Poll: Final Hammer Price - 1914 BN Babe Ruth vs the 1952 Rosen Topps Mantle

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

A reasonable person would think that SGC just blatantly juicing the grade on any marquee card they get would start to hurt them and their reputation, but as it's the card hobby this is a feature instead of a problem.

The Mantle was not a 9.5, and this ain't a 3. Really awesome cards, it doesn't get much cooler than this Ruth. I'm sure whoever the new owner ends up being won't care the slab they dropped $10M for is a lie.

Perhaps the Mantle wasn't a 9.5, but it was certainly better than all of the PSA 9s I've seen and two of the PSA 10s. Ultimately, this is what mattered, and this is why they put it in an SGC 9.5 holder. It was a matter of hierarchy, not accuracy. And given the significance of these cards, I think it was the right move to make. The goalposts never should have been moved on us, but they have. The only 52 Mantle that could give it a run for its money is the sheet cut PSA 10.

I haven't seen all the other BN Ruths, but I suspect this decision was similar. Placed on the old grading scale. Had it gone to PSA, it probably gets a 1 despite being nicer than one already slabbed as a 2.

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Perhaps the Mantle wasn't a 9.5, but it was certainly better than all of the PSA 9s I've seen and two of the PSA 10s. Ultimately, this is what mattered, and this is why they put it in an SGC 9.5 holder. It was a matter of hierarchy, not accuracy. And given the significance of these cards, I think it was the right move to make. The goalposts never should have been moved on us, but they have. The only 52 Mantle that could give it a run for its money is the sheet cut PSA 10.

I haven't seen all the other BN Ruths, but I suspect this decision was similar. Placed on the old grading scale. Had it gone to PSA, it probably gets a 1 despite being nicer than one already slabbed as a 2.

This is precisely why I think the Rosen 9.5 went to SGC and not PSA. PSA will probably never grade another 52 Topps Mick a 10 even if one were pulled from a pack like happened at the National with the 55 Bowman Mick, as it would conflict with the three already in 10 holders, to protect and honor those. It could have received a 9, but really deserved to be a 10 considering the 2 PSA 10 examples it was compared to and their respective flaws. Since SGC awards half points, there you go, split the difference.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Perhaps the Mantle wasn't a 9.5, but it was certainly better than all of the PSA 9s I've seen and two of the PSA 10s. Ultimately, this is what mattered, and this is why they put it in an SGC 9.5 holder. It was a matter of hierarchy, not accuracy. And given the significance of these cards, I think it was the right move to make. The goalposts never should have been moved on us, but they have. The only 52 Mantle that could give it a run for its money is the sheet cut PSA 10.

I haven't seen all the other BN Ruths, but I suspect this decision was similar. Placed on the old grading scale. Had it gone to PSA, it probably gets a 1 despite being nicer than one already slabbed as a 2.

I think you're absolutely right on all of this, and fudging the grade is probably even the right business decision. It's still off-putting to people like me. Right or wrong, I had a perception of SGC as the straight-and-narrow alternative to PSA. When I saw an SGC 3 slapped on that card, it make me rethink that perception. It should be worth roughly the same whether it's a 1-1.5 or a 3, but they shot high anyway. To what end?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Perhaps the Mantle wasn't a 9.5, but it was certainly better than all of the PSA 9s I've seen and two of the PSA 10s. Ultimately, this is what mattered, and this is why they put it in an SGC 9.5 holder. It was a matter of hierarchy, not accuracy. And given the significance of these cards, I think it was the right move to make. The goalposts never should have been moved on us, but they have. The only 52 Mantle that could give it a run for its money is the sheet cut PSA 10.

I haven't seen all the other BN Ruths, but I suspect this decision was similar. Placed on the old grading scale. Had it gone to PSA, it probably gets a 1 despite being nicer than one already slabbed as a 2.

Yes, I’m sure it was the “right to move make” for the mone, that is the point.. Corruption is a feature, not a problem. It’s blatantly dishonest. A card with staining like that has never before been considered to be in 9.5 or in 9 condition. If I submitted a Dale Coogan in the same condition I would not get a 9 or a 9.5. If I submitted a common T206 in the same exact condition as this Ruth it would not get a 3. I would be lucky to get a 1.5. This whole show is a farce, grading is not to produce an accurate grade it’s to suit the market interests of a select group.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, I’m sure it was the “right to move make” for the mone, that is the point.. Corruption is a feature, not a problem. It’s blatantly dishonest. A card with staining like that has never before been considered to be in 9.5 or in 9 condition. If I submitted a Dale Coogan in the same condition I would not get a 9 or a 9.5. If I submitted a common T206 in the same exact condition as this Ruth it would not get a 3. I would be lucky to get a 1.5. This whole show is a farce, grading is not to produce an accurate grade it’s to suit the market interests of a select group.

When you submit a Dale Coogan though, they're not pulling up examples of previously graded copies to see where it might fit in among the hierarchy of other Coogans. And they shouldn't be expected to, because we want them to keep grading fees affordable. But when they're grading cards like this Ruth and the 9.5 Mantle, I would argue that it's the right thing to do. Even if the grades look silly in comparison to other recently graded cards.

This is why you shouldn't move goalposts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Some goalpost movement is inevitable as the hobby changes, but moving them to the 50 yard line as they seem to have done is ridiculous.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Some goalpost movement is inevitable as the hobby changes, but moving them to the 50 yard line as they seem to have done is ridiculous.

Ya. Now PSA is lumping in POOR, FAIR, GOOD, AND VG cards all into PSA 1 holders in order to make room for the EXMT cards they're slabbing as 4s. I honestly thought they would have corrected this by now. It's really baffling.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ya. Now PSA is lumping in POOR, FAIR, GOOD, AND VG cards all into PSA 1 holders in order to make room for the EXMT cards they're slabbing as 4s. I honestly thought they would have corrected this by now. It's really baffling.

I have heard, and no idea of truth, that they are using machine grading in the first instance on larger subs which I guess grades low because it deducts for trivial specks and the like on vintage; and that some graders don't bother with an independent assessment.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have heard, and no idea of truth, that they are using machine grading in the first instance on larger subs which I guess grades low because it deducts for trivial specks and the like on vintage; and that some graders don't bother with an independent assessment.

This isn't actually true. It's just a rumor going around Blowout from people who don't understand the capabilities. They're not using Genamint to grade cards at all.

[Yoda]

SGC should be ashamed at giving the BN Babe a 3, particularly with their supposed new grading standards. IMO it should be a 1.5, maybe a 2 on a sunny day. Me thinks there were serious political forces at play when Ruth was in the grading room.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

SGC should be ashamed at giving the BN Babe a 3, particularly with their supposed new grading standards. IMO it should be a 1.5, maybe a 2 on a sunny day. Me thinks there were serious political forces at play when Ruth was in the grading room.

I am sure Dave had his reasons, but we can only guess what they were.

[ClementeFanOh]

At the risk of being viewed as a heretic, I’ll go back to the actual topic (I know, I know, such a horrible thing)…Card sits at 5.75 million with no bids since the 29th of November. I still think it tops the Mick. Trent King

[Hankphenom]

As far as the grade is concerned, TPG's do grade "on the curve," don't they, with fragile issues like T205s not held to the same standard as T206s and the like? If so, that might explain the grade, which otherwise seems incredibly generous.

[BRoberts]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

As far as the grade is concerned, TPG's do grade "on the curve," don't they, with fragile issues like T205s not held to the same standard as T206s and the like?

No.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

When you submit a Dale Coogan though, they're not pulling up examples of previously graded copies to see where it might fit in among the hierarchy of other Coogans. And they shouldn't be expected to, because we want them to keep grading fees affordable. But when they're grading cards like this Ruth and the 9.5 Mantle, I would argue that it's the right thing to do. Even if the grades look silly in comparison to other recently graded cards.

This is why you shouldn't move goalposts.

That IS moving the goalposts. The graders claim they do NOT give preferential treatment to high end cards and lift the grades for them. The whole reason for grading, besides the much more honest ‘it juices the money printer’ is that it’s supposed to be a consistent set of criteria applied to the cards to make condition less of a debate. It’s not consistent when there’s 2 completely different sets of rules where the big cards get juiced. They did it with an Wagner fairly recently as well, SGC is clearly overgrading the best cards they get, presumably for the obvious financial reasons. Again, I know that corruption will be very popular among a lot of the hobby but it’s absurd and in a normal business would reduce customer confidence.