FS 1952 Topps Jackie Robinson

[calvindog]

Sorry, I don't usually criticize grammar except when it's so painfully idiotic so as not to be believed. I honestly think that English is your second language. If not, perhaps you can explain to us why some sentences end with two periods, some end with none -- but no sentence ends with a single period.

And the "upward trend in a year" you mention is solely the work of two auction houses in which fraud is rampant: Probstein and PWCC -- based on their prior auction results which are suspect anyway. Regardless if the card is "centered amazing enough" (whatever that means -- I'll consult my ape/English translation program, however you previously described the centering as "decent[]."), it has an obvious print defect on the front. To suggest that this card is the wonderful specimen of all specimens to cause such a jump in price is laughable, even Mastro-like in its dishonesty.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Here is what the card looked like a few months ago when it sold, presumably to Jacob, for 1755. What a difference a scan makes.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Here is what the card looked like a few months ago when it sold, presumably to Jacob, for 1755. What a difference a scan makes.

i didnt buy the card for 1755...i 100% bought it off ebay...FYI....

[Peter_Spaeth]

OK fair enough my bad but my point was it sold in June for 900 less than it just sold for. Markets don't change that fast. SAME exact card.

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

OK fair enough my bad but my point was it sold in June for 900 less than it just sold for. Markets don't change that fast. SAME exact card.

I disagree. I have made flips in less than a week for many factors more than the discussed sale on cards I thought I had paid too strong on.

[Peter_Spaeth]

On a readily available non rookie non Mantle/Ruth card in midgrade?

[calvindog]

......with numerous print defects ....... .. ..... .. .. ...

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

On a readily available non rookie non Mantle/Ruth card in midgrade?

Could you find me a centered 52 Jackie, please?

[BlueBlood]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

I disagree. I have made flips in less than a week for many factors more than the discussed sale on cards I thought I had paid too strong on.

Probably a flip that you low balled on..Since you are a "dealer"

Den.nis Sch.err

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by BlueBlood

Probably a flip that you low balled on..Since you are a "dealer"

Hi, the rules require if you are going to make opinionated posts that your first and last name are visible.

Thanks.

Also, the specific flip I am talking to is a 52 Mantle that was purchased from Mile High and sold 6 days later.

[Mikehealer]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

I disagree. I have made flips in less than a week for many factors more than the discussed sale on cards I thought I had paid too strong on.

That statement should help you obtain you some new inventory.

[1952boyntoncollector]

i would take a High Number Rice print defect if centered....there are certain high number 1952 Topps where less than 10% of the population is decently centered..including the Jackie... especially in the psa 5 range..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Sorry, I don't usually criticize grammar except when it's so painfully idiotic so as not to be believed. I honestly think that English is your second language. If not, perhaps you can explain to us why some sentences end with two periods, some end with none -- but no sentence ends with a single period.

And the "upward trend in a year" you mention is solely the work of two auction houses in which fraud is rampant: Probstein and PWCC -- based on their prior auction results which are suspect anyway. Regardless if the card is "centered amazing enough" (whatever that means -- I'll consult my ape/English translation program, however you previously described the centering as "decent[]."), it has an obvious print defect on the front. To suggest that this card is the wonderful specimen of all specimens to cause such a jump in price is laughable, even Mastro-like in its dishonesty.

wow some may think you are personally attacking a poster on an issue of baseball cards...man real important to "look" real witty in a baseball card forum.

anyway..i think its just your opinion that the card isnt a great specimen for a psa 5.and not the final authority on the matter...we are talking general eye appeal.....but 3 others disagree that bid all time highs...i really dont see fraud happening when there is bidding with several bidders over an all time high...maybe to get the all time high, but once at the all time high you really got to be a conspiracy theory guy to think that they would play around with losing a deal when already above that limit

also you disagree with past sales because of the auction houses...well when the auction houses including ebay make up of the major part of the market share..i tend to cite those sales instead of some sales that make up very little of the market share..silly me...