I'm not a pre-war collector, though I sure like to learn from this group and to see everyone's collections. They are mind blowing. I am curious to watch over the next few decades to see how prevalent "restoration" becomes in the sportscard industry. In other collectable/art markets, it is perfectly acceptable (and sometimes actually adds value.) Major museums regularly do cleanings of old art, and as part of those cleanings often gently touch up some of the art where age/weathering/poor treatment has taken its toll. When art is defaced by museum visitors, it is often restored to eliminate/remove the damage. I know that similar approaches are taken with vintage posters and prints. Being familiar with vintage cars, it is of course routine to restore older vehicles (though there is a niche market for untouched, factory original examples as well.) I completely understand that the idea of filling in paper loss, recoloring areas that are missing color, removing marks etc. is repugnant to (probably) most sportscard collectors. Personally, I like em just as they are, warts and all. But tobacco cards, like the T206, are now well over 100 years old. And they are cardboard. Cards that have now been slabbed are probably mostly protected from further damage from handling and accidents, but the vast bulk of cards that are not in holders will continue to age and sustain damage. I am just interested to see whether or not these items, as they push through their second century of existence, begin to experience more "restoration." And, most importantly, whether or not that becomes an accepted practice.
kevin

Reserves should be posted and represent the starting point for bids. All subsequent bids should be by potential buyers prepared to pay that amount plus the vig. Any other method could only be for the purpose of creating false impressions among buyers: either that they could win the item with a bid less than a secret reserve, or in the instance at hand, that bids are coming from real collectors but are actually the AH bumping the bidding up toward said reserve. When secrets are only kept from the buyers, that strikes me as shady business. Just my opinion.

And I would MUCH rather own the unrestored version of this card, not even a close call, IMO. Considering the rarity and iconic status in the hobby, it looks fine, in fact it's a compliment to its appeal that it survived 100+ years in that condition without being tossed away at some point.

Kevin you have some really valid points. Thanks for sharing them.
I do not believe (but I could easily be wrong) that restorations will be common in Card collecting. Even with the higher dollar cards. For one the way grading companies grade and then classify it (ie instead of raising the "grade" it gets either and Authentic, Altered, or Restored grade on it. Just as you see on the one in SGC. That results in less bidders at the higher prices like you have seen in several recent but past auctions. In addition card collecting has a "purity" to it and an appreciation for the life of that card. So anything that takes away from that devalues it somewhat

With old art and such, a lot of it is about preservation too-- deacidifying paper. For a lot of things that will deteriorate, it is recommended.

Why limit it to two? Cut it into teeny-tiny itsy-bitsy pieces and use them to make relic cards! :eek:

Good lord Gary, don't go giving them any more ideas like that. LOL Remember when Topps had their Topps206 and Topps205 sets issued in the early 2000's, and how they also bought and randomly included actual T206 and T205 cards as part of those issues? Can you imagine if Topps went ahead and acquired a real T206 Wagner, and.then announced they were going to insert it (actually a redemption card for it) in one of their products? Or maybe do it with a '52 Mantle. Can't even imagine the furor that would create for that product, and what they could end up asking for it then. (And the Breakers would probably still make a ton off of it, regardless of what Topps priced it at.) :)

Part of the problem from my perspective is that so many of the decisions made by the TPGs about what constitutes an "alteration" to begin with is borderline arbitrary. A card that has tape on it hasn't been altered? Really? But if you remove the tape, then it has? Lol. But only sometimes? Uhh, OK. And if the surface of a card gets dented by something, then that lowers the grade because a card with an indent is a damaged card. Unless of course the surface damage we're talking about was caused by a screw down holder smashing down the corners. That's not "damage", that's an "alteration", tantamount to trimming or recoloring a card. :rolleyes: And speaking of timing, apparently even that's OK to do with some cards but not others. Some of this stuff is just ridiculous. The screw down holder damage equating to an alteration is the probably the one that irks me the most. The TPGs should treat that like they do with creases. Just have a rule that says a card can't grade higher than a 5 if it has screw down damage or something like that, but don't stamp it with some scarlet letter and no explanation at all for why the card received it. The fact that PSA does not differentiate between "trimmed", "recolored", and "screwed down too tight" on their slabs is a real shame. Because I guarantee the market would value those all differently if they knew the reason behind the grades.

To take this point to the next degree, doesn't the same argument -- the arbitrariness of TPG grading standards -- apply to the criteria used to designate a card any particular grade (e.g., ex-mt, nrmt, vgex, ex+, etc.)? The "7" Goudey Ruth in this same SCP auction makes the point well. The card is terribly faded, and to me has poor eye appeal. Yet it merits a "7"? Or how about blank-backed photographic cards (e.g., N172s) that have amazing photo contrast but some minor glitch on the verso? Such a card could grade a 2, while a card with a photo so dim one has difficulty making out who the player is gets an 8 because to the TPG sages the card is "technically" outstanding?

I remember well when TPG first came into being. At that time the consensus was that overall it was a good thing due to the arbitrariness and inherent conflict of interest associated with AHs/dealers grading their own material. But now a generation or so later and seeing what TPG grading has become, I sometimes wonder if the cure has turned out worse than the disease.

I was referring to them now physically cutting up cards to sell the individual pieces, like they already do with game-used bats, jerseys, etc. That is totally different than selling fractional shares in a card, they don't cut up the card in that instance of having multiple owners.

Why don't the AHs just indicate there's a frigging RESERVE on the lot and either tell what it is or at least indicate when the reserve price is met.

Imagine having a fractional share of a cutup card! I think it would be time to break out the calculator to figure out each person's ownership share of the original card.

Brian

Hey, a Snowman post I actually agree with ;)

The arbitrary and contradictory nature of what's considered alteration has always been something that bugged me.

I will also admit that restoration - when it's done well, not like this particular Wagner - is not something that particularly bothers me. I'd rather have a card with a pinhole fixed than the pinhole, for example.

In an effort to make mo money and screw the hobbyist, some greedy butt head would put pieces of cardboard into the "relic card" that weren't actually part of the card that it's supposed to be. But then again, what hobbyist would want an indiscernible piece of cardboard?

Understood. I guess my point (poorly stated) is that owning a digital blockchain versus a 1 millimeter square section of an card is a distinction without a difference.

LOL

No problem Jeff, I figured you simply misinterpreted my point.

I understand your point though, and don't disagree. I just don't really care for the idea of people cutting up items to simply make more money. In that case, even though I'm not a fan of owning digital and/or fractional interests in something like this, I'd much rather that be done than cutting up a card, bat, uniform, etc.

Nft
 

Make this an NFT and you might get your asking price!

AHs do a number of things they obviously believe help them and their consignors--what are the bidders, anyway, chopped liver? You know, the ones that actually pay the bills!--that are of dubious effectiveness, not to mention integrity, in my mind. I've always thought that their ridiculously low estimates, intended to spur more interest among bidders, might actually do the reverse, making some feel stupid to be making bids too far ahead of the estimates by the supposed pros, the AHs. Just play it straight across the board, don't try to overthink the process, and let the cards play as they lay--what a unique approach that would be! Out of curiosity, are there any AHs that do that?

Unfortunately every auction house does what they think is best for their client base.

I know that both Heritage Auctions and SCP both say there is a reserve and when it is met
Heritage does it a few days prior that a Reserve was met or not met
SCP upfront post that there is a Reserve and when it is met it lets you know.

I thought there was another 1 or 2 but I am drawing a blank

I've been trying not to make threads like this about me, but you asked :D

We run auctions with low starting bids and no reserves, hidden, stated or otherwise. We don't even do pre-auction estimates because you, the bidders, tell me what the item is worth, not the other way around. Our name is The Collector Connection because it is our goal to get cards into the hands of collectors. If we make our bidders happy they will in turn make our consignors happy. That's our philosophy.

Mile High high does also. I personally do not have a problem with it as long as they disclose it. Here is the text from the MHCC website:

d) Minimum Bids- Each and every lot within the auction does have a minimum bid designated in both the catalog as well as online. A very few of the lots in the auction have a reserve price (please note the vast majority of the lots within the auction do not have a reserve price) A reserve price is the confidential minimum price that a consignor will accept before they will sell the material, this means that a bid of equal or greater than the confidential reserve must be placed for a successful bid to be accepted on that lot. MHCC may implement this reserve by bidding on behalf of the consignor and may place a bid up to the amount of the reserve, by placing successive bids if necessary. In the limited instances where MHCC has a financial interest in a lot beyond our commission, we may place a bid to protect our financial interest. Reserves when in place will be pre-determined and set within the auction software prior to the start of the auction. Again, please note the vast majority of the lots in every auction will be offered without a confidential reserve in place. For all items in the auction (unless an item is withdrawn during the auction)without a reserve, they will be sold to the highest bidder at or above the minimum bid.

I was bidding on something at SCP and once I saw how they handle their reserves, I ran for the hills and now refuse to bid with them anymore.

As others have nailed in prior posts within this thread, it is the false perception of demand that they are creating that is the problem.

I had competing bids coming in on the item in question, and there is no way for me to tell if these are real buyers and thus real demand for the item at a certain price point, or if I am just the only moron willing to pay a certain amount and the house is just stringing me along. Hard pass.

Kudos to you, Scott. Seems like common sense and good business practice to me, too. But I'll bet that 95% of the complaints on Net54 over the years have come from bidders about the way they've been treated by AHs and sellers in general. It's a testament to the sway collecting has over us that we slough it off, try to learn to be smarter about how we go about it, and continue to patronize those who have the stuff we want almost no matter how much they abuse us in the process. I'd be hard pressed to name another form of enterprise in which those types would continue to get my business after they had pissed me off even once.

[QUOTE=timzcardz;2153575]I LOVE the beginning of the description . . .


"Every hobby has its penultimate prize,"


Hahaha, thank you for pointing that out. They either didn't know the meaning, or it was a Freudian slip.

By the way, they have apparently since update the description to remove the "pen" and left the "ultimate"
https://catalog.scpauctions.com/1909...-LOT48850.aspx

Thanks, I had someone ask does the philosophy work the other way around (make the consignors happy and you will make the bidders happy) Maybe in the sense that you might attract better consignments which might make bidders happy, but other than that I don't think it works both ways.

That being said my fiduciary duty IS to the consignor, I just think the best way to serve them is to not have bidders questioning our integrity!

Maybe PT Barnum was right, but it's hard for me to see how any strategies that involve attempting to fool or manipulate bidders will benefit AHs or their consignors in the long run. Perhaps the demand for stuff is inelastic, as an economist would put it, and impervious to any of the normal restraints of the free market. But I would still want some proof that the smarter approach overall isn't to treat bidders with the respect they deserve as the ones who ultimately foot the bill.

FWIW, the fact that the major auction houses (e.g., Sothebys, Christies, etc.) across all fields of collecting employ the method of hidden reserves with the house being allowed to secretly bid up to the reserve, suggests to me this method works in achieving the highest prices. That it might piss off some bidders who will therefore not bid is more than offset by the higher prices it generates among those bidders who participate. Conceptually it makes sense it would work, as it reduces the number of bidders required to achieve the desired price from two to one.

In regard to the demand curve, for the most desirable items it is very inelastic. Because of that, bidders who really want the item will knowingly choose to take the bait and bid, fearing that, even though unlikely, if there is that "real" second bidder, they will have no chance of buying the item after the auction.

The end result it is there in most Auction Houses. WE have the options both where to consign or sell our cards and we have options on where to buy or bid on cards.

There are some Auctions Houses I prefer to deal with and others I prefer to attempt to avoid. But if the Right Card that I want or need is available I might need to bid/buy from an Auction House I would prefer not to. But Again I have the choice.

Most of the cards I ever bought or sold never had a reserve (that I knew of) so it was not as much a factor (but what I do not know I do not know)

3 Days left and the Wagner still sits at $1mm with buyer's premium, which is where the card sat after the first day (has not moved since it opened) and is a mere half of the estimate. It ain't over until the until its over, but its starting to look like this Wagner will be a flop.

As a Wagner owner, I would love to see this restored "A" get over $2mm. As a realist, however, I think it tops $1.3mm max.

The ugly PSA 7 Goudey Ruth has also had zero bids in that time. And I'm not surprised in the least.

Regarding the Wagner it may not sell for a lot more.
But with 11 bids in it only needs 2 people to get into a bidding war and the price jumps fast. But I am unsure which way it goes. I am thinking $1.5 million

Regarding the Ruth 7 I agree it is ugly for a 7. And it has not moved much but at its current price new money coming into the bidding may look more at the Grade then at the eye appeal.

It's ugly for a 1. I think the seller has already done well, even if there are no more bids. This must be a Registry thing, as hard as it is for me to wrap my mind around that. I could buy half a dozen Ruth #144s today that look a lot better than this card for under $30k each. There are plenty out there. I’ll never understand, but I’m ok with that.

The lot I was in a "bidding war" on also has mysteriously received zero action since I stopped bidding. Seems like the house has had a good portion of the activity here.

YIKES :eek:

That's how it works bidding against a reserve.

In live auctions I've been to they do occasionally have reserves. And if the bidding stalls close to the reserve they reveal it so someone can bit the reserve amount.

You are undoubtedly correct in all of this, because for most collectors, "stuff trumps everything." I would point out that lots of other morally questionable business practices are also quite successful for the sellers, and from time to time laws are enacted to stop them. Endless discussions here have addressed which cross the line in our hobby and and which don't, with much outrage expressed regarding the former. For me, as I said, any selling strategy that involves keeping bidders in the dark does cross that line. The fact that most AHs employ those strategies and buyers continue to patronize them doesn't change my opinion in the least.

12th bid came in on the Wags.

Current Bid: $919,005

Less than a day left now...it's got a ways to go to hit their $2m+ estimate.

Agreed the clock is ticking and it will be interesting to see.

Either way I think the seller should be very happy with what he gets

$919,000...a reasonable price for such an ugly card.


I'm relieved...I was hypothesizing the easiest way to eat a t206...maybe vitamix it and put it in a smoothie???

A very reasonable price indeed, but a complete miss by the AH, who estimated the card at $2mm. In my opinion, the pre-restored card would have sold for (perhaps considerably) more.

Did it actually sell/meet reserve?

Good Point.

WE know it had a reserve on it "that was not met" going into the last day.

Perhaps it was removed.

But it does show as final price with buyers premium as $1,102,806. Which gives the impression that is sold at,

That is a good price for that card as "restored"

Agreed Jeff. By the way it’s presented on the site, it appears it was sold (reserve met or eliminated)

The final price was over 2.5x what this restored Wagner sold for in December of 2018 ($420k). Putting things in that context, I think the SCP Wagner did relatively well

SPC said reserve met at $919k. Final price is $1,102,806.

I know I'm late to this party but house bidding is gross and shouldn't be allowed.

That Wagner has buyer's remorse written all over it. Of course one good flip will cure any case of buyer's remorse . . .

Jim Creamer

I don't keep up with Wagners but curious if you think it would have had a similar gain over that time in original condition or done better/worse? What's the lowest recent sale on a beat up Wagner?

Auction price yes. Market value NO!
 

The price that an item sells for in a given auction on a given day is simply that - the price it sells/sold for in that auction. The assumption that this translates to "fair market value" completely ignores the gross inefficiencies in the market place! For it to be a true "fair market value" we would need to be certain that all willing sellers were meeting all willing buyers in the marketplace to properly see supply and demand at work. Our marketplace is not close to efficient. Add to that the fact that all 8's are not created equal and we have a huge mess. That said, I do think there is value in using a selling price be it auction or private (all of which sales are excluded from the publicly available information) as a relevant piece of information in helping to estimate a fair market value. The more data points you have will help get you closer to a more accurate "fair market value"

Onto reserves - as a result of the very same inefficiencies discussed above, auction houses who have a fiduciary duty to their consignors (NOT their bidders) sometimes agree to place reserves on items. Reserves are a double edged sword - bidders frequently shy away from items they see reserves on and don't bid on items they might actually have won if they did - so some houses choose to "hide" them. Consignors of certain items understandably are concerned that their item may not be seen by all potentially interested buyers of an item and sell below "fair market value" so request reserves. I don't see a simple solution where everyone is happy. I do agree it is poor practice for an auction house to be placing bids against legit bidders up to a hidden reserve price.

We have the McNall-Gretzky Wagner and the Jumbo Wagner. Will this one be known as the Jimmy Durante Wagner?

There has been a small explosion of Wagner sales in the past 1.5 years and the value of the card has gone up a ton. I think the sales price of this restored Wagner vs the one in 2018 (almost 3x) is on par with the relative apperception of all Wagners, regardless of grade.

Regarding the value of this card restored vs it’s original condition, I think it would sell for more in its original condition.

Just a guess but I think this (the 2018) restored Wagner would sell for significantly more than the SCP one because the image, especially the face, are still original. The restoration for that one was adding cut off borders and a clean back primarily.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Agreed. And $62k for the bleached out '33 Goudey #144 Ruth is just stunning to me.

I thought it was a worse buy than the Wagner. Just an awful looking card. There is no way someone is excited to put that in their collection. Pure registry or investment (LOL)
.

Agreed 100% that Goudey was not to standards and went for way to much

Much worse buy. Extremely rare vs. relatively common. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more obvious example of buying the holder instead of the card.

Yes but someone gets to log that sticker into their Registry Set and now say their card and set is “better.” The joke’s on that “winner” because there are 3s and 4s that blow that 7 away. Funny things happen when people let PSA override their eyeballs. Even funnier is that’s a high sticker grade and there are way more than enough sticker collectors aka “investors” out there for the winner to flip it in a few years for a tidy profit.

I labeled my SCP picture as Ruth crap LOL....

That 7 cost 3x more than my card and both are recent purchases...makes sense to me :eek:

Agree 100% with both bolded points.

My only PSA registry set (and my only experience with the PSA registry) is my 524-card T206 set. I can attest first-hand that registry rankings is a very strong drug and has lead me to buy (hell over pay for) some cards, as "upgrades", purely for the number on flip. In my opinion, the registry is genius for this exact reason (and I do not like to give PSA credit for anything). Because of the registry, some people buy only PSA and they are constantly upgrading to see their name climb the registry leader board.

I also agree that because of the registry, the winner of the 33 Goudey PSA 7 will likely sell it for a profit down the line. Another reason why the registry is so genius -- it allows for some risk mitigation on resale because your potential buyers are not only people who want the card, but also registry collectors. If you pick the right sets -- like T206, 1933 Goudey, 1952 Topps -- there should always be enough people out there putting together registry sets so that the likelihood of selling your over graded card at a profit (or at least break even) is increased, if not almost guaranteed.

Beautiful upgrade, Leon. And as an added bonus, your Ruth isn't trimmed!

Great card Leon. I think I even prefer my slim waisted, two piece Ruth over that faded, blurry, suspiciously small 62k Babe.

Brian

Actually you can restore yours using the faded Ruth Card

Well said.

What if...

Would it be considered a market price manipulation IF:

The Wags card didn't sell (meet the reserve) and the house was bidding on the card to move it towards the reserve and the house didn't disclose the card did not meet the reserve price (therefore did not actually sell)?

Good Lord that 7 from SCP is really mesmerizing— as someone said it is perhaps the best example of buying the holder in recent memory. I will add my lowly garbage PSA 4 to the list of examples for comparison. The investors out there who only want 7s and up are free to look down their noses at this one... This was actually an SGC 4.5 that I crossed like a moron due to my desire for uniformity in my collection. Should have stayed a 4.5, yet why let the merits of the card get in the way of good ole inter-company politics ;)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...0b1439a5_c.jpg

If that Ruth PSA 7 was on Heritage auction, it would have been looked a lot better with the team of photoshop experts they have. Those people can make ceases on the card disappear, in this Ruth case, enhancing the contrast/brightness and coloring should be a piece of cake.

It was in Heritage:

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...ription-071515

And now I feel the need to once again share my T3 Dahlen that came from Heritage this year as a warning. Heritage listing scan on the left, my scan of the same card after I received it on the right.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...30faccd3_c.jpghttps://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6b4057b7_c.jpg

oh. my bad! I guess that card was really that bad and not even HA could do anything about it. LOL

Yes

This. And I hope it might serve as a warning.

+1 I agree with Hank

Hopefully it is a warning/learning for others

Putting aside the issue of (IMO) the utter inability of TPG to detect alterations, what is perhaps sadder is the criteria used to arrive at a grade. Wasn't the whole idea behind TPG to establish an unbiased rating system that reflects how a typical collector would view a card's condition? It would seem to me that paramount among the relevant criteria used to rate the card would be how the card looks. Yet that doesn't seem to matter much at all, which is incredible. Yes, I get it that attempting to rate something based on a subjective criteria such as aesthetic appeal interjects subjectivity into the process. But how can one say subjectivity is not already integral to the process? At the end of day a number appears on the flip, which is supposed to reflect the sum total of all various criteria used to evaluate a card's condition. But when the result is what the current system often churns out -- a much higher grade for the card with the much lower aesthetic appeal, card registry or not, the system is wacko.

Agree - plus, we don't even have a single, agreed upon set of grading standards for the hobby as a whole. We've foolishly let the individual TPGs each decide what they think, not what the hobby collectors think, when it comes to grading. And then throw in a registry that one portion of the collecting community appears to downright worship, and you've got a setting for all the perceived negative things that have occured in the hobby since grading began.

One of the main reasons independent card grading was originally started was to counter perceived abuses by sellers allegedly not properly and honestly representing the condition of cards they were selling, if they were altered in some way, or if the cards were even authentic to begin with. Independent grading by TPGs was supposed to counter that. Unfortunately, the old saying can often be true, and sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease......................!

Their scan looks way better than yours. Did you photoshop in the creases and dull the color down?

You think it looked bad in the pics just imagine what it looks like in hand.

Funny! :) The colors on my scan are true to life, if perhaps a touch on the duller side. But the card looks nothing like their scan, for which color saturation was clearly cranked up a ton. As for the creases, well, that's where my warning comes in. There is no scanner setting that makes those go away!

For the last few years, I always make it a habit to ask the seller (ebay or AH) whether the card has a crease/wrinkle. The fact is that very often, a crease or wrinkle will not show up in their scan. Very few sellers bother to disclose this critical info, and (if professionally graded) they simply state the grade # with no other description that would help out a prospective bidder.

When asked, the responses among sellers vary... about 40% will reply back with whether or not the card has a crease. Roughly 50% will simply not reply, or blow off the question (I guess they are too busy?). And the remaining 10% will write back something nasty, as if I had no right to inquire.

Needless to say, I only buy from sellers who find the time to respond.

Unfortunately, most collectors think what they're told to think.
In this hobby, either by Beckett, or by someone who learned from Beckett.
The grading companies standards are pretty much the same.

Yes for the most part the standards are somewhat the same, as you say, but there are still perceived and apparently actual differences in how much of an effect and weight one TPG will give to certain card defects and issues versus another. And thus, though these grading standards are sometimes close, they are not all exactly the same. IMO what would be best for the hobby community as a whole would be if the standards were all exactly the same, which they aren't.

Why else would you sometimes see threads on this forum asking for advice on which TPG to send a card to for grading, and different people responding that if it has these types of issues/defects to send it to this TPG, but if it has different issues/defects to send it to a that other TPG, and so forth. And not all the TPGs will even grade certain cards and issues (Fro-Joys, S-74s, etc.), indicating further differences amongst them in how they look to review, authenticate, and grade items.

With the overwhelming effects the pandemic has had on the hobby in general, and specifically on how the TPGs have operated and been affected, you don't currently see threads like that asking about which TPG to send cards to because of the specific issues/defects they have. Now the threads have been focusing on and asking questions like which TPG is even accepting submissions right now where they won't need a second mortgage to pay for the grading fees, and they can actually get their cards back in less than a year. The current focus on the questions now being asked about differences amongst TPGs may have changed for now, but all the differences, including grading standards, are still there.