Ty Cobb Card Market?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

I disagree. The problem with the single number is people paying the same for all PSA 3 Cobbs, which here our buyer obviously did not do. The purpose of TPG, particularly in the internet age -- and with Heritage's super-bright scans, which the buyer here acknowledged above -- is to show the hidden flaws. That card would've been sold as EX-MT 25-30 years ago. Not today.

As I've said before here, grading is a pyramid. At the top, you have the 10s. 10 means perfection and thus all 10s will be identical. As you go down the pyramid, grades are set for a variety of reasons -- 9s almost all look the same, but 3s, 2s and 1s have a huge number of potential flaws, including paper loss on reverse, creasing, corner wear, etc. What makes a card a PSA 2 could be a variety of factors that tell you nothing about the eye appeal of the card without looking at it.

Professional grading is not designed to reflect eye appeal. It is designed to point out flaws, often hard to see or hidden, in a piece of card board. When you see a clean-looking SGC 30, you actually know there are a lot of hard to see flaws. When you see a badgered up SGC 30, what you see is what you get. But not all SGC 30s will look alike -- in fact, at that level of the "pyramid" you will have a lot of different looking cards.

This becomes problematic when sellers try to sell a PSA 2 for what a previous PSA 2 sold for. Without comparing both cards, going by the number alone gets you nowhere because what you don't know about the previous card is whether the damage was similar or whether the eye-appeal was comparable. Sometimes you can get a pretty good deal on a nice looking 2 when a seller is willing to use a previous ugly 2 as a comparable. This is why they say, "Buy the card, not the holder." Which is exactly what our buyer did this time -- kudos to an intelligent market decision!

right when you get down to cards with flaws.....i call it the 'authentic' principle...

not all authentics are alike..some can go for 2x and 3x mroe than the next..same with PSA 1s......and now people are starting to see it on the less flawed but still flawed cards in the psa 2-3 range....... huge spectrums on that range that can overlap the next or even next 2 grade ranges..... plus centered cards almost have their own range and not limited to the VCP range....needs to be a 'centered VCP" site..

[orly57]

" grading is not designed to reflect eye appeal. It is designed to point out flaws, often hard to see or hidden, in a piece of card board."

That is a very fair point. My modest proposal was not meant to imply that card with a hidden crease that looks gorgeous should rocket to a 7 due to eye appeal. I only suggest that grading companies shouldn't robotically treat all flaws the same. A more prominent crease is a more eggregious flaw than a hidden crease. Paper loss on an innocuous part of the card (i.e. On the back corners) is less eggregious than paper loss on the front where the image is affected. This isn't subjective. On a technical level as well as on visual appeal, this is the case. If a crease is more prominent than another crease, it is obviously a greater flaw and should be treated as such. Is it really that crazy to propose that some flaws are worse than others? The idea that "a crease is a crease is a crease" seems to me to lack any sort of nuance or common sense, and it leads to painfully disparate results in the lower grades. And this is just comparing a crease to a crease. What about when 1 hidden flaw = 4 rounded corners? We see that all the time. The tpg has hit a hidden flaw so hard that it puts it in the same grade scale as other far more eggregious and obvious flaws. I just think that the SEVERITY of the flaw needs to be weighed, and not just robotically give the same weight to all flaws equally. It will never happen, but that is all I am saying. Compare the cards below. Never mind eye appeal. Can you seriously tell me theses cards are technically equal?

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by orly57

Can you seriously tell me theses cards are technically equal?

The question proves my point. I don't need PSA to tell me that the middle one has better eye appeal. I need PSA to tell me that the scan doesn't tell the whole story: the middle one has a crease or paper loss on reverse -- which I am certain it does -- and which will always keep it below a 4.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right when you get down to cards with flaws.....i call it the 'authentic' principle...

not all authentics are alike..some can go for 2x and 3x mroe than the next..same with PSA 1s......and now people are starting to see it on the less flawed but still flawed cards in the psa 2-3 range....... huge spectrums on that range that can overlap the next or even next 2 grade ranges..... plus centered cards almost have their own range and not limited to the VCP range....needs to be a 'centered VCP" site..

Jake, you are correct that not all authentics are alike. Eye appeal has a tremendous affect on buyers. Final hammer price was 33k on REA.