Grading Advice on Goudey Ruth Card

[robw1959]

I recently purchased a BVG Ruth card that was numerically graded. It's a beautiful card, as you can see. I have cracked it out, and am planning to send it to either SGC or PSA. To maximize it's future value, which TPG should I send it to and why? Thanks!

[ullmandds]

PSA...because most collectors/investors are "sheep!" Nice card!

[Jay Wolt]

Rob what did Beckett grade it?

[swarmee]

Is that a thread/hair over the chin or a crease? Either way, the incompetent PSA is your choice.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Is that a thread/hair over the chin or a crease? Either way, the incompetent PSA is your choice.

That has been my choice lately since the top 2 (for vintage) TPGs are about the same in grading, imo....When grading gotta go for what brings the most money.
I will buy any of the 3 TPGs as long as I am personally comfortable with the card. So many mistakes in holders.....

As I have said before I personally think BVG does the best at grading vintage. But the prices they bring are, many times, horrible.

.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Is that a thread/hair over the chin or a crease? Either way, the incompetent PSA is your choice.

I don't know what that is over the chin. Whatever it is, it sure isn't on the card. Maybe just a doggie hair on the scanner?

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Leon

That has been my choice lately since the top 2 (for vintage) TPGs are about the same in grading, imo....When grading gotta go for what brings the most money.
I will buy any of the 3 TPGs as long as I am personally comfortable with the card. So many mistakes in holders.....

As I have said before I personally think BVG does the best at grading vintage. But the prices they bring are, many times, horrible.

.

Thanks, Leon. I agree with all of the points you bring up, and it looks like PSA will likely be my choice, as flawed as they are.

[Tyruscobb]

I have cards from all three major graders. Aesthetically, vintage cards look better in SGC holders than PSA and BVG ones, and it’s not even close.

SGC for presentation. That card will pop in a black SGC holder, especially with the green. PSA for re-sale value. So, go PSA if you are looking for investment/re-sale.

[ullmandds]

can't wait to hear what it grades around valentines day!!!

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Psa 3

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by ajjohnsonsoxfan

Psa 3

I've got it pegged in the 3-4 range.

[mdube16]

For resale at this point PSA is the choice. They just bring more money than the others

[Throttlesteer]

PSA 4. I dont think there's anything obvious to pull it down to a 3. But. You never know.

[GasHouseGang]

They might split it on you and make it a PSA 3.5. Looks like a PSA 4, but you never know.

[conor912]

That card would look absolutely splendid in a 10 cent top loader.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by conor912

That card would look absolutely splendid in a 10 cent top loader.

It's probably one of the dumbest questions I have read recently. You really would HATE to have left it AS IS...So very dopey IMHO. Enjoy the beautiful card anyway you want, but I think it's RE TARD ED PERIOD

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Is that a thread/hair over the chin or a crease? Either way, the incompetent PSA is your choice.

I'm pretty sure this is a SSP image variation with an image from the Babe's roarin' 20s days. The one-hair beard was pretty big for a few months in 1929, if I remember history correctly.

In all seriousness, if maximizing the value is a priority, PSA is clearly the choice due to the registry propping up the demand. I prefer the look of cards in SGC's holder, though.

[robw1959]

Well, I sent it to PSA. I just now saw the grade PSA has issued. They received it on September 10th, logged it in as "received" on September 22nd, and just shipped it back to me today as a . . . 3. I should have expected it to be a 3 because earlier this year they graded a '48 Leaf Joe Dimaggio card of mine as a 3, and that one looks even sharper than this Ruth card. So no surprise here.

[pokerplyr80]

3 sounds about right. Was it a BVG 4?

[oldeboo]

Great looking card. Hard to complain too much about a 3. A very solid card for that grade, no doubt.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Well, I sent it to PSA. I just now saw the grade PSA has issued. They received it on September 10th, logged it in as "received" on September 22nd, and just shipped it back to me today as a . . . 3. I should have expected it to be a 3 because earlier this year they graded a '48 Leaf Joe Dimaggio card of mine as a 3, and that one looks even sharper than this Ruth card. So no surprise here.

How did you get it graded that fast? I thought it was taking months for new submissions.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by jayshum

How did you get it graded that fast? I thought it was taking months for new submissions.

I paid $200 for the grading fees, which falls under their "Super Express" guidelines. I think Super Express implies a 2-day grading service. What pleased me the most was the 12-day input time, which is closer to 3-4 weeks these days. I didn't write "Super Express" on the package, but I did send it by registered mail, which is probably what caught their attention and caused the quicker input time.