Michael Jordan RC, PSA 10, shatters 100k !!! - Page 154

GOATcards · 07-06-2021, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

Doesn’t excuse the heavy stains all over the back.

Otherwise, I agree, that card is acceptable to the 1990s grading standards to which it was supposedly assessed with regard to centering and corners.

not the corners from what I see. Certainly not the lower left.

3124508 on COMC · 07-06-2021, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GOATcards

not the corners from what I see. Certainly not the lower left.

It’s a totally ancient cert number (graded 1991-1992 in a first gen PSA holder). If the slab is legit (no idea on that since evidently nobody but PSA can tell any more), it doesn’t surprise me that it’s not a card that would receive a 10 in 2021 or even 2016. But, at no time in PSA’s history should a card with dozens of stains on the back have received a gem mint grade.

GOATcards · 07-06-2021, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

It’s a totally ancient cert number (graded 1991-1992 in a first gen PSA holder). If the slab is legit (no idea on that since evidently nobody but PSA can tell any more), it doesn’t surprise me that it’s not a card that would receive a 10 in 2021 or even 2016. But, at no time in PSA’s history should a card with dozens of stains on the back have received a gem mint grade.

I'm aghast at the very notion that any card with noticeable white on the corners could receive a "Gem" grade, at any point in time.

Back in the day I didn't consider any of my cards *mint* unless they were basically "gem," and now this? come on, man

mjohnatgt · 07-06-2021, 08:33 PM

It's possible the stains weren't visible at the time of grading, and developed or darkened from 30 years of being slabbed. A little moisture in the slab stored in a poor environment? Or possibly lightly bleached before grading and discolored now.

GOATcards · 07-06-2021, 08:39 PM

I remember looking at a 10 at a National and being most unimpressed; wouldn't be surprised if this is the one.
(At the same National, I got to hold a 52T Mantle 10 owned by Sports Cards Plus. Now, that one was impressive. SMR value was only around $250K at the time.)

3124508 on COMC · 07-06-2021, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjohnatgt

It's possible the stains weren't visible at the time of grading, and developed or darkened from 30 years of being slabbed. A little moisture in the slab stored in a poor environment? Or possibly lightly bleached before grading and discolored now.

I’d say it’s a theory good enough to put on the table. But it also must be noted that PSA supposedly re-slabbed it sometime during or subsequent to 2008.

Hilton · 07-07-2021, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

Assuming the slab is real, that one’s about a PSA 6 given the severe staining all over the back.

Which psa 10 are you referring to?

kgoldin · 07-07-2021, 12:10 PM

It's important for Goldin to ensure that everything we sell is as described, is authentic and meets the standards we set as a company. Given this, we have removed Lot #8 - 1986-87 Fleer #57 Michael Jordan Rookie Card - PSA GEM MT 10 from the current July auction. We noticed that upon examination of the card that it may not warrant a PSA GEM MT 10 assessment. We informed PSA of the issue, and with our consignor’s approval, we will be sending the card back to PSA for review.

We will be replacing Lot #8 with a different PSA GEM MT 10 example of the same card that was slated for a future auction. We have sent out an e-mail informing all of the bidders that the card was replaced and a new example is in its place. It's important for Goldin Auctions to ensure that all cards we sell are as described and meet the standards we set as a company. The trust we have built among the hobby is worth far more than any one transaction and we appreciate everyone's continued support as we scale.
Ken Goldin
Goldin Auctions

sh403 · 07-07-2021, 12:43 PM

Does anyone have the description of the PSA 10 in question before it was removed from Goldin's auction? I'd be curious to see how that card was described.

kefskala · 07-07-2021, 04:18 PM

I guess let the debate begin, replacing one #57 psa 10 with stains on the back with another one that has red print marks on the white border. Obviously also an earlier grade from the 1990’s. This card looks well centered on the front but what do you guys think about those red print marks? Acceptable or not?

kgoldin · 07-07-2021, 04:33 PM

The card was not removed for print marks. the card was removed due to what appears to be coffee stains throughout the back of the card and a tiny piece of the holder inside the front of the card, all of which was detected under magnification.

FT35 · 07-07-2021, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgoldin

The card was not removed for print marks. the card was removed due to what appears to be coffee stains throughout the back of the card and a tiny piece of the holder inside the front of the card, all of which was detected under magnification.

I don’t care what anyone says—even if I’m speaking solely for myself, but THANK YOU for taking the time to post this explanation here. We’re all not a part of the new wave of extremely bitter attitude here on Blowout. Your efforts to improve this auction and time to clarify it to our collecting community is greatly appreciated.

GOATcards · 07-07-2021, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FT35

I don’t care what anyone says—even if I’m speaking solely for myself, but THANK YOU for taking the time to post this explanation here. We’re all not a part of the new wave of extremely bitter attitude here on Blowout. Your efforts to improve this auction and time to clarify it to our collecting community is greatly appreciated.

..

patientgambler · 07-07-2021, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kefskala

I guess let the debate begin, replacing one #57 psa 10 with stains on the back with another one that has red print marks on the white border. Obviously also an earlier grade from the 1990’s. This card looks well centered on the front but what do you guys think about those red print marks? Acceptable or not?

I see the red print spots on the back you're talking about. I'm not an expert on 1986 Fleer so I'm not sure if that's common.

mc1 · 07-07-2021, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FT35

I don’t care what anyone says—even if I’m speaking solely for myself, but THANK YOU for taking the time to post this explanation here. We’re all not a part of the new wave of extremely bitter attitude here on Blowout. Your efforts to improve this auction and time to clarify it to our collecting community is greatly appreciated.

I guess. No one said it was removed for print marks though.
Alight.

mc1 · 07-07-2021, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patientgambler

I see the red print spots on the back you're talking about. I'm not an expert on 1986 Fleer so I'm not sure if that's common.

Honestly, this looks normal.

mjohnatgt · 07-07-2021, 09:06 PM

The ones in the top border would have probably relegated it to a 9(PD) before they got rid of some qualifiers last month. Might be a straight 8 now or a 7.5? Still just overgraded, not a travesty like the stained PSA 10 originally listed.
Not all 10s are perfect and PSA has definitely strengthened their standards over the years. Just take a look at those 80/20 centered PSA 9 T206 cards from the Hall Collection that sold over the past year.

GOATcards · 07-07-2021, 10:59 PM

In eye appeal terms, those print marks are almost in a wholly different category than the brown stains (which clash with the red, and are alien to the printing process). If those print marks are the only thing wrong with the card I'd still give it a 10 (and I'm a hard-ass usually; I just don't think this affects eye appeal much, being that it's on the back).

I wouldn't grade it Pristine, though.

cking · 07-08-2021, 12:33 AM

PSA is straight trash

No one will ever convince me otherwise

Archangel1775 · 07-08-2021, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgoldin

The card was not removed for print marks. the card was removed due to what appears to be coffee stains throughout the back of the card and a tiny piece of the holder inside the front of the card, all of which was detected under magnification.

That's an expensive cup of coffee.....

kefskala · 07-08-2021, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GOATcards

In eye appeal terms, those print marks are almost in a wholly different category than the brown stains (which clash with the red, and are alien to the printing process). If those print marks are the only thing wrong with the card I'd still give it a 10 (and I'm a hard-ass usually; I just don't think this affects eye appeal much, being that it's on the back).

I wouldn't grade it Pristine, though.

please go take a look at the psa 10 PWCC premier auction has. This psa 10 will most likely break 400k. A psa 10 shouldn't be labeled a 10 with those print marks. I know you guys bark at PWCC but hands down they have the best photo imaging software to display their cards....

GOATcards · 07-08-2021, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kefskala

please go take a look at the psa 10 PWCC premier auction has. This psa 10 will most likely break 400k. A psa 10 shouldn't be labeled a 10 with those print marks. I know you guys bark at PWCC but hands down they have the best photo imaging software to display their cards....

helps to provide links

so, uh . . . what print marks?

edit: you mean the photo being slightly out of register (fuzzy lettering on the jersey)? I'd agree there.

ReggieBush22 · 07-09-2021, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GOATcards

helps to provide links

so, uh . . . what print marks?

edit: you mean the photo being slightly out of register (fuzzy lettering on the jersey)? I'd agree there.

I don't think that card is a 10. Looks like some corner wear on the top-right and bottom-right corners. A 10 should have 4 razor sharp corners. My PSA 9 has better corners than that 10.

ReggieBush22 · 07-09-2021, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GOATcards

helps to provide links

so, uh . . . what print marks?

edit: you mean the photo being slightly out of register (fuzzy lettering on the jersey)? I'd agree there.

Also, look at the top edges, especially the right side. Clear white/wear showing. This card ain't no 10.

kefskala · 07-09-2021, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GOATcards

helps to provide links

so, uh . . . what print marks?

edit: you mean the photo being slightly out of register (fuzzy lettering on the jersey)? I'd agree there.

I think we are talking about two different cards...Im talking about the red print marks in goldins auction upper back right hand corner..

07-07-2021, 12:10 PM	#3833
kgoldin Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 118	It's important for Goldin to ensure that everything we sell is as described, is authentic and meets the standards we set as a company. Given this, we have removed Lot #8 - 1986-87 Fleer #57 Michael Jordan Rookie Card - PSA GEM MT 10 from the current July auction. We noticed that upon examination of the card that it may not warrant a PSA GEM MT 10 assessment. We informed PSA of the issue, and with our consignor’s approval, we will be sending the card back to PSA for review. We will be replacing Lot #8 with a different PSA GEM MT 10 example of the same card that was slated for a future auction. We have sent out an e-mail informing all of the bidders that the card was replaced and a new example is in its place. It's important for Goldin Auctions to ensure that all cards we sell are as described and meet the standards we set as a company. The trust we have built among the hobby is worth far more than any one transaction and we appreciate everyone's continued support as we scale. Ken Goldin Goldin Auctions Last edited by kgoldin; 07-07-2021 at 12:32 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-06-2021, 08:33 PM	#3829
mjohnatgt Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Niceville, FL Posts: 14,446 mjohnatgt mjohnatgt	It's possible the stains weren't visible at the time of grading, and developed or darkened from 30 years of being slabbed. A little moisture in the slab stored in a poor environment? Or possibly lightly bleached before grading and discolored now.

07-06-2021, 08:39 PM	#3830
GOATcards Member Join Date: Feb 2021 Posts: 6,492	I remember looking at a 10 at a National and being most unimpressed; wouldn't be surprised if this is the one. (At the same National, I got to hold a 52T Mantle 10 owned by Sports Cards Plus. Now, that one was impressive. SMR value was only around $250K at the time.)

07-07-2021, 12:43 PM	#3834
sh403 Member Join Date: May 2021 Posts: 292	Does anyone have the description of the PSA 10 in question before it was removed from Goldin's auction? I'd be curious to see how that card was described.

07-07-2021, 04:18 PM	#3835
kefskala Member Join Date: Apr 2020 Posts: 587	I guess let the debate begin, replacing one #57 psa 10 with stains on the back with another one that has red print marks on the white border. Obviously also an earlier grade from the 1990’s. This card looks well centered on the front but what do you guys think about those red print marks? Acceptable or not?

07-07-2021, 04:33 PM	#3836
kgoldin Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 118	The card was not removed for print marks. the card was removed due to what appears to be coffee stains throughout the back of the card and a tiny piece of the holder inside the front of the card, all of which was detected under magnification.

07-07-2021, 09:06 PM	#3842
mjohnatgt Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Niceville, FL Posts: 14,446 mjohnatgt mjohnatgt	The ones in the top border would have probably relegated it to a 9(PD) before they got rid of some qualifiers last month. Might be a straight 8 now or a 7.5? Still just overgraded, not a travesty like the stained PSA 10 originally listed. Not all 10s are perfect and PSA has definitely strengthened their standards over the years. Just take a look at those 80/20 centered PSA 9 T206 cards from the Hall Collection that sold over the past year.

07-07-2021, 10:59 PM	#3843
GOATcards Member Join Date: Feb 2021 Posts: 6,492	In eye appeal terms, those print marks are almost in a wholly different category than the brown stains (which clash with the red, and are alien to the printing process). If those print marks are the only thing wrong with the card I'd still give it a 10 (and I'm a hard-ass usually; I just don't think this affects eye appeal much, being that it's on the back). I wouldn't grade it Pristine, though.

07-08-2021, 12:33 AM	#3844
cking Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 16,263	PSA is straight trash No one will ever convince me otherwise