Christie’s Auction today

[Dardevl]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Attachment 482191

Here’s the Christie’s 1926 image (on the right) vs. a good 1925 gehrig rookie on the left. Night & day. You can clearly see the gray vs. blue tint. Note, the Scan of the Christie’s Gehrig was taken before it was re-holdered & graded a 9. It is the same card.

Ok. Are you saying these are the same card or not?

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Dardevl

Ok. Are you saying these are the same card or not?

Not the same card. The exhibit on the left is an obvious 1925 rookie gray tint. The image on the right is a 1926 blue tint. Subtle tint deference for the 2 years but you can clearly see the difference. Other than the gray vs. blue tint surfaces, the 25 vs 26 are exactly the same.

[Dardevl]

So what is the "incorrect" (1926 Exhibits Galloway example)?

https://www.oldcardboard.com/w/exhib...?cardsetID=790

I purposely am not referencing the TCDB, because they have (somehow) uploaded Exhibits from the 1928 and 1926-29 (1925-31) sets, in with the true 1926 images.

And unfortunately, IMO, a tonal difference could be as simple as different camera settings (cool mode, etc) to one's display settings. Hell, I could even sprinkle in the potential for some mild color blindness. I would assume that an in hand, side-by-side comparison (not images from different camera sources) would be the absolute confirmation.

[Exhibitman]

Rumors about PSA's misidentification of the year of the Gehrig were flying around among Exhibit collectors when the auction first went up. Apparently, at least one collector checked the card against a 1925 in person at the National and the difference was obvious. That had to depress prices. Even so, we are talking about $688,000.00 for the card (plus vig or is that including vig?), which is still damned impressive.

[Dardevl]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Rumors about PSA's misidentification of the year of the Gehrig were flying around among Exhibit collectors when the auction first went up. Apparently, at least one collector checked the card against a 1925 in person at the National and the difference was obvious. That had to depress prices. Even so, we are talking about $688,000.00 for the card (plus vig or is that including vig?), which is still damned impressive.

Good to know! It's scary to think that one person's eye could make the difference like that. And thank goodness, it wasn't mine!!

I watched some of the auction, and IMO, it seemed like a thrown together production. A "Type 3" photo from the DiMaggio estate was listed and sold as a "Type 1". I was impressed with the selection, however.

[Shoeless Moe]

This Black Sox Ticket was also incorrectly described by PSA & Christies as Game 4, it's a Game 8:

https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6334798


See REA:

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=88475


Bidders obviously caught that too.

.....and yes some of those Ticket prices were outrageous, obviously won by someone new to the hobby. For a couple of those they could get a better ticket, and for half the price just by going to Ebay.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

This Black Sox Ticket was also incorrectly described by PSA & Christies as Game 4, it's a Game 8:

https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6334798


See REA:

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=88475


Bidders obviously caught that too.

.....and yes some of those Ticket prices were outrageous, obviously won by someone new to the hobby. For a couple of those they could get a better ticket, and for half the price just by going to Ebay.

I did not see that one but you are 100% correct and if I was a cosigner of that I would be very mad bc given the crazy prices of other items Im not real sure the bidders caught that...bc the last Game 8 (granted it was great shape) sold for $48k at Heritage within the year...if properly labeled and described given the fact that everything else went for a premium I bet this ticket would have sold for over $50k... that's just my opinion

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

I did not see that one but you are 100% correct and if I was a cosigner of that I would be very mad bc given the crazy prices of other items Im not real sure the bidders caught that...bc the last Game 8 (granted it was great shape) sold for $48k at Heritage within the year...if properly labeled and described given the fact that everything else went for a premium I bet this ticket would have sold for over $50k... that's just my opinion

Yah, but the consigner should have known what it was. They should have gotten that fixed by PSA long ago. 3 F-ups: consigner, PSA & Christies.

But yah REA did better with a lesser graded one, correctly identified, so yah it very well could have gone higher if properly identified, but the 3 Stooges all botched it.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

This Black Sox Ticket was also incorrectly described by PSA & Christies as Game 4, it's a Game 8:

https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6334798


See REA:

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=88475


Bidders obviously caught that too.

.....and yes some of those Ticket prices were outrageous, obviously won by someone new to the hobby. For a couple of those they could get a better ticket, and for half the price just by going to Ebay.

Ticket stubs are the new NFTs though, haven't you heard? I bid a shitload the other day for a ticket stub I've been looking for. I bid more than double what the last one sold for, but I was still outsniped.

Edited to add: Also, $1500 estimate is laughable for that Black Sox WS ticket lolol.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Rumors about PSA's misidentification of the year of the Gehrig were flying around among Exhibit collectors when the auction first went up. Apparently, at least one collector checked the card against a 1925 in person at the National and the difference was obvious. That had to depress prices. Even so, we are talking about $688,000.00 for the card (plus vig or is that including vig?), which is still damned impressive.

Yeah I think the 688K was extremely high for a signed 1926 and almost get the sense that some did not care about the error on the identification by PSA who had two opportunities to catch it.

On the flip side I was surprised at the lack of attention the E90-1 Jackson got. Had two guys not gotten into it at the end it would never have gotten to 213K. A very sloppy PSA 5 came up in 2016 in Heritage that went for 143K. It is not a card that comes up often in anything better than VG. I know the PSA holder accounted for a good deal of the 143K but this SGC 5 was a far superior example. The 213K is a lot of money for a non Hall of Fame rookie card that most find ugly but I was expecting it to sell for more in this era of massive prices being paid for elite cards. Apparently it is not THAT elite.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought the "other" version of the Gehrig was 1927? So are there in fact versions from all three years?

[Peter_Spaeth]

From a post on blowout.


Someone from the Joe Jackson Museum tweeted about it yesterday. "If that were actually autographed by Joe, we'd have put a bid in on it. Unfortunately, it is 100% not signed by him." They also tweeted, "Joe absolutely signed his name on more than one occasion. we have documented proof that he signed his will, a couple drivers licenses late in life, a couple other legal documents. The signature on this photo shows zero resemblance to Joe's known signatures. It's not his".

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought the "other" version of the Gehrig was 1927? So are there in fact versions from all three years?

Peter - that is a definitive 1927 Exhibit. You’ll notice there is no text box in the lower left quadrant on the 1927 Gehrig. Easy to distinguish from his 1925 gray tint rookie & 1926 blue tint 2nd year subject with both of those having text boxes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Peter - that is a definitive 1927 Exhibit. You’ll notice there is no text box in the lower left quadrant on the 1927 Gehrig. Easy to distinguish from his 1925 gray tint rookie & 1926 blue tint 2nd year subject with both of those having text boxes.

Got it, thanks. I was not previously familiar with the blue tint 1926 version.