OT: Beckett 9.5??
 

What's the explanation here?


http://www.ebay.com/itm/1984-85-Star...p2047675.l2557

Are you talking about the right edge? I don't know new cards/grades very well....

or is it the price?

Top to bottom centering looks off. Upper left has a clear touch. There appears to be a tilt. And the price is absurdly cheap.

Yea that doesn't look like a 9.5 to me at all.

Not only that, but the actual card (I cannot BELIEVE this graded a 9.5 how is that possible with a white corner and that centering??) sold for 52K.

http://beckett-www.s3.amazonaws.com/...ordan-Star.jpg

I would like to hear the defense of this grade.

I have seen much worse PSA grades. Defense rests.;)

I assumed the tilting was only the card in the holder that way. I will go back to cards I know a bit more and had no idea on price...As for pricing I was lazy and didn't google it....please continue...

Left edge of the holder shows much more frosting than the right edge. Shouldn't have gotten a 9 for corners (bottom left) or a 9.5 for edges (white). Beckett is also harsher on centering than PSA, normally. Could be a real card that would grade a 6-7 in a 9.5 sleeve by sliding into the left opening, or a fake. Or it could be a scanner display problem. Card is held in a baggy inside the case, so that would be a little more difficult. Corner wear could also have occurred after grading.

Could also be a case of stolen scans and you won't actually get that card when you purchase from that guy (hacked account, fraud).

The image I posted is from BECKETT's website.

I would question the ears as well.

I'd grade this card a 9. There are too many issues for this to be a 9.5. First of all, this card has nowhere near 9.5 centering. Not only is there an obvious tilt left to right (thinner to the top left), the top to bottom centering alone should disqualify it from a 9.5. The corners and edges are not bad, but the top left corner, and what looks like some very minor chipping on the middle-right edge should bring both to a 9. That leaves the surface sub grade. I wish I could see a pre-slab picture of the card to get a better idea of just how clean it is. But if the surface is as nice as it appears, it could hold a 9.5, in which case, an 8.5 from centering (which is the sub I'd assign) would be enough to keep the overall score at a 9.

One thing I often see when cards similar to this one are critiqued is that, while it's a modern card, it's still an older modern card, and production standards were not the same as they are now. A very, very small allowance for flaws like these is made. The touches on the corners, the white seen on the right edge-these could be typical of the set, and not a sign of wear or damage.

If anything, given this card's significance, the grade should be tougher, not easier. I would grade this card no higher than an 8. Someone truly bought the holder at 52K not the card.

As an aside, Beckett grading makes no sense to me, because I do not believe a card's overall grade can be higher than the corners. A card with clear corner wear (e.g. an 8.5 subgrade) is NOT Mint but there are a million BGS 9s with 8.5 corners.

Not saying it cant be done but I have never seen a Beckett holder cracked and resealed. Has anybody? I would think the design would make it next to impossible unlike the super easy to crack and reseal SGC and PSA(except new) slabs.

Every time I have cracked a BGS case it requires goggles due to the tiny plastic shards that would likely tear a cornea in two. PSA was always been--plyers and twist gently to pop open cleanly.

I'll refrain from commenting on the overall effectiveness of each company because grading is so subjective, but I do appreciate BGS' attempt at giving you an answer to what is defective about your submitted card.

I would say it is more of an 8.5 overall.
I wish i can get a 9.5 for my cards i send in with centering like that lol
Once again, buy the card not the holder :D

I would disagree. The card's significance should not at all enter into consideration. You judge a card on its merits, not the name on the card. An 8.5 card is an 8.5 card, and shouldn't get a bump one way or another because of who it is.

If some stupid common gets a too generous gem mint grade, it's no big deal. If a Jordan rookie potentially worth 50K gets a too generous gem mint grade, it's a very big deal. In a perfect world, all cards would get equal treatment, but it's a flawed world and therefore I stand by my statement that megacards deserve exceptionally strict scrutiny.

To beat a dead horse, this just shows the foolhardiness of the enormous differences in value at the upper end of the grading scale, in my opinion of course.

By the way, can I assume that Beckett (other TPGs?) has determined how to distinguish the original issue of this card from those printed some years later by the same company and owner? I was under the impression that, at least at one time, the TPGs were declining to grade this card.

These were not reprinted, they were counterfeited though.
http://jordancards.com/blog/the-real...rt-steve-taft/

Seller sold the same card twice, 3 hours apart?

Two scams are better than one.

In the '90's, PSA declined to grade them because it was believed that they were in fact being reprinted with the original plates. If you were collecting them at that time, AND CHECKING THEM CLOSELY, WITH A LOUPE, it appeared rather obvious that of the supposed 4,000 original print run, about 14,000+ still existed in extremely good condition, made from the original plate. That would be the biggest problem for me with that card. One local dealer seemed to have an inexhaustible supply, and even had the cojones to claim exclusivity! Someone else might have a different opinion, but I was there, closely examining them, and buying them at the time, as were other collector friends, and after awhile, as prices rose significantly, we had no doubt that there was a very serious problem which was ongoing for a substantial period of time. PSA still refuses to grade the '84-'85's, for what I believe is good reason. The same thing happened with a certain 1985 McGwire minor league card, which had a supposed print run of 250 or so. By 1998, however, they were everywhere, and examination of the print dot pattern clearly indicated they had been printed with the original plate in abundance.

Best to all,

Larry

Maybe Steve Taft is on this board and can comment? But he is supposedly THE expert and here is what he says.

JordanCards.com: It is commonly reported that the 1984-85 Star Co set was reprinted by Star Co in the early 90’s. Is this true and if not which sets were reprinted, if any?

Steve Taft: No, this is NOT true! Now that we know about the 1997 Shop at Home scandal, I think if the owner of Star could have made exact duplicates of his cards, he might have given it a try. Problem is, I don’t think it’s possible to match the cutting characteristics of the original cards, plus, the original printers were no longer in business.

AND

JordanCards.com: How prevalent, do you believe, are counterfeit 1984-85 Michael Jordan Star Co XRC cards?

Steve Taft: With all the rumors about counterfeits of this card, the amount of counterfeits is very small when compared to the MJ Fleer RC counterfeits. (Small in comparison to the Fleer counterfeits, but, still plenty of them to put a hurt on a lot of unknowing collectors).

Not a professional but that doesn't seem 9.5 worthy then again I have a Rip Hamilton Rookie graded a 10 and it's not even close. Like I said countless time sometimes I think companies grading lots of pre-war cards tend to get caught up in the newer ones. That looks like a 8 or 8.5 but what do I know.