Could this 1986 Fleer Jordan get a 10?

[gopowergoh]

Post a card on BO asking for grading, get completely eviscerated. Rinse, repeat.

Honestly, trust your gut and send it in

[vincecarder]

Looks very nice with no major white chipping on any color edges. Centering easily falls into gem mint level as Ive seen much worse. 9-10 is possibility if no surface issues and if the grader is having a good day.

[Tommy1380]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

I always wonder how these near perfect looking examples of 40 year old cards are "recently picked up raw." What is the story about how the opportunity presented itself? The most logical source would be a dealer/collector that knows they have a very valuable card. Presumably, the buyer and seller both have a good idea what a graded version of that card would be if it came back an 8/9/10 and how relatively worthless it would be if known to be a fake or altered. The PSA turnaround time on a card of that value is probably one week start to finish. So, if the seller reasonably believes what they are selling is real and unaltered, they can get a REALLY high price if it comes back a PSA 9 or 10. By contrast, the buyer has the uncertainty that the card is either fake, trimmed, altered in some other way, or has some other minor defect that is going to push it to a PSA 8 or lower (or not graded at all). So, no buyer is going to pay at or about PSA 8 prices for even the BEST looking Jordan rookie, just due to the hidden or undisclosed risks. So, what is more likely: (1) the seller has no idea what they have and gives it away for a song; (2) the seller needs money so bad in the next 24 hours that he leaves $20K-$200K on the table by not waiting a week and getting it graded; (3) the seller previously submitted the card and it got rejected for some reason or received a PSA 7 or lower grade, resulting in the card being broken out of its case; or (4) the seller believes there is a good chance there is a major problem with the card, and wants to make that somebody else's problem? I lean towards (3) or (4) barring a REALLY good story that would support (1) or (2).

My dad had the whole 86 Fleer set ungraded until I convinced him to get the stars graded last year. The whole set was just sitting in one of those little old white cardboard boxes people used to collect sets in, with some newspaper balled up at the end. Only the Jordan was in a case.

At 64 he's old-school and didn't know how grading worked, or how to go about doing it. So he just let it sit until I told him I would do it for him. His wasn't perfect (graded a 7), but even if it was, he wouldn't have graded it until I talked him into it.

I'd imagine there are a number of people like that.

[threepointplay]

Here you go.

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

I always wonder how these near perfect looking examples of 40 year old cards are "recently picked up raw." What is the story about how the opportunity presented itself?

The most logical source would be a dealer/collector that knows they have a very valuable card. Presumably, the buyer and seller both have a good idea what a graded version of that card would be if it came back an 8/9/10 and how relatively worthless it would be if known to be a fake or altered. The PSA turnaround time on a card of that value is probably one week start to finish.

If the seller reasonably believes what they are selling is real and unaltered, they can get a REALLY high price if it comes back a PSA 9 or 10. By contrast, the buyer has the uncertainty that the card is either fake, trimmed, altered in some other way, or has some other minor defect that is going to push it to a PSA 8 or lower (or not graded at all). No buyer is going to pay at or about PSA 8 prices for even the BEST looking Jordan rookie, just due to the hidden or undisclosed risks.

So, what is more likely:

(1) the seller has no idea what they have and gives it away for a song;

(2) the seller needs money so bad in the next 24 hours that he leaves $20K-$200K on the table by not waiting a week and getting it graded;

(3) the seller previously submitted the card and it got rejected for some reason or received a PSA 7 or lower grade, resulting in the card being broken out of its case; or

(4) the seller believes there is a good chance there is a major problem with the card, and wants to make that somebody else's problem?

I lean towards (3) or (4) barring a REALLY good story that would support (1) or (2).

[Clyde725]

Originally Posted by mc1

Thats a wall of text pal. Paragraphs have 4-5 sentences each.

It's like when you turn the page in a book and see that the entire next page is just a continuation of one long paragraph and you think to yourself "Wow! My ADD is not gonna let me get through this."

[Clyde725]

Originally Posted by Tommy1380

My dad had the whole 86 Fleer set ungraded until I convinced him to get the stars graded last year. The whole set was just sitting in one of those little old white cardboard boxes people used to collect sets in, with some newspaper balled up at the end. Only the Jordan was in a case.

At 64 he's old-school and didn't know how grading worked, or how to go about doing it. So he just let it sit until I told him I would do it for him. His wasn't perfect (graded a 7), but even if it was, he wouldn't have graded it until I talked him into it.

I'd imagine there are a number of people like that.

Bingo. I'm sure there are some people like your dad who don't know about or don't want to mess with grading.

[Smarti5051]

Originally Posted by Clyde725

Bingo. I'm sure there are some people like your dad who don't know about or don't want to mess with grading.

Is it impossible that a seller either does not know or care that grading dramatically increases the value of a card before selling? Sure. But, I think most people that have collected cards at some point since 1986 and had a rookie MJ would at least do a Google or Ebay search to find out a basic range for value. When you see a history of PSA 9s-10s selling for "life changing" money, the average person probably at least does a basic inquiry of what grading entails before fielding offers for a 10th of the potential value.

Could it be real? Sure. Could it be unaltered? Sure. Could somebody be holding a $500K card and do little to no research before selling it? Sure. Could somebody know about grading but not be bothered to wait the week for a TPG to grade it? Sure. I was just saying that there are some flags, and the more intelligent the seller, the more concern I would have buying this type of card raw.

[GOATcards]

If there's no funny business going on aleration-wise (and slight imperfections in the original cut is a thing with these) and there is absolutely nothing wrong except the slight off-centering which has no real impact on eye appeal except for unreasonable sticklers about centering, and since it clearly falls within PSA's stated centering guidelines for Gem Mint, then of course it deserves a 10.

But since professional grading companies don't exactly have the benefit of the doubt for grading consistently and fairly, and rightly so, I wouldn't count on this receiving a 10 even under the conditions stipulated above.

Since any reasonable person could tell you that there is a condition that might be called Mint-plus that exists between Mint and Gem (especially if you have a recognized distinction between Gem and Pristine), a card like this might easily qualify for Mint-plus. The only grading company of the Big Three that has this grade (9.5 for Mint-plus) is SGC.

I don't know the selling price for SGC 9.5's of this card compared to PSA 9's and you'd have to assess odds of getting which grade from which company, but I wouldn't rule out submitting to SGC, and keeping as-is if it comes back a 9.5, but submitting for PSA's crossover service (if they still have it or revive it) it it comes back graded Gem by SGC.

I find BGS'S treatment of centering neither reasonable nor consistent.

As it is, again with the above stipulations, reasonable people would say this should get a Gem grade (and let buyers make their own eye-appeal judgments based on centering). You'd basically be talking about a physically pristine card with tolerably imperfect centering.

Sent from my V350C using Tapatalk

[gregboise]

8/9


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JAMSC]

There appears to be an imperfection of some kind between the L in Michael and the J in Jordan. Also, the right edge doesn’t look straight. Possibly miscut or trimmed? Or just distortion in the picture?

[ninjacookies]

Centering wise I think you could still be within the outer specs of a 10, as PSA is notorious for being overly gracious in that sub department. Top to bottom does appear to be slightly off as well, though.

Rest of the card looks clean from what I can tell, which isn't much since it's in a card saver and only a single pic. I mean, regardless...you have to send that in. Even if it's mashed up on the rear and only receives a 7, it's worth getting slabbed.

If I'm just going on the front presentation, I'd say a 9 with a 10% chance at a 10. You're also going to face a lot of PSA grader bias because this is a grail card, and they've managed to keep the pop very low on gems over the course of 4 decades.

[Springerj23]

So many variables especially with a card of this value possibility. If gradeable, 9 at best (have to see the back). N5 wouldn’t shock me in the least bit. I hope you measured with another 86 Fleer, and I hope this want not in a screw down brick for years on end. So with all this in mind I cannot commit to a grade. Good luck!!!

[swerve]

Well, any update on this?

[90skid]

well deserved bump, I forgot about this. I hope OP delivers so we can fact check with all the BO forum grading team.

[dunkindutchmen]

you know what we call ungraded mint or near mint Jordan Fleer rookies?

Fakes.....

[rainmaker]

that sucker looks trimmed or diamond cut something is off. ill be curious if there is an update. Doubt it came back authentic PSA 9...

[TheFrenzy]

OP's post history is pretty wild

[Above the Rim]

I could very well be wrong, but top boarder could be trimmed. Less of a chance left boarder trimmed, but still could be. If nothing wrong, really good chance of a 9 grade. A 10 on a good day perhaps.

[Foo3112]

I know we should have received an update from OP with a card like this. Guessing it didn't come back the grade he wanted or worse perhaps. Since this is my first time seeing this, I will say that if the top isn't trimmed (since it looks a little weird - could also be from the angle and photo quality, this most certainly has a real chance at a 10. I have seen numerous 10's with the same rough cut on the left side. The one in the photo OP posted assuming nothing has been altered, I would say could 100% be a PSA 10.

[ReggieBush22]

Top edge looks off. They aren't usually cut like that.

Ditto for the left edge. If there is any fuzziness, which is the case for that edge, it's usually more pronounced. The cuts just seem off.

Card looks too perfect. I suspect it's a great counterfeit or was trimmed.

[Springerj23]

Surprised I didn’t see the original post, but that card is not authentic from what I can see. I will not even comment on the edges. The coloring and finish appear to be off as well as some tell tale signs that are missing on the front. I also find it convenient that a pic of the back was omitted.

[Nomad]

Originally Posted by Tommy1380

My dad had the whole 86 Fleer set ungraded until I convinced him to get the stars graded last year. The whole set was just sitting in one of those little old white cardboard boxes people used to collect sets in, with some newspaper balled up at the end.His wasn't perfect (graded a 7), but even if it was, he wouldn't have graded it until I talked him into it.

I'd imagine there are a number of people like that.

I'd imagine the real value of a set like that is selling it raw, if it is super verified that it has been sitting there and none of the cards has been swapped out. Let's say the Jordan appears 7-8 range, you could probably get an 8 price (and on down the line) for the gamble. Now you have a card that is registered as a 7, and that's the price you're gonna get.

[oplum29]

i'm gonna say without going to page 2 yet...8 or 9.

[jmarascojr]

Originally Posted by dunkindutchmen

you know what we call ungraded mint or near mint Jordan Fleer rookies?

Fakes.....

As someone shared above, there ARE older collectors who don't understand how grading works. Not everything is fake if not graded.

My father had pack pulled Gretzky and Lemieux rookies just sitting in 300 count boxes with the rest of the sets, ungraded, definitely not fake.

I finally got him to send them in for grading after I promised him I'd buy him new ones if they got lost in the mail or damaged.

Not that my opinion means anything on these boards, but, I can confirm, it DOES happen...

[JohnpLJ2]

Should just send it to BGS,
Waste having a perfect,expensive MJ Rookie card encapsulated in a holder with a paper description & probably 2 grades higher than it's worth giving to,
In an Honest way to have a legitimate & satisfying MJ Rookie Card,you want it in a BGS case,regardless of the grade.

BGS will give you the only honest answer,& Grade.