and there is literally no accountibility. So, if they give a bad grade who cares. If an attourney does something wrong or unethical then they are held accountable from the Bar of their State.

I was under the impression, perhaps misguided, that the half point grade designation was implemented to distinguish a card which has terrific eye appeal but a flaw from one that has a more obvious imperfection. My understanding with TPG grading is that a wrinkle, crease or small spot of paper loss, no matter how unobtrusive, will bring down the card's grade to a vg unless it is deserving of a half point bump, like beautiful green Cobb; it should be a vg+ for sure.