![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi all. Just looking for opinions here. I have this Beckett graded Sandberg which comes in at a "9." If you look at the sub grades, the card is gem mint 9.5 on corners, centering, and edges. Pretty spectacular card. The card received an 8.5 for surface which knocked it down to a 9. It's tough to tell here in the pic, but the front surface looks immaculate to me. The only issue I can see is on the reverse, just under the M in Montreal at the bottom, there is a small factory blot of some sort. My question is this: would this card command a premium because of the gem mint subgrades (3 out of 4), or am I just stuck with a "normal" 9 value here.
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
How many 9.5s or 10s are out there? I'm guessing alot since they made a million of these so I'm betting you're stuck with 9 value.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It may be a sheet cut card, given the lower sub on the surface. Check for scratches or gloss imperfections holding it under a light at an angle.
__________________
An$on Lyt!e |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I hear ya, I just thought it was a shame that the card would only sell for 40-50 bucks (9 value). PSA 10 copies are listed and have been sold in the 300 dollar range on eBay. Would it be worth trying to cross to PSA in hope of a 10? Would it even have a shot at a 10 with the small imperfection on the reverse? I really checked the front surface again, it looks incredible, I couldn't find anything. It's also not sheet cut, I pulled it from a pack. I think Beckett has been overly harsh here. I only sent it to Beckett because my local dealer offered to include it with his bulk stuff for next to nothing. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, guys.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I doubt it, but it doesn't hurt to try if you're fine with it even dropping. As ism the centering will actually have it sell a little over a standard 9 value, IMO.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks, Swarmee. I agree. I think I will keep it as is and simply put a premium on it for the gem mint grades of centering, corners, and edges. Still stinks, tho. Card is a 10 in my opinion, but what do i know
![]() |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Looks a touch oc side to side. They have really tightened up on centering for psa 10s not sure that card gets there. For any shot though it would have to be cracked out. The odds of it crossing from a 9 to a 10 are not great. I’d think like lottery odds level not great.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
So you're saying he's got a chance...
__________________
Working Sets: Baseball- T206 SLers - Virginia League (-1) 1952 Topps - low numbers (-1) 1953 Topps (-91) 1954 Bowman (-3) 1964 Topps Giants auto'd (-2) |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1983 Topps Ryne Sandberg RC PSA 10. 10% below VCP. | phabphour20 | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 1 | 02-27-2015 01:10 PM |
WTB 1983 Topps PSA 9 - Boggs, Gwynn, and Sandberg | 25801wv | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 2 | 10-11-2013 09:30 PM |
1983 Topps Ryne Sandberg PSA 8 FT | HOF Yankees | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 0 | 02-16-2013 10:19 PM |
1983 Topps Ryne Sandberg, PSA 8 FS | Beatles Guy | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 2 | 09-19-2012 09:18 PM |
FS-2 Sandberg Auto Topps RCs | al032184 | Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T | 2 | 08-02-2010 06:40 PM |