Please Explain the Pete Rose Rookie to Me

[ichieh]

If you assumption is true, does it mean that PSA is a stricter grader than SGC? Why would SGC put the card in a SGC 98 holder, but PSA would not? I am sure this has been debated many times before, but is it true the general perception is that PSA is more reputable than SGC, even in prewar or post war cards?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ichieh

If you assumption is true, does it mean that PSA is a stricter grader than SGC? Why would SGC put the card in a SGC 98 holder, but PSA would not? I am sure this has been debated many times before, but is it true the general perception is that PSA is more reputable than SGC, even in prewar or post war cards?

You can't make generalizations about which company is stricter. In the case of a card like this, because of what the value would be because of the set registry, there is probably a next to impossible burden getting PSA to put a 10 on it, whether it deserves it or not. Politics or whatever you want to call these external considerations enter into it for sure. If it was a common, or a Tracy McGrady rookie, they wouldn't think twice about it.

[ichieh]

i think i agree your comment to certain degree, but SGC and Beckett have their own set registry, but public seem to favor PSA others.

[Fred]

PSA has been around longer and they've captured a large part of the post-war and modern card market.

Did you happen to look at the SGC96 graded 1963T Rose card that BMW has for sale ($20K)? It looks every bit as awesome as the card graded a 98. Is there really a an $80K difference in value. Perceived, maybe. Seriously, is it really worth the $80K? I don't get this... Someone could have picked up the almost 400 OJs that was sold in the REA auction for $80K. Now THAT, to me would have been money better spent. There were some pretty neat cards in that OJ lot but then again, I'm an OJ nut so a 1963T card just doesn't do it for me. I do however appreciate looking at a nice 1963T because that year is a very condition sensitive. Please don't take that as my possible endorsement of the value of the SGC98 Rose rookie (it isn't).

[calvindog]

Fred, I find it best to not do the math in your head over such trivialities as the monetary and aesthetic differences between a 9 and a 9.5. It is simply insanity when you really focus on these issues.

[ChiefBenderForever]

BMW paid 8-10k or less for his card, here is the SGC96 just sold in REA-

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=13826

The sgc98 has sold for 19k-27k. You might need to up the bribe to 5-10k.

[E93]

I am not the grader, but I do see some differences between these two cards. The SGC 96 has a small printing fisheye in the upper right part of the blue. It also has a tiny white dot in the red to the right of Pedro Gonzalez's face. The SGC 96 also seems centered a bit lower than the SGC 98. Obviously these are incredibly minor "flaws", but for those interested in the difference between a 10 and 9, I am guessing those are the types of differences.

[barrysloate]

A few years ago I got a close look at a T206 Pastorius that was graded PSA 10. While the front was an absolute gem, with perfectly sharp corners and a beautiful "finish" that a pristine T206 will have, the back was noticeably off-center. None of us who saw it that night (it was at one of our Net54 dinners) understood how a card with so obvious a visual flaw received a grade of 10. It's still a mystery to me how some of these grades are assigned.

[CW]

Originally Posted by E93

I don't mean to derail this thread or throw it off on a tangent, but I've always
thought BMW had too much contrast and color saturation in their scans. The
comparison quoted above ^^^ shows how a BMW scan can be misleading to a
potential buyer. Look at how much more the color pops on the BMW SGC 96.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic....