OT: Beckett 9.5??

[Peter_Spaeth]

If anything, given this card's significance, the grade should be tougher, not easier. I would grade this card no higher than an 8. Someone truly bought the holder at 52K not the card.

As an aside, Beckett grading makes no sense to me, because I do not believe a card's overall grade can be higher than the corners. A card with clear corner wear (e.g. an 8.5 subgrade) is NOT Mint but there are a million BGS 9s with 8.5 corners.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If anything, given this card's significance, the grade should be tougher, not easier. I would grade this card no higher than an 8. Someone truly bought the holder at 52K not the card.

As an aside, Beckett grading makes no sense to me, because I do not believe a card's overall grade can be higher than the corners. A card with clear corner wear (e.g. an 8.5 subgrade) is NOT Mint but there are a million BGS 9s with 8.5 corners.

I would disagree. The card's significance should not at all enter into consideration. You judge a card on its merits, not the name on the card. An 8.5 card is an 8.5 card, and shouldn't get a bump one way or another because of who it is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If some stupid common gets a too generous gem mint grade, it's no big deal. If a Jordan rookie potentially worth 50K gets a too generous gem mint grade, it's a very big deal. In a perfect world, all cards would get equal treatment, but it's a flawed world and therefore I stand by my statement that megacards deserve exceptionally strict scrutiny.

[mark evans]

To beat a dead horse, this just shows the foolhardiness of the enormous differences in value at the upper end of the grading scale, in my opinion of course.

By the way, can I assume that Beckett (other TPGs?) has determined how to distinguish the original issue of this card from those printed some years later by the same company and owner? I was under the impression that, at least at one time, the TPGs were declining to grade this card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mark evans

To beat a dead horse, this just shows the foolhardiness of the enormous differences in value at the upper end of the grading scale, in my opinion of course.

By the way, can I assume that Beckett (other TPGs?) has determined how to distinguish the original issue of this card from those printed some years later by the same company and owner? I was under the impression that, at least at one time, the TPGs were declining to grade this card.

These were not reprinted, they were counterfeited though.
http://jordancards.com/blog/the-real...rt-steve-taft/

[nsaddict]

Seller sold the same card twice, 3 hours apart?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nsaddict

Seller sold the same card twice, 3 hours apart?

Two scams are better than one.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

These were not reprinted, they were counterfeited though.
http://jordancards.com/blog/the-real...rt-steve-taft/

In the '90's, PSA declined to grade them because it was believed that they were in fact being reprinted with the original plates. If you were collecting them at that time, AND CHECKING THEM CLOSELY, WITH A LOUPE, it appeared rather obvious that of the supposed 4,000 original print run, about 14,000+ still existed in extremely good condition, made from the original plate. That would be the biggest problem for me with that card. One local dealer seemed to have an inexhaustible supply, and even had the cojones to claim exclusivity! Someone else might have a different opinion, but I was there, closely examining them, and buying them at the time, as were other collector friends, and after awhile, as prices rose significantly, we had no doubt that there was a very serious problem which was ongoing for a substantial period of time. PSA still refuses to grade the '84-'85's, for what I believe is good reason. The same thing happened with a certain 1985 McGwire minor league card, which had a supposed print run of 250 or so. By 1998, however, they were everywhere, and examination of the print dot pattern clearly indicated they had been printed with the original plate in abundance.

Best to all,

Larry

[Peter_Spaeth]

Maybe Steve Taft is on this board and can comment? But he is supposedly THE expert and here is what he says.

JordanCards.com: It is commonly reported that the 1984-85 Star Co set was reprinted by Star Co in the early 90’s. Is this true and if not which sets were reprinted, if any?

Steve Taft: No, this is NOT true! Now that we know about the 1997 Shop at Home scandal, I think if the owner of Star could have made exact duplicates of his cards, he might have given it a try. Problem is, I don’t think it’s possible to match the cutting characteristics of the original cards, plus, the original printers were no longer in business.

AND

JordanCards.com: How prevalent, do you believe, are counterfeit 1984-85 Michael Jordan Star Co XRC cards?

Steve Taft: With all the rumors about counterfeits of this card, the amount of counterfeits is very small when compared to the MJ Fleer RC counterfeits. (Small in comparison to the Fleer counterfeits, but, still plenty of them to put a hurt on a lot of unknowing collectors).