It's all about the registry
 

Ouch .. And the card is not even mint

The genius -- intended or not -- of Joe Orlando.

I have been corrected. The registry was Rocchi, with help from Baker -- not Orlando.

Not centered enough for a 10, that's for sure.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

-
I only wish I had graded 10s of cards that were worthless when I was a kid so I could sell them and buy HOFers between 1909-1914 all day long.

I wanted the 1975 PSA 10 Jose Cruz card for my PC but not for $33k.

That's messed up ... :eek::eek::eek:

The obsession to own a "10" is becoming crazy. Why??

Imagine being enough of a moron to pay $33k for a PSA label in plastic w/ a “near mint” card in it. Pathetic and embarrassing.

Two rich knuckle heads.

I guess I might as well dig through the sets to see if there is a sharp common floating around the albums!
Bob

During COVID the 1975 set got red f'n hot. There were absolutely some new collectors with $$ putting this one together with PSA graded examples.

I sold some PSA 8's and 9's commons for rather insane amounts, outpacing other 70s sets. Prices have come down greatly since then, but some 9's and 10's are still cruising.

I have a graded notables/stars/HOF Cubs collection and I'm out there happily snapping up 8's of autos and rare(ish) variations for next to nothing.

Except for players I'm excited about, I just need a card for the collection.

The newer collectors and some people that only want the high-end treat 8's like they're trash and in many cases they can go for the price of the raw version. Go figure...card still looks amazing.

Not well researched (or edited?).

https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...-reserve/50958 Here is a set from 2001 Topps that has had 25,000 cards graded with only 44 PSA 10s, and the kicker is, that these cards were slabbed right after the cards were printed.

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/2001...&size=original
2001 Topps Reserve - [Base] - Graded Autographed Rookie #103 - Albert Pujols /1500 [PSA 8 NM‑MT]
Courtesy of COMC.com

Did they mean Topps flagship base sets? Maybe. That's not what they wrote.

Tell me how you think this card does not meet PSA's centering standards.

Maybe you're thinking the BGS 50/50 requirement for a BGS 10 centering subgrade, and like 52/48 for a 9.5. That's not how PSA grades centering.

Add: I decided to blow it up in paint and calculate the centering on the front. Left border: 266-194 pixels = 70. Right border: 1564-1499 pixels = 65. That's like 52/48 centering. Maybe it's an optical illusion for you?

I do agree that it's not a Gem Mint 10, but for these reasons: 1) Blue ink splotch PD on right side in green field. 2) Cyan alignment way off (as seen in PADRES). 3) Other minor blemishes in print quality (blue streak halfway between border and D in DAVE), plus white fisheye under R.

PSA created slabbing. The company then followed it up with the Registry. Strokes of genius both quite simply because:

:rolleyes:

I measured the width of the green borders where they meet the blue and got 54/46. So yeah, within tolerances. Just eyeballing it, I thought it was well past 55/45 side-to-side, so maybe I am not that good with the colored borders.

As far as blemishes, there is also a fish-eye on the bottom right corner. All in all I wouldn't pay $33k for the card.

I wouldn't trust cards like this not to be microtrimmed. Even back then, big bucks for getting them into the 10 holder, and no expense to buy them. I am guessing a lot of these very low pop common 10s are altered. Just my opinion.

I love it when the cucks of the hobby fight over trash cards like these. So funny

Bottled water? The world’s most abundant resource-come on now!

That 75 set is so beloved. The sparring for regular and mini PSA 9s and 10s has been quite heated for a while now, and both sets are notorious for qc issues, every kind imaginable. I can only imagine what the factory floor was like at Topps in the 70s. There must be pics out there. And the cardstock they used back then was awful. Not super thin like late 80s Donruss but the veneers just didn’t hold together very well. It would be cool if a vlogger scientist type disassembled commons from different topps years and analyzed the chemical composition of the card stock. Well I’d like watching it anyways.

Also you’ll note that’s an older slab. Both PSA and SGC just don’t really hand out 10s anymore to cards in the 70s. If you look at every 9 and 10 from this era I suspect the vast majority of them were slabbed before the Covid boom. That Dave Roberts 10 would be a 9 on a regrade. Of course you could say the same for almost any 10 out there.

Also some guy just paid $6M for a banana taped to a wall. The Crypto bros are flush these days.

I could nitpick and say that would be air, but nonetheless that's a fabulous example indeed! I wonder how many of the people buying bottled water also claim to be environmentally conscious?

:confused:

While the nice, sharp Topps 1975 Dave Roberts card priced at $2 at your local card show is most certinly not trimmed. Draw your own conclusions. (Mine would be that the higher the price of the card, the more likely trimming may be part of its "provenance".)

:(

None of it matters -- whether it's trimmed, whether it's deserving of the 10, whether broken out of the slab and laid next to 10 of the same card that used to be 9s you could tell the difference (and I bet you could not). As I say, the flip is now the commodity.

Here is my ultra-rare Dave Roberts from my PC
 

I'm feeling rich.......

Chortle...

Here’s one on eBay that appears to still have the original corners 🙂
Also The registration of “Padres” is on - unlike the “10”

PT Barnum is beaming from his grave.

When playing the "greater fool" theory is the most popular game in town, how long can it be before the bubble bursts?

Yes, I'm sure! But he's dead so thankfully can be ignored. Less convenient though are all the proverbial prudent men on the street. I'd hate to be the one trying to explain why one 1975 Dave Roberts card sold for $33,600 while another basically indistinguishable Dave Roberts card sits at $3.36 with no takers. I imagine any explanation I might be able to offer would be met with a sneer and the comment" Are all you Baseball card collectors crazy or are you just stupid?"

Ahhhh, well the minority responsible for these extremes are (stupid crazy) I guess. Unfortunately it's a minority we can't ignore because they do have an impact on setting prices for the rest of us.

:(

Wow. And a Jose Cruz card sold for 33k too. I wonder if the values go down if another 10 gets graded?
.

Yes, I think the value is down already now that those two bidders have sobered up.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Mine goes to 11.

Sheer craziness.

See you and raise you one.
https://milehighcardco.com/1961_Topp...LOT106366.aspx

126K for a 61 Topps Brown.

Wow, that is a nice one! I would rather have one Brown than 4 Robertses.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

The numbers are actually chilling for the high bidder who "won" the lot. And no, I'm not talking about the buyer's premium that he now must pay or any selling fees he'd incur were he attempt to liquidate his "investment" now. It's the brutal underlying mathematics of being the high bidder in an auction.

Consider. It's actually the second highest bidder who's the key in setting the hammer price. And if the lot were to go up for auction again, it would be the third highest bidder of the auction just concluded who'd be the second highest bidder of the new auction. But if two bidders went head-to-head on the concluded auction leaving the third highest bidder in their dust, the third highest bidder's maximum bid of say only 50% of the hammer price in the previous auction would be the bar that would need to be beaten by a tick in the next auction. So the hammer price of the next auction might well turn out to be only half of what the "winning" bidder in the just concluded auction paid!

:eek:

Yup, that's how it works.

A few years ago on Ebay, I won a card for $31.33 that I thought I bid $3 for. I had typed in $33 by mistake. Somebody else bid $30.33, probably fat-fingering their $3.03 bid.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I'm fine with mine:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...%20PSA%207.jpg

My raw VG-EX was like $40. And the tougher white blob variant. I have a hard time seeing how sharper corners, lighter coloring and better centering would bring me $126,000 more joy. I guess I could show the label to my friends and explain to them that the "10" means I am better than everyone else for owning it in this companies registry competition. That might account for the joy gap.

Man, that's a STUNNER Greg! Congrats

You'd need to have the right psychology to derive joy from bragging though.

:(

That can be exactly how it can play out. Early last year I was the underbidder on a PSA 6 C55 Vezina that, with BP, ended up going for about $60K CAD. At the next large card show, it was the talk about how it set a new bar. I've not bid on one since, but the last 6 (in fairness, newer grade and OC and a slight diamond cut) went for just over half of that. None have come close since.

I never told anyone I was the underbidder, but the buyer knew me and also knew I cost him almost $15K (his last bid, then mine, then his winning bid).

$60,000! :eek: I would have been out of the bidding perhaps a tad sooner.

;)

I'm not sure boosting one's ranking on a PSA set registry is quite the aphrodisiac these guys act like it is.

I drink only bottled water - even my dogs drink bottled water.

Environmentally Conscious? - Not a thing for me...........

registy
 

People with Stupid Money $$$ sometimes spend it on Stupid things.
John P

All they need is someone even stupider with even more stupider money to take it off their hands when they're ready to sell.

May your dogs live long and prosper!

:cool:

That's a cool card, Greg.

Beautiful example.