1933 Goudey SGC? Bleed Through? Different Day?
 

So in the most recent REA auction a SGC 8 1933 Goudey Dave Harris went for $1,170 (including BP). Last night a PSA 8 1933 Goudey Dave Harris went for $10,500. Seems like an extreme price difference. The SGC obviously has prominent bleed-through, but is that so disqualifying? Anybody have a different theory?

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1607718850
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1607718875
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1607718974
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1607718987

So as not to confuse anyone, the excess red is wet sheet transfer from either the card/sheet stacked under it or from a transfer roller, the ink does not bleed thru the stock.

What he said! Thank you for the timely correction.

It could just be the fact that one is in an SGC holder and the other in a PSA. I had a buddy that collected the 1933 Goudey set and wanted every card to be in a PSA 6 holder. He wouldn't accept a PSA 5 or a PSA 7. It had to be a PSA 6. He would buy SGC cards and attempt to cross them as PSA 6's. Some crossed, some didn't. If a collector is doing something like that for PSA 8, they may be willing to pay a premium to avoid the hassle. Don't know for sure, but it's possible that's the reason.

That was my first thought as well. Could have been two people trying to put together a high grade Registry set in a bidding war.

SGC cards just DO NO bring the money PSA does. Plain and simple.

Well certainly a few factors at play:
-It's a common practice to not properly call this a WST as it should be as mentioned above
-You're looking at a card that has a POP of 10 in the PSA report and 2 in SGC with none higher
-PSA typically gets much higher prices I've heard
-More registry set builders in PSA holders
-If you're putting together a PSA 8 registry set you want high eye appeal cards
-Extremely popular set to put together with a lot of money in the higher end
-A wildcard could be a descendent or something unique like that
-Someone likely had to have the PSA one at any cost, literally. Often, that's all it takes. The buyer wasn't going to lose it for any price based on some of the factors above. I'm sure the buyer would have had absolutely no issue bidding 20-30k if that's what it took.

Is any Dave Harris card worth 10k+? Meh, I guess to at least one person it is and another thought it was worth about the same.

I think WSTs are neat and tell a story of the process, but not at the high end grades for set builders.

Although there’s truth to that, the variance in price on this one is way out of proportion

The crazy thing is that at least one other person was interested in this card at one bid increment lower (or shilled the hell out of it)

The PSA vs SGC difference might make the most sense, but it's hard to believe there is that big a price difference. Here's another example where the 1952 Topps House Yellow Tiger variation went for way more in REA as a PSA 5.5 compared to an SGC 5 in Heritage, and the one in the PSA holder has a print line that goes across his face.

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=72212
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...umbnail-071515

Wow. $10k for a common player from a common set. Thank God I have no interest in playing in that sandbox.

I prefer SGC green labels for pre war over anything else. I feel those cards were graded in a more honest time. That being said, always buy the card not the holder.

I find it entertaining that people who claim to collect baseball cards are talking about the type of plastic holder they can sometimes be found in and the relevance of that holder to the value of those baseball cards.

Doug "enjoy what you enjoy" Goodman

+1

registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry registryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryre gistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregi stryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregist ryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistryregistry

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs.

Can we get back on topic as to why SGC doesn't bring the money PSA does?

They were doing that.

It's entirely about the registry and how it's created a perpetual "whose is bigger" contest. With the now sideline contest of "who is richer" which is sort of the same thing.

Gimme a break. A difference of 20% maybe. That does not explain this. To say that is a disservice to SGC.

I have had SGC 9 commons barely bring $10. Their PSA counterparts routinely go for over $100.....sometimes $200. I have had it happen to me personally. Sorry, all grading companies ARE NOT created equal.

I agree that the current market is skewed heavily toward PSA for now, and trust me, I do not think it is a knock on SGC, it's just a fact. That said, the wet sheet is a print defect in my mind, and a big one. It's a very good reason for a price correction of at least several 100%. Perhaps certainly not 900%, but things are only worth what they are to the bidders that day to me.