It's all about the registry

[jayshum]

https://www.cllct.com/sports-collect...-at-heritage-1

[Beercan collector]

Ouch .. And the card is not even mint

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

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

[JollyElm]

(The sound of hurried footsteps all across the country as everyone runs with hope in their hearts to the 1975 Topps set binder to check out what condition their Dave Roberts card is in.)

[Casey2296]

-
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.

[ejharrington]

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

[samosa4u]

That's messed up ...

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Ouch .. And the card is not even mint

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

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

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

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

Attributes include four perfectly sharp corners, sharp focus and full original gloss. A PSA 10 card must be free of staining of any kind, but an allowance may be made for a slight printing imperfection, if it doesn't impair the overall appeal of the card. The image must be centered on the card within a tolerance not to exceed approximately 55/45 to 60/40 percent on the front, and 75/25 percent on the reverse.

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.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by swarmee

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by jayshum

https://www.cllct.com/sports-collect...-at-heritage-1

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

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Leon

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

[Exhibitman]

Mine goes to 11.

[Snapolit1]

Sheer craziness.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

126K for a 61 Topps Brown.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

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

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!

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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!

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

[Exhibitman]

I'm fine with mine:

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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!

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).

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

Early last year I was the underbidder on a PSA 6 C55 Vezina that, with BP, ended up going for about $60K CAD.nd 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! I would have been out of the bidding perhaps a tad sooner.