Should be interesting CSG 52 Topps Mays

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

As for the grade of this card, meh. Probably more accurately a 1.5, but it's hard for me to get worked up about a card this low on the grading scale. The eye appeal or lack of same should drive the price at the good or so level. It's not like someone would be looking to pump up their registry status (assuming this were a PSA card for example). Nor would someone likely spend a bunch of time or money trying to "improve" their set with this card because of its slabbed grade. Is the market at the very low grade level really slab-number driven anyway?

I would say no, or at least less driven by the flip than higher grade vintage and modern for sure. Eye appeal is king for low grade vintage, in my recent experience as a buyer. The problem is that this card doesn't have much eye appeal for a 2.5. It might be considered a decent 1, but it just looks silly with a VG+ grade. Having the silly slab on top of that is insult to injury. If and when it is sold for a reasonable price, my guess is that the buyer will crack it out immediately. Hard to imagine any collector of low grade vintage keeping it in that! I certainly wouldn't.

[cesarcap]

Pulling for one of these new grading companies to push the established ones but I wouldn't pay > than a 1 SGC/PSA for this Mays.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by chadeast

I would say no, or at least less driven by the flip than higher grade vintage and modern for sure. Eye appeal is king for low grade vintage, in my recent experience as a buyer. The problem is that this card doesn't have much eye appeal for a 2.5. It might be considered a decent 1, but it just looks silly with a VG+ grade. Having the silly slab on top of that is insult to injury. If and when it is sold for a reasonable price, my guess is that the buyer will crack it out immediately. Hard to imagine any collector of low grade vintage keeping it in that! I certainly wouldn't.

The card has gd+ grade, not vg+. As for cracking it out, different strokes I guess. I didn't know low grade collectors gave much of a crap about the slabs anyway, and would be as likely to crack it out if was in a PSA holder regardless of the number. Keep it in the PSA holder if "properly" graded a 1 but crack it out if it's overgraded as a 2.5? OK.

[LincolnVT]

Should still bring 6,500+ which is in line with a PSA or SGC 1 today.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by LincolnVT

Should still bring 6,500+ which is in line with a PSA or SGC 1 today.

Here's a somewhat comparable PSA 1 that sold 03/07/21 for only $2,629. I'm not sure where your $6,500+ estimate is coming from Ethan.



.

[LincolnVT]

Just speaking from experience...maybe I overpaid, but I just spent over 8k on a decent PSA 1.5 Mays. Thinking a PSA 1 might land in the $6,500 area today.

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

Here's a somewhat comparable PSA 1 that sold 03/07/21 for only $2,629. I'm not sure where your $6,500+ estimate is coming from Ethan.



.

[Republicaninmass]

Face creased 1 May's just sold for 4400 fwiw.

[robertsmithnocure]

Looks like a 1.5 to me. Everyone makes mistakes, but they obviously knew that they will be under the microscope with their first cards. I do not understand how they could have let that card out in that grade.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

The card has gd+ grade, not vg+. As for cracking it out, different strokes I guess. I didn't know low grade collectors gave much of a crap about the slabs anyway, and would be as likely to crack it out if was in a PSA holder regardless of the number. Keep it in the PSA holder if "properly" graded a 1 but crack it out if it's overgraded as a 2.5? OK.

Actually, youre right. It would be cracked out regardless of what holder it was in. Sorry, letting my dislike of the CSG holder cloud my thinking 😀

[bcbgcbrcb]

Forgetting about the holders themselves, the PSA 1 card for comparison presents far inferior to the CSG graded card. Rightfully so, the PSA card should sell for substantially less and I bet it would and it’s not because the other card is in a 2.5 holder.

Looking at things from the viewpoint of a grading company that bases it’s overall grade on the 4 sub-grades mindset (as Beckett and CSG do), the final grade can only be a half grade higher than the lowest sub-grade unless there is a very significant difference in sub-grades with the lowest being far worse than the others. In that case, the final grade can be one full grade higher than the lowest sub-grade. The seller’s pics are poor but I would estimate that the corners on this card would grade around a 3, edges around a 3/4, centering around a 2 (keep in mind they don’t have qualifiers such as MC, O/C, etc.) and surface a 1/1.5 for the creasing/scuffing but no significant paper loss. So based on the sub-grades, a 1.5 would be more than reasonable and on a good day, a 2.0 does not seem out of the realm of possibility.

Although they don’t all report their individual findings publicly like Beckett and now CSG on their flips, all of the TPG’s are using these same four facets to grade cards. I can see where the eye test might lead one to look at this card and say it looks like a 1 but in reality, the technical grade should be a bit higher based on the somewhat more positive traits that it does have. Many times we like to present a card when we are selling it as looking much better than it’s technical grade, right? In this case, the technical grade might appear high based on the overall presentation of the card but is not far off based on the sub-grade weights given. Is it a half-grade too high, maybe, but we shouldn’t be badmouthing a grader for a half-point more or less. None of us are perfect, are we?