Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[conor912]

Holy crap. That is just, well, magnificent. Hard to believe there’s another complete set out there.

[Schlesinj]

Interesting note, the cards will be auctioned off individually and as a set. Whichever produces more & is the way the cards will sell.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Schlesinj

Interesting note, the cards will be auctioned off individually and as a set. Whichever produces more & is the way the cards will sell.

Interesting way to do it and obviously it is the best way for their seller.

All the cards are amazing of course the Joe Jackson and the Cobb are the show stoppers to me.

The condition of them all is amazing and the colors truly POP

[brunswickreeves]

Link to full auction for higher resolution pictures and description:
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...50066-189013.s

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by brunswickreeves

Link to full auction for higher resolution pictures and description:
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...50066-189013.s

Thank you for posting that link. I hadn’t had time to look for it when I first saw that photo.

I’m really glad to see those cards in SGC slabs. Putting them in any other holder would’ve been a tremendous disservice.

[Mrc32]

Call me crazy - but wouldn't these draw higher prices as individual lots rather than an entire set?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Mrc32

Call me crazy - but wouldn't these draw higher prices as individual lots rather than an entire set?

Maybe! My experience is that's traditionally been the case, although only a Sith deals in absolutes.

At the same time, there are some AHs that are starting to run tandem auctions, whereby you can bid on them as a complete set, or individually. Whichever fetches the highest price wins. So you could be the highest bidder on an item, but if the complete set draws a higher price, then you still lose.

Somewhat shockingly, from time to time the complete set will win.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Mrc32

Call me crazy - but wouldn't these draw higher prices as individual lots rather than an entire set?

150%. I would not sell these cards as both a set and individual cards. It could potentially limit the degree of bidding intensity for the major cards like Jackson, Cobb, Johnson & Speaker. As a collector (and bidder), it is extremely frustrating bidding strong on a particular item, knowing full well I might be wasting my time since the card may ultimately sell as a piece of the entire set. That said, I do believe the individual lot aggregate will best the full set price - happens 90%+ of the time when an auction house pits individual lots vs. the complete set.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

Thank you for posting that link. I hadn’t had time to look for it when I first saw that photo.

I’m really glad to see those cards in SGC slabs. Putting them in any other holder would’ve been a tremendous disservice.

They know their audience.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

The condition of them all is amazing and the colors truly POP

Once again, I am completely mystified by the grades on these. Beautiful front and back, particularly given their rarity, whatever justification one will come up with for the ridiculously low grades only renders the grading system employed a joke in my estimation. There has to be a better way, one that actually makes sense.

[petecld]

They are real and they are spectacular!
-- Teri Hatcher

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by petecld

They are real and they are spectacular!
-- Teri Hatcher

Weren't they though!

[Aaron Seefeldt]

Originally Posted by petecld

They are real and they are spectacular!
-- Teri Hatcher

Post #18 of this thread... hi Pete!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Once again, I am completely mystified by the grades on these. Beautiful front and back, particularly given their rarity, whatever justification one will come up with for the ridiculously low grades only renders the grading system employed a joke in my estimation. There has to be a better way, one that actually makes sense.

Then again, on cards like these, the grade is sort of beside the point.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then again, on cards like these, the grade is sort of beside the point.

Of course. Then again, what does that say about the system?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Of course. Then again, what does that say about the system?

Assuming heritage submitted these, I have to believe they got the best possible grades that could be assigned to the cards. Their pics typically under state defects.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Of course. Then again, what does that say about the system?

It's sgc so nothing....they "know" their (limited) audience

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then again, on cards like these, the grade is sort of beside the point.

Winner, winner chicken dinner. You nailed it.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Once again, I am completely mystified by the grades on these. Beautiful front and back, particularly given their rarity, whatever justification one will come up with for the ridiculously low grades only renders the grading system employed a joke in my estimation. There has to be a better way, one that actually makes sense.

There's staining and paper loss all over the place on the backs. The fronts look amazing but the grades look perfectly appropriate to me given the backs.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Tabe

There's staining and paper loss all over the place on the backs. The fronts look amazing but the grades look perfectly appropriate to me given the backs.

OK, so we have maybe 5% loss/residue and some staining on the worst backs, and eye-popping fronts--you know, the important side by a factor of what, 10 or 100 in relation to the backs? If that justifies 1.5s all around for these extreme rarities that are basically never seen in ANY condition, I rest my case. I will go to my grave believing that is a flawed grading system, one that everyone accepts now, but that really doesn't make much sense in the real world. They would all be at least 3s or 4s if I were king of the forest. That would leave a ton of room for any surfacing in much better shape, while not lumping them in with ones driven over by tanks in the mud on the downside. Not trying to pick any fights here, and I totally get where we are. Of course, I should just let it go, but someone many years ago pulled this absurd system out of their butts and decreed it to be so, and it will never seem logical to me.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

OK, so we have maybe 5% loss/residue and some staining on the worst backs, and eye-popping fronts--you know, the important side by a factor of what, 10 or 100 in relation to the backs? If that justifies 1.5s all around for these extreme rarities that are basically never seen in ANY condition, I rest my case. I will go to my grave believing that is a flawed grading system, one that everyone accepts now, but that really doesn't make much sense in the real world. They would all be at least 3s or 4s if I were king of the forest. That would leave a ton of room for any surfacing in much better shape, while not lumping them in with ones driven over by tanks in the mud on the downside. Not trying to pick any fights here, and I totally get where we are. Of course, I should just let it go, but someone many years ago pulled this absurd system out of their butts and decreed it to be so, and it will never seem logical to me.

On some level, I agree with you. The fronts on these cards pretty much all look spectacular and they SEEM like they should get 3s and 4s.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

OK, so we have maybe 5% loss/residue and some staining on the worst backs, and eye-popping fronts--you know, the important side by a factor of what, 10 or 100 in relation to the backs? If that justifies 1.5s all around for these extreme rarities that are basically never seen in ANY condition, I rest my case. I will go to my grave believing that is a flawed grading system, one that everyone accepts now, but that really doesn't make much sense in the real world. They would all be at least 3s or 4s if I were king of the forest. That would leave a ton of room for any surfacing in much better shape, while not lumping them in with ones driven over by tanks in the mud on the downside. Not trying to pick any fights here, and I totally get where we are. Of course, I should just let it go, but someone many years ago pulled this absurd system out of their butts and decreed it to be so, and it will never seem logical to me.

Respectfully, I've got to disagree with you Hank. The whole idea of grading (in my mind) is that a grade is assigned to a whole card that survived in a certain type of condition.

A '57 Bel Air with an immaculate body and a destroyed interior is not in showroom condition, just because she looks pretty on the outside. Following your logic, a skinned card should grade high because the front looks great while the rear side is completely missing.

The inside of a fence is just as important to the security of a property as the outside. Its all a complete package in my mind. If the backs on these cards have paper loss, then they are graded properly as-is. What if the front had paper loss and the backs were immaculate?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Once again, I am completely mystified by the grades on these. Beautiful front and back, particularly given their rarity, whatever justification one will come up with for the ridiculously low grades only renders the grading system employed a joke in my estimation. There has to be a better way, one that actually makes sense.

They pretty much all have some paper loss and/or back damage. I suspect that's why they are graded so low.

Naturally, this gets us back to the subject of many other posts around here around how to adjust for back damage, and people who love buying cards with back damage because they can get them on the cheap.

But I'm guessing these won't go for cheap. If we're taking shots in the dark, I'm guessing $500k+. But then again, it could go for a looooooot more.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by raulus

They pretty much all have some paper loss and/or back damage. I suspect that's why they are graded so low.

Naturally, this gets us back to the subject of many other posts around here around how to adjust for back damage, and people who love buying cards with back damage because they can get them on the cheap.

But I'm guessing these won't go for cheap. If we're taking shots in the dark, I'm guessing $500k+. But then again, it could go for a looooooot more.

I'm betting the over.