King Kelly on eBay:

[Archive]

Posted By: James

http://cgi.ebay.com/N172-King-Kelly-GAI-1-5-Best-OJ-image-Ive-ever-seen_W0QQitemZ110183601064QQihZ001QQcategoryZ10617 8QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Hello everyone, I am from the vintage hockey board. I do, however like some of the old baseball cards, especially the dudes with big mustaches and their funky hats. I was watching the above auction and was surprised it hit that high. But realized that if you could somehow find a way to remove the glue marks on the back, it would then grade a 6 or maybe even a 7.

What do you guys think? Did it go for too much? Good investment even though graded 1.5 GAI? Is it possible to get it past a good grading company after removing the glue marks?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Given that I was outbid by several hundred, I think so.
I think it got such a high price because of the excellent image.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

The image on that Kelly is as nice as any I have seen on an Old Judge card.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

OJ collectors give more than usual weight to the quality
of the image, and damage to the back is consider much less
significant. Obviously, back damage on a blank back card
is considered less an issue than with say an Allen & Ginter
or an OPC.

Many OJ collectors would take any day the superior image with
back damage to the lesser image with no back damage. This is
because advanced OJ collectors treat OJs as little photos, which
they are. And if you treat something as photos, image quality
will always be of big concern. Away from baseball cards, if you
have a beautiful, crystal clear 8x10" photo of Willie Mays, does
it even matter that there's an errant pencil mark on the back?
Obviously baseball cards are treated differently than 8x10
photos, but the Mays gives an example of how the front can be
given an inordinate weight over the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce Babcock

Somebody got a great deal, IMO. We've all seen high-grade encapsulated cards that make it appear the player is lost in a blinding snowstorm. Would an A-Rod rookie card with the same characteristic grade as high?

As noted, the image is everything with N172s. This card is a beauty.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Looking at the top edge blown up, does it look to anyone else that the front and back layer don't match up? Front layer seems at touch shorter...wondering if maybe the piece is re-backed....


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

That OJ has a spectacular image. The price was consistent with nice OJs. Actually, I thought it was a pretty good deal. You wont find many OJ images cleaner than that one.

[Archive]

Posted By: bigfish387

I thought it was a great deal. The image was awesome. The grade does not matter when you have a front like that one. The back is another concern.

Good point Daniel.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Daniel,

It looks that way to me as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: James

Hey, I did notice the thin black line on the top edge. I thought it was a little miscut or something. By "re-backed" do you guys mean that the card is still stuck to the paper it was glued on and then glued again for the second time?

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Card actually has scrapbook damage/paper missing on back (see rougher area around glue stains). It should never grade better than it is. It is the front that brought the good $$, very nice contrast.

Many N172 card were intentionally "skinned" (cardboard backing removed from real photo front) in order to make them easier to glue into Victorian Scrapbooks. Modern collectors sometimes will add a piece of period cardboard to the back of a skinned card to make it closer to the real thickness of a whole card. This is called "rebacked". Rebacked cards look nicer than a skinned card, but will never grade. Its basically a restored card.

After saying that...... I dont think this card was rebacked. Why would someone reback a card with a scrapbook damaged back??

Nice card!

[Archive]

Posted By: 1880nonsports

I have never considered that anything was "skinned" to facilitate glueing images or cards into an album, I have seen it in a couple/three cases but the primary reason something ends up skinned is from the physical REMOVAL of cards glued into albums - secondarily from poor soaking in which there is seperation - and finally (usually with mounted photos) when the mount has been damaged and the person was concerned with the aethetics.....