Christie’s Auction today

[Schlesinj]

Some serious memorabilia, cards, autographs, tickets being auctioned off.

Worth a Google search.

[Kawika]

-

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by Schlesinj

Some serious memorabilia, cards, autographs, tickets being auctioned off.

Worth a Google search.

Some serious estimates too.

[Rhotchkiss]

Whats the buyers premium? A very nice E90-1 SGC 5 Joe Jackson just sold for $170k hammer. A T206 Green Cobb PSA 6 just sold for $50k hammer.

[Schlesinj]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Whats the buyers premium? A very nice E90-1 SGC 5 Joe Jackson just sold for $170k hammer. A T206 Green Cobb PSA 6 just sold for $50k hammer.

25%, although it drops with larger sized purchases.

[Shoeless Moe]

wait until the winners see their additional charges (BP, Tax, extraordinary Shipping & Handling)

tack on another 30-40% to any winning bid you are looking at.

[mrreality68]

wow

Did not even realize that auction and had some very very nice stuff and some very rare items

Those prices were really strong to.
That autographed Joe Jackson photo 1.47 mil
1917 Chicago Whitesox team photo with Joe Jackson $14K
1919 Chicago Whitesox Team photo with joe jackson $33K
1925 Lou Gerhig Exhibit Card autographed $688K
1909 Joe Jackson rookie Card SGC 5 $213K
1928 Babe Ruth Exhibit Card Autographed $175K
1919 W514 Strip card Joe Jackson SGC 9 $50K

Just to name a few.

Alot of Great vintage Cards, bats, balls, photos and more

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Was there some kind of extraordinary provenance on the Jackson auto? I basically wouldn't trust anyone to authenticate one since what exactly serves as their exemplar file?

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Was there some kind of extraordinary provenance on the Jackson auto? I basically wouldn't trust anyone to authenticate one since what exactly serves as their exemplar file?

Hi

I am not sure of all the Provence but this is the same one that sold on Heritage I believe in 2015 or 16 from the The Frank W. Smith Collection,

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Hi

I am not sure of all the Provence but this is the same one that sold on Heritage I believe in 2015 or 16 from the The Frank W. Smith Collection,

Cool, and I wasn't suggesting anything was going on, just that I don't know how you can authenticate an autograph when there's less than a handful that are even suspected of being legit. Clearly he never signed his name enough to develop ANY consistencies let alone enough to make solid comparisons. Hence my curiosity about the provenance.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Was there some kind of extraordinary provenance on the Jackson auto? I basically wouldn't trust anyone to authenticate one since what exactly serves as their exemplar file?

It's also Christies, which I wouldn't blame people for having a difficult time trusting. Between their price fixing scandal, and their most recent lack of due-diligence when it came to provenance of Ancient Roman/Greek artifacts, I would be slightly skeptical at a minimum. Though comparing ancient artifacts, to a signature from Joe Jackson, would be like comparing Apples, to Oranges.

However as it was pointed out it already sold at auction once before.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Cool, and I wasn't suggesting anything was going on, just that I don't know how you can authenticate an autograph when there's less than a handful that are even suspected of being legit. Clearly he never signed his name enough to develop ANY consistencies let alone enough to make solid comparisons. Hence my curiosity about the provenance.

I hope it’s real, bc if it is, it’s awesome. However, I know several people who are dubious about the authenticity of the auto; the feedback being the writing does not seem shaky enough for Joe Jackson’s signature. I was also told to question all Jackson signatures unless it was on a check of official document where it’s much harder to fake. The PSA authentication means little in my book.

Compare the one at Christie’s with the signatures on the two documents in these two articles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spo...01nrodg07iw6eo

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...ed-to-auction/

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

wait until the winners see their additional charges (BP, Tax, extraordinary Shipping & Handling)

tack on another 30-40% to any winning bid you are looking at.

Guy who paid 1.2M for the Shoeless Joe photo might not care when Christies hits him up for $475 for shipping.

They do package damm good though. Will take you an hour to unpack it.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Guy who paid 1.2M for the Shoeless Joe photo might not care when Christies hits him up for $475 for shipping.

They do package damm good though. Will take you an hour to unpack it.

I agree that winner won't even notice it. But for many of the others who are unfamiliar with their shipping:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ight=christies

and yah the nice job they do, I'd like to hire them to mail my Christmas cards.

[Tao_Moko]

His signature quality sure did go down hill from 1911 to 1916.

[the-illini]

I agree with you Ryan - I have trouble seeing how Jackson could have signed the photo that cleanly. I always heard he basically had to draw his signature on the rare occasions when he would sign.

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I hope it’s real, bc if it is, it’s awesome. However, I know several people who are dubious about the authenticity of the auto; the feedback being the writing does not seem shaky enough for Joe Jackson’s signature. I was also told to question all Jackson signatures unless it was on a check of official document where it’s much harder to fake. The PSA authentication means little in my book.

Compare the one at Christie’s with the signatures on the two documents in these two articles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spo...01nrodg07iw6eo

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...ed-to-auction/

[oldjudge]

Looks like a cheaper than expected price on the signed Gehrig rookie.

[MVSNYC]

I'm not an expert, but the Jackson signature also struck me as a little odd. IMO, his other examples, known to be authentic (on legal documents/checks, etc) have much shaker, and less fluid signatures.

Close friend of mine won the W514 Jackson. Killer card. He was bidding in the room.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What a shame that someone paid that much for an apparently inauthentic signature.

[Jobu]

I am not an autograph specialist, but if you blow it up, Jackson's signature is really shaky. The provenance is also pretty good for something like this - Cleveland photographer and all these other signed pics too.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

wow

Did not even realize that auction and had some very very nice stuff and some very rare items

Those prices were really strong to.
That autographed Joe Jackson photo 1.47 mil
1917 Chicago Whitesox team photo with Joe Jackson $14K
1919 Chicago Whitesox Team photo with joe jackson $33K
1925 Lou Gerhig Exhibit Card autographed $688K
1909 Joe Jackson rookie Card SGC 5 $213K
1928 Babe Ruth Exhibit Card Autographed $175K
1919 W514 Strip card Joe Jackson SGC 9 $50K

Just to name a few.

Alot of Great vintage Cards, bats, balls, photos and more

Imagine paying 1.47 million for a fake signature

[ThomasL]

also that strip card Joe Jackson I know is an amazing card but $50k! WTF

[ballparks]

Originally Posted by Schlesinj

Some serious memorabilia, cards, autographs, tickets being auctioned off.

Worth a Google search.

I'm blown away at the prices realized on some of the tickets. Way over anything reasonable that they have ever sold for before.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Looks like a cheaper than expected price on the signed Gehrig rookie.

Jay - that’s because it is not a 1925 rookie card & major hobbyists know that. It’s a 1926 second year BLUE TINT Gehrig exhibit inadvertently slabbed as a 1925 gray tint rookie. Virtually every high-end collector I know that would have bid strong backed off knowing it’s a true 1926 exhibit.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Jay - that’s because it is not a 1925 rookie card & major hobbyists know that. It’s a 1926 second year BLUE TINT Gehrig exhibit inadvertently slabbed as a 1925 gray tint rookie. Virtually every high-end collector I know that would have bid strong backed off knowing it’s a true 1926 exhibit.

My god. Unreal. Reminds me of that annoying quote "life is like a box of chocolates. . .you never know what you are going to get." That's Christies. I've bought things from them that were not as advertised for the better and for the worse. You never know. They aren't sports specialists. By a long shot.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

My god. Unreal. Reminds me of that annoying quote "life is like a box of chocolates. . .you never know what you are going to get." That's Christies. I've bought things from them that were not as advertised for the better and for the worse. You never know. They aren't sports specialists. By a long shot.

This is more a problem with PSA, the grader, than it is with Christie's but both could have done better in this case.

[Dardevl]

I think it's a good 1925 Exhibits. I'm not seeing a "blue tint". Plus, the 1926 Exhibits, from what I've seen, have the same player information in the same location on the card, but does not have a box for the info. See pic.

I would assume what hurt the Christie's Gehrig, was that the card itself was not graded. The PSA 6(mk) just cleared $1mil not that long ago.

[Vintageclout]

Incorrect. The 1926 exhibits DO HAVE the same text box as the 1925’s. They are exactly the same except for the gray vs. blue tint. Unfortunately, the example you used was likewise graded incorrectly - it’s not a 1926 blue tint exhibit.

[Vintageclout]

A4C68D7D-BCD5-456C-B187-BFA1EFDEFBBB.jpg

Here’s the Christie’s 1926 image (on the right) vs. a good 1925 gehrig rookie on the left. Night & day. You can clearly see the gray vs. blue tint. Note, the Scan of the Christie’s Gehrig was taken before it was re-holdered & graded a 9. It is the same card.

[Vintageclout]

Another 1925 vs. 1926 example.

[Dardevl]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Attachment 482191

Here’s the Christie’s 1926 image (on the right) vs. a good 1925 gehrig rookie on the left. Night & day. You can clearly see the gray vs. blue tint. Note, the Scan of the Christie’s Gehrig was taken before it was re-holdered & graded a 9. It is the same card.

Ok. Are you saying these are the same card or not?

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Dardevl

Ok. Are you saying these are the same card or not?

Not the same card. The exhibit on the left is an obvious 1925 rookie gray tint. The image on the right is a 1926 blue tint. Subtle tint deference for the 2 years but you can clearly see the difference. Other than the gray vs. blue tint surfaces, the 25 vs 26 are exactly the same.

[Exhibitman]

Rumors about PSA's misidentification of the year of the Gehrig were flying around among Exhibit collectors when the auction first went up. Apparently, at least one collector checked the card against a 1925 in person at the National and the difference was obvious. That had to depress prices. Even so, we are talking about $688,000.00 for the card (plus vig or is that including vig?), which is still damned impressive.

[Dardevl]

So what is the "incorrect" (1926 Exhibits Galloway example)?

https://www.oldcardboard.com/w/exhib...?cardsetID=790

I purposely am not referencing the TCDB, because they have (somehow) uploaded Exhibits from the 1928 and 1926-29 (1925-31) sets, in with the true 1926 images.

And unfortunately, IMO, a tonal difference could be as simple as different camera settings (cool mode, etc) to one's display settings. Hell, I could even sprinkle in the potential for some mild color blindness. I would assume that an in hand, side-by-side comparison (not images from different camera sources) would be the absolute confirmation.

[Dardevl]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Rumors about PSA's misidentification of the year of the Gehrig were flying around among Exhibit collectors when the auction first went up. Apparently, at least one collector checked the card against a 1925 in person at the National and the difference was obvious. That had to depress prices. Even so, we are talking about $688,000.00 for the card (plus vig or is that including vig?), which is still damned impressive.

Good to know! It's scary to think that one person's eye could make the difference like that. And thank goodness, it wasn't mine!!

I watched some of the auction, and IMO, it seemed like a thrown together production. A "Type 3" photo from the DiMaggio estate was listed and sold as a "Type 1". I was impressed with the selection, however.

[Shoeless Moe]

This Black Sox Ticket was also incorrectly described by PSA & Christies as Game 4, it's a Game 8:

https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6334798


See REA:

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=88475


Bidders obviously caught that too.

.....and yes some of those Ticket prices were outrageous, obviously won by someone new to the hobby. For a couple of those they could get a better ticket, and for half the price just by going to Ebay.

[pcoz]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Incorrect. The 1926 exhibits DO HAVE the same text box as the 1925’s. They are exactly the same except for the gray vs. blue tint. Unfortunately, the example you used was likewise graded incorrectly - it’s not a 1926 blue tint exhibit.

Absolutely Joe! 100% from 1926 NOT 1925. I saw it up close at the National, and also compared next to a 1925, and the blue tint is easily recognizable and undeniable. There were discussions of it being a 1926 at the National, as there were in the past regarding this card, which had previously identified it as a 1926. Not sure how it's still in a 1925 holder.

[mrreality68]

Wow lots of learning and also lots take aways from this Auction and the potential concerns on many of the key items.
Makes you pause about some of the other items as well.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

This Black Sox Ticket was also incorrectly described by PSA & Christies as Game 4, it's a Game 8:

https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6334798


See REA:

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=88475


Bidders obviously caught that too.

.....and yes some of those Ticket prices were outrageous, obviously won by someone new to the hobby. For a couple of those they could get a better ticket, and for half the price just by going to Ebay.

I did not see that one but you are 100% correct and if I was a cosigner of that I would be very mad bc given the crazy prices of other items Im not real sure the bidders caught that...bc the last Game 8 (granted it was great shape) sold for $48k at Heritage within the year...if properly labeled and described given the fact that everything else went for a premium I bet this ticket would have sold for over $50k... that's just my opinion

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

I did not see that one but you are 100% correct and if I was a cosigner of that I would be very mad bc given the crazy prices of other items Im not real sure the bidders caught that...bc the last Game 8 (granted it was great shape) sold for $48k at Heritage within the year...if properly labeled and described given the fact that everything else went for a premium I bet this ticket would have sold for over $50k... that's just my opinion

Yah, but the consigner should have known what it was. They should have gotten that fixed by PSA long ago. 3 F-ups: consigner, PSA & Christies.

But yah REA did better with a lesser graded one, correctly identified, so yah it very well could have gone higher if properly identified, but the 3 Stooges all botched it.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Rumors about PSA's misidentification of the year of the Gehrig were flying around among Exhibit collectors when the auction first went up. Apparently, at least one collector checked the card against a 1925 in person at the National and the difference was obvious. That had to depress prices. Even so, we are talking about $688,000.00 for the card (plus vig or is that including vig?), which is still damned impressive.

Yeah I think the 688K was extremely high for a signed 1926 and almost get the sense that some did not care about the error on the identification by PSA who had two opportunities to catch it.

On the flip side I was surprised at the lack of attention the E90-1 Jackson got. Had two guys not gotten into it at the end it would never have gotten to 213K. A very sloppy PSA 5 came up in 2016 in Heritage that went for 143K. It is not a card that comes up often in anything better than VG. I know the PSA holder accounted for a good deal of the 143K but this SGC 5 was a far superior example. The 213K is a lot of money for a non Hall of Fame rookie card that most find ugly but I was expecting it to sell for more in this era of massive prices being paid for elite cards. Apparently it is not THAT elite.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought the "other" version of the Gehrig was 1927? So are there in fact versions from all three years?

[Peter_Spaeth]

From a post on blowout.


Someone from the Joe Jackson Museum tweeted about it yesterday. "If that were actually autographed by Joe, we'd have put a bid in on it. Unfortunately, it is 100% not signed by him." They also tweeted, "Joe absolutely signed his name on more than one occasion. we have documented proof that he signed his will, a couple drivers licenses late in life, a couple other legal documents. The signature on this photo shows zero resemblance to Joe's known signatures. It's not his".

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

This Black Sox Ticket was also incorrectly described by PSA & Christies as Game 4, it's a Game 8:

https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6334798


See REA:

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=88475


Bidders obviously caught that too.

.....and yes some of those Ticket prices were outrageous, obviously won by someone new to the hobby. For a couple of those they could get a better ticket, and for half the price just by going to Ebay.

Ticket stubs are the new NFTs though, haven't you heard? I bid a shitload the other day for a ticket stub I've been looking for. I bid more than double what the last one sold for, but I was still outsniped.

Edited to add: Also, $1500 estimate is laughable for that Black Sox WS ticket lolol.

[ballparks]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

My god. Unreal. Reminds me of that annoying quote "life is like a box of chocolates. . .you never know what you are going to get." That's Christies. I've bought things from them that were not as advertised for the better and for the worse. You never know. They aren't sports specialists. By a long shot.

Like selling the "1919 Game 4 Ticket" that was really from Game 8!!?? Sloppy.

PSA F'd that up too. Sloppy and Greedy.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought the "other" version of the Gehrig was 1927? So are there in fact versions from all three years?

Peter - that is a definitive 1927 Exhibit. You’ll notice there is no text box in the lower left quadrant on the 1927 Gehrig. Easy to distinguish from his 1925 gray tint rookie & 1926 blue tint 2nd year subject with both of those having text boxes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Peter - that is a definitive 1927 Exhibit. You’ll notice there is no text box in the lower left quadrant on the 1927 Gehrig. Easy to distinguish from his 1925 gray tint rookie & 1926 blue tint 2nd year subject with both of those having text boxes.

Got it, thanks. I was not previously familiar with the blue tint 1926 version.

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Incorrect. The 1926 exhibits DO HAVE the same text box as the 1925’s. They are exactly the same except for the gray vs. blue tint. Unfortunately, the example you used was likewise graded incorrectly - it’s not a 1926 blue tint exhibit.

Are there any examples, with the text box, graded by SGC or PSA, as 1926. Or do they just recognize all with the text box, regardless of color tint, as issued in 1925.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

Are there any examples, with the text box, graded by SGC or PSA, as 1926. Or do they just recognize all with the text box, regardless of color tint, as issued in 1925.

There are plenty of both PSA & SGC correctly encapsulated 1926 examples. They know the difference.

[Dardevl]

So, I think where I was getting confused (as others have) apparently, as well, is with the text box. I was reviewing the PSA (and others) sites, and found a description, which may help some of us.

I was always under the impression that the text box was definitive 1925, and no text box was 1926. As pointed out by others, it's just not that easy.

Below, link to the image and additional info.

https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/ba...-exhibits/2001

Below, link to the PSA gallery of 1926 Exhibts (although, some are not true 1926 Exhibits, as pointed out by Vintageclout).

https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/ba...ts/images/2001

I do appreciate the wealth of knowledge here and the continued learning and education, that it provides.