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.