 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
06-07-2009, 04:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
I can't answer your questions but would love to see scans of the cards. The Nichols and McPhee cards are tough Hall of Famers and you will get very good money for both of those cards. Also can you tell us what the other OJ's you got were...There are quite a few non-hall of famers in the set that are quite scarce.
__________________
Looking for Nebraska Indians memorabilia, photos and postcards 
|
|
#2
06-07-2009, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Barry,
It is a different pose I think. If you look at the PSA pop report, you can see what I'm referring to. As for the other cards, I will definitely list them and their grades as soon as I hear from PSA. The other grades popped sooner as they were subbed under a higher (more expensive) tier. I'd love to get some low pops on the commons as well. I did a lot of research on the HOF's, but not on the others.
|
|
#3
06-07-2009, 05:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I've been watching the Bid McPhee cards for several years now and the hands over head and fielding ground ball poses seem to be pop up more than the throwing or batting ones. The SGC population report lists 13 Bid McPhee cards, but since the pop reports don't differentiate poses, I can't really say if that's an actual reflection on the overall population or just what has come up for sale recently.
Last edited by Doug; 06-07-2009 at 05:06 PM.
|
|
#4
06-07-2009, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doug, it looks like the PSA pop report is showing different variations, maybe this is something they just started, or else I'm reading it incorrectly
|
|
#6
06-07-2009, 06:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I wouldn't count on the pop reports for any of the grading companies when it comes to OJs because they never characterized the players by pose in the past therefore if they started to do so now then nobody would know what the true "pose" population is because there wouldn't really be an accurate accounting of the different poses. Regardless of what you may submit for the "year" the card was made the grading companies have not (in the past, at least) published the true year the card was released because they never had the expertise to do so in the past. Doing so now would only confuse the data that they have. The grading companies not only didn't (don't) distinguish by pose they don't really have good grading criteria. It seems that the image quality isn't a criterial for grading. blah, blah, blah... ok, I'll shut up now...
__________________
fr3d c0wl3s - always looking for OJs and other 19th century stuff. PM or email me if you have something cool you're looking to find a new home for.
|
|
#7
06-07-2009, 09:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
When it comes to Old Judges and grading, most prefer SGC. SGC has now graded over 5,000 Old Judges. SGC population on your 3 HOFers as follows:
HOFer / Qty Graded / Highest Grade McPhee / 13 / SGC 84 Nichols / 16 / SGC 80 (2 at this level) Thompson / 41 / SGC 86 It should be noted that a common HOFer can sometimes have tough variations. For example, an 1890 card of Thompson (Philadelphia - NL) can command a premium. Edited to add we'd like to list of players you have submitted for grading. There are tougher "commons" that can command more than most HOFers.
__________________
Best Regards, Joe Gonsowski COLLECTOR OF: - 19th century Detroit memorabilia and cards with emphasis on Goodwin & Co. issues ( N172 / N173 / N175 ) and Tomlinson cabinets - N333 SF Hess Newsboys League cards (all teams) - Pre ATC Merger (1890 and prior) cigarette packs and redemption coupons from all manufacturers Last edited by Joe_G.; 06-07-2009 at 09:41 PM. Reason: Additional Content
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
