Same Card..Same Grade..Different Result PSA ad

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Stone

The most recent issue of Sports Collectors Digest has an
advertisement by PSA that shows two cards from the Mastro Auction of April 2007. On the left is a 1965 Topps #8 graded 98 Gem 10 by SGC which sold for $2,693 on the right is the same card graded by PSA Gem mint 10 which sold for $24,541.
If anyone is familiar with this auction and
the results, --is there anything else that explains the difference in prices realized?

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

stupidity or perhaps, idiocy.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Stupidity, idiocy, and the Dodger Duo Koufax and Drysdale on a NL League Leader card.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Two set registry people with big egos bid on the PSA card.

Real collectors with common sense bid on the SGC card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

I think it goes to show that despite its failings and goof-ups, PSA still carries the bigger stick when it comes to post-war cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: calleocho

Reality

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The $24,000 question is does a SGC 98 cross over to a PSA 10 and, if if it does, is PSA's grading charge less than $21,848?

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

Barry, Common sense? Everything is relative I guess. $2,693 still seems like a lot of money to pay for a 1965 Topps league leaders card, regardless how gem mint it might be.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Hmmmmmmmm, and just how many times did the SGC fail to cross to a PSA10? It's all relative, but crazy money either way

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Wesley- I was thinking the same thing! Even the SGC card makes no sense, just more sense than the PSA one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

Holy Smokes,....now we're talking car money for a cruddy league leader card?!

ok, here' what I think I'm gonna do. I am gonna start a parts business!
Like cars, why can't cards have a secondary market for their parts?
Buy a 1965 card with one really great razor sharp corner for cheap, cut it off, and sell it to a chop shop so that it can be fused to a high value card in otherwise brilliant condition...

I'm sure this is already going on....

amazing...I could probably complete my current wantlist for $24k.

actually, that's not even close to true, but that is only because I am a man of extremely rich tastes and fabulous imagination!

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

It's a numbers game,,,, I don't want anyone to be offended but to pay so much for a number on a slab that is subjective seems a bit ridiculous. I suppose if you have more money than what you know what to do with it then by all means, why not.

I've sold a few cards that definitely were not the grade indicated on the label and people have told me that they didn't care as much about the card as they did the number on the label. Sometimes I just don't get it.

IMO - What Wesley said applies....

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Im interested to know which one ended first. If the psa card ended first, I would guess that two psa set registry guys bid the up to that ridiculous level and then the loser took home the sgc card after his competition was gone.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

that is absolute lunacy...I feel really sorry for whomever the purchaser of that/those cards was/were. He/She could have purchased myanmar for that kind of $$$. Can someone post scans so I can laugh harder!

pete ullman

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Barry said,

"Two set registry people with big egos bid on the PSA card.

Real collectors with common sense bid on the SGC card."

Barry, come on. You, of all people, are going to perpetuate the debate about who the "real collectors" are? Haven't we beaten that to death yet? I don't personally understand why somebody would pay $2,000 or $24,000 for a 1965 Topps common, but I certainly have no reason to doubt they are a "real collector" because their collecting tastes and budget are different from mine.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

Everything here has to be turned into a PSA bashing thread. If a PSA card sells for more, it's some knucklehead PSA collector with more money than he knows what to do with....

SGC SGC SGC...gets a little old.

Bottom line is PSA brings more than SGC does 9 times out of 10. They obviously aren't respected on this board..but in the collecting community as a whole they are still king of the hill.



Next will be the PSA 10 was probably doctored comment from somebody.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

"It's a numbers game,,,, I don't want anyone to be offended but to pay so much for a number on a slab that is subjective seems a bit ridiculous. I suppose if you have more money than what you know what to do with it then by all means, why not. "



99.9% of the people on Earth would say its a bit ridiculous to pay $100 or more on any baseball card. Its all relative.

Would I pay that much for either card? No.

Do I think anyone that spends money on pieces of cardboard with pictures of dead guys on them is in a position to judge? No.

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

Let's put things in perspective. PSA has graded 322 of the 1965 Topps #8 League Leaders cards. There are fifteen unqualified PSA 9 cards and this is the only PSA 10 graded. So that is one heck of a rare card.

There must be a hedge fund manager out there putting together a gem mint 1965 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Sean BH

PSA/SGC on top or bottom?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

psa on bottom?

pete ullman

[Archive]

Posted By: Neal Kane

Drysdale is on the bottom

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

The one on the top has several printing flaws in the light blue border area - little bubbles. It does not deserve a 10/98 IMHO.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony

I like the bottom one better, due to the centering and lack of hickeys (print dots) that the top exhibits. I know who graded each one, but honestly, even $2693. for a card that new is insane to me, let alone $24541. I've got it in a PSA 7 that cost less than a good bottle of single malt or tequilla and that is just fine. But to each his own.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

The one on the top with the fisheyes is the gem mint PSA 10.

Evidently fisheyes add value to a card.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Dale

If the top one is the PSA 10 then I've lost respect for PSA in dealing with 50's, 60's and 70's cards - which is my preference.

There are similar discussions to this about the first Topps Finest set from the 90's as two guys paid silly money for top graded cards to have the high point in the registry. As a collector of the 75 mini I see it there a lot as top players just try to keep others from getting high grade cards (commons go for absurd dollars).

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

Al,
Yes, fisheyes are valuable; however, fish tails are more valuable

Personally, I don't care for the "Don Ho" cards, and I do avoid them whenever possible.

Am I missing something about the PSA Registry sets?
I mean, do you get money or win something if you have a #1 ranked set??!!

I will guess that the PSA card is on the bottom, and I can confirm that Don Drysdale is the one on the bottom

Question, is this considered a common card? Or is it a double-HOFer card?

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

"Bottom line is PSA brings more than SGC does 9 times out of 10."

Dave, though many continue to believe that to be the case, at least with respect to vintage cards, I do not believe that you are correct. There is a poster on this board who has collected data that refutes the assertion that psa cards sell for more. It has also been the subject of at least one post and all the comparisons were shown.

Regardless, even if psa cards do sell for more, you cant honestly believe that a psa 10 would sell for ten times as much as an sgc 98.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

PSA was on top.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

Barry basically said it all when he told us to buy SGC cards and sell PSA cards. What else is there to say...

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

And as further evidence that the price paid was pure stupidity, a 1965 gem mint psa 10 willie mays only sold for $5400 (excluding bp).

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Allow me to restate my point for Jim B.'s benefit:

Two set registry collectors with big egos and deep pockets competed for the PSA example.

Two other collectors who may not have their sets registered bid on the SGC example.

Is that a fairer statement?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Why did I know the worst looking of the two would be the PSA card?

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Dale

Thats sad the PSA 10 was on top. Very disturbing...but it makes me happy I just bought a bunch of SGC 75 minis...

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

Barry basically said it all when he told us to buy SGC cards and sell PSA cards. What else is there to say...

When there is nothing else to say, you can always say, "There is nothing else to say." Kinda like saying, "I have nothing to say," which makes no sense either.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Nuff said.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

When did I even say that? I have no recollection.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

To each his own.... some people buy cards and some buy holders. Personally I couldn't care less, but hope that both enjoy the hobby. Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

It was in the "penumbras" of your other remarks perhaps, as the Supreme Court liked to say.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Barry,
I just have one question? Do you think the uniforms are Cotton or Poly?

Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

I basically summarized what you said in the 3d post of this thread.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

In the end, someone paying $24,541 for a 1965 Topps League Leaders card speaks for itself.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Poly makes you sweat. You can breathe with cotton. And a happy ballplayer is a productive one

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

That interpretation is not even in the penumbras of Barry's post.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

That wasn't a summary Peter, that was a reinterpretation. But no hard feelings.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

And by the way, while anyone is free to collect anything he pleases...don't we all find paying $24,500 for a 1965 Leaders card just a bit goofy. I mean come on, there's gotta be some point where we all say surely you must be kidding (and don't call me shirley!).

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

What it says to me is that the Gem Mint grade is aribtrary and stupid.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Barry, don't let Leon bug you about your Seinfeld quizzes...I'm starting to miss them.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I just did a Seinfeld bit...that poly vs. cotton post right above is from Seinfeld. It was Brian W. who egged me on, it's all his fault

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad

Huh! There's more too life then

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy Piccuito

Sell PSA cards and keep your SGC cards for yourself -

there is no question that you can market all the vintage years for PSA cards - but it can be hard for SGC cards except for the pre-war issues. It is still a crazy hobby, but what would have to talk about, all the posts above are very interesting

Take care

Jimmy