How does the Beckett price guide come up with their prices.....really?

[Savard18]

how does psa grade 1980-81 topps

do scratched cards get lower grades?

Yes, if a card is scratched it's automatically given a VG grade regardless if the card would have graded a 10 had it not been scratched - tho I think they recently started giving scratched cards qualifiers, meaning PSA would grade a card a PSA 10 with a qualifier, which essentially means the card is a PSA 10 BUT it's not because it's scratched. And I think qualifiers drop the assessed grade 3 grades lower so a PSA 10 would really be a PSA 7 or is valued at what a PSA 7 is valued at.

I'll say this much tho, I don't mind scratched 80-81 Topps, I mean you can get some nice cards for pretty cheap...

[NsLoki]

Beckett is full of crap and they straight up lie and have lied about how they determine their card values and I'll get into that after I explain why the examples you used are priced they way they are.

The cards in bold are valued that way because they're DP's. The 84/85 Topps set had a TON of DP's, unfortunately the Gretzky was among them and of course the 89/90 Topps set was scarcer than the OPC set for the first time, and I believe the 87/88 OPC Lemieux is a DP as well, which is pretty bizarre considering there aren't many DP OPC cards..

As far as Beckett and their stupid prices. Well, they used to claim they got their card values via the reader survey which was included in every Beckett back in the day and data collected from card shows and card shops. That seemed all fine and dandy and made sense and that method was rarely criticized, however when eBay came around eBay totally contradicted Beckett's findings considering eBay is the ultimate survey - it's a real time market place that documents what collectors are paying for a particular card and Beckett's assessed values aren't even CLOSE to eBay... In Beckett some cards are valued way too high and some are valued way too low, and rarely does Beckett get it right.... So I have absolutely no idea what method Beckett is using to determine value? I mean I have read numerous theories and since eBay contradicted their methods Beckett has kept their yaps closed about how they determine their assessed values...

Beckett is just ridiculous, I remember looking up UD Portraits when I first got back into the hobby and they had Ovechkin and Crosby's UD Portraits valued at $25 when in reality that card sells for no more than 2 bucks IF you're lucky enough to sell one, so yea - for the most part all of their assessed values for modern cards are way off.... The truth is that a card is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it...

And look, so what if Beckett lists a card and the card goes up or down in value because the majority of sane collectors and dealers gave up on using Beckett as a price guide a long time ago. I mean Beckett is great for a reference, and I do enjoy reading their articles and articles from their contributors but their assessed values are a flipping joke..

The funniest thing is that eBay if they wanted to could put Beckett completely out of business - at least as a price guide if eBay made a few additional functions and added a box that you could check that would give users expanded data such as the average sales price for a particular card over a period of time determined by the user, along with the average auction starting price. That and eBay sellers should be able to select a raw cards grade using either the traditional grading method or on a 1-10 scale or even 1-100 just so interested parties would have access to extended data... I mean no doubt eBay is an excellent tool for collectors but there is room for improvement and innovation to make the site even more useful... Now obviously eBay doesn't realize their site is an excellent tool with lots of data to determine what a particular item is valued at - they just view themselves as a marketplace that provides a platform for people to sell unwanted items ... I mean I'm no computer programmer however I think a 3rd party website could collect eBay data and use it to provide expanded data like the aforementioned I just posted.

BUT as far as Beckett goes I will say this tho - I LOVE reading older Beckett's from every sport and reading just how much the hobby has changed since the early 90's, I mean at times it can be absolutely hilarious... Just the other day I was reading how "revolutionary" Pro Set was, and how Pro Set was the new hottest product in the hobby, then of course a few issues later they did a whole expose on how terrible Pro Set was and it took them 3 pages to point out all of the errors.. Of course reading their predictions/projections all of these years later is just fantastic because Beckett, their contributors and their readers were wrong - extremely wrong more than not... My favorite section of older Becketts tho has to be "Readers Write In" where Beckett readers send in their .02 cents on various hobby related issues and in many cases expose their epic stupidity, of course there were also many astute readers as well that made fine points and contributions .. I really should start posting some of the stuff from early 90's Becketts because some of this stuff is just hilarious, fascinating, stupid, entertaining and interesting all at the same time.. Thank God a few years back I had the foresight to buy a ton of early 90's Becketts because they're worth every penny I paid for them, and believe it or not they're super cheap I mean for a few bucks you can get a nice stack of issues - I have several huge stacks of them, I probably have at least 100 between the 4 major sports, I also have quite a few issues of "Baseball Card Price Guide Monthly" from the 80's which are great too, they actually come with cards inserted into the issue as well but that publication is a bit more "based" than Beckett..

I do have a question for some of the older collectors tho. If you collected back in the mid 80's or even before and you were an adult - how did you value cards or know what a card was worth?? I know Beckett had their annual price guide sometimes referred to as "the bible" and those have been published since I think 1983, perhaps a little longer, so I know that was a tool... I mean to be honest I would love to know about the hobby from the 70's into the mid 80's, I know collecting cards as was a "thing" back then and collectors would buy and sell them but I would love to know how prices were determined.. Because I know around 1980 the hobby saw it's first "boom" that and cards were starting to be recognized as something of value that could be considered an investment.... I find the early days of collecting as an investment to be interesting and fascinating...

For me I collected as a kid in the 70s and 80s. Frankly I never once thought about how much my cards were worth until I started going to shops and getting tuff stuff or becketts. Back then it was about getting sets full and getting cards of my favorite team or player. I probably traded plenty of valuable cards to my friends to accomplish this but I am sure I got some in return also.

[Savard18]

For me I collected as a kid in the 70s and 80s. Frankly I never once thought about how much my cards were worth until I started going to shops and getting tuff stuff or becketts. Back then it was about getting sets full and getting cards of my favorite team or player. I probably traded plenty of valuable cards to my friends to accomplish this but I am sure I got some in return also.

Same with me, I started collecting in 1988 and I collected sets, my favorite team and players and never thought about "value"... I was just looking for someone that was an adult and serious collector back in the 70's or 80's and how they valued cards?... Because like I said I started collecting in 88 and me and my friends would trade cards at school at lunch or after school etc - IDK we were always trading cards, lol and the values were essentially based on wants of those you're trading with and player status I suppose, lol. Like back then if you had a Canseco, Doc Gooden, Strawberry, Nolan Ryan etc you were "da man" at the time and everyone was trying to trade for your cards, lol.... Of course they were usually all beat up. Yea, you could always tell how recently a card was pulled or how popular that particular card was just by it's grade, lol...

I really wish I had some of my old cards from back then - of course I do have "the same identical cards", just not the ones from my childhood collection... Also, I often wonder what the heck happened to the cards I had when I was younger?.. I'm sure most were lost over the past 35 years or so, but when I was 11-12 I had a real nice collection just through buying, selling and trading.. I mean adult collectors aren't going to toss Ricky Henderson rookies or Wayne Gretzky cards so they have to be out there somewhere in someones collection or sitting in some dealers or card shops inventory... I mean there have been times back in the day where I've seen some of my older cards I sold or traded at some point years prior at card shows, just because I recognized the holder or a unique flaw the card had, and that was always a fun and interesting conversation starter, lol...

But yea, I would really like to hear how cards were valued back then from an adult (at the time) perspective, because kids obviously don't put monetary value on cards, lol.. It's more like: "I'll give you this Andre Dawson and Carlton Fisk for your Greg Maddux, Jim Rice and Bruce Suter"..

[cjb]

Yes, if a card is scratched it's automatically given a VG grade regardless if the card would have graded a 10 had it not been scratched - tho I think they recently started giving scratched cards qualifiers, meaning PSA would grade a card a PSA 10 with a qualifier, which essentially means the card is a PSA 10 BUT it's not because it's scratched. And I think qualifiers drop the assessed grade 3 grades lower so a PSA 10 would really be a PSA 7 or is valued at what a PSA 7 is valued at.

I'll say this much tho, I don't mind scratched 80-81 Topps, I mean you can get some nice cards for pretty cheap...

Another question about PSA grading......when it comes to centering does PSA take the centering of the back of the card into account? I'm looking at some of these psa 10's online and although they are perfectly centered on the front, they don't really look perfectly centered on the back

[subban7677]

For me I collected as a kid in the 70s and 80s. Frankly I never once thought about how much my cards were worth until I started going to shops and getting tuff stuff or becketts. Back then it was about getting sets full and getting cards of my favorite team or player. I probably traded plenty of valuable cards to my friends to accomplish this but I am sure I got some in return also.

Ahh, Tuff Stuff. I remember they also priced the Starting Lineup figures too.

[Savard18]

Another question about PSA grading......when it comes to centering does PSA take the centering of the back of the card into account? I'm looking at some of these psa 10's online and although they are perfectly centered on the front, they don't really look perfectly centered on the back

Yes, PSA takes centering on the back into account but it depends on the set. I mean if it's a set that is notorious for having o/c cards like both 71-72 Topps & OPC they'll usually be a bit more liberal with the grade as long as it's not too far o/c so they will give the card a little leeway or they will issue a qualifier if the card is just a little to far o/c, like 70/30 but a card should be fine with 60/40. If you have a "mis-cut" they will certainly issue a qualifier regardless, but when it comes centering it usually depends on the set and the individual grading the card because there really is no objective way to grade cards. Sure you can have guidelines but sometimes cards really flirt with the boundaries. Usually tho if a card presents well you're not going to get a penalty for the back being a little o/c like 65/35 just as long as its at least 60/40 L/R or T/B... However that is just my experience having seen/had/have plenty of PSA graded vintage cards.

[Rraincock]

PSA does consider back centring, but it is a lower weighted factor than front centring


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[781Rangers]

"BUT as far as Beckett goes I will say this tho - I LOVE reading older Beckett's from every sport and reading just how much the hobby has changed since the early 90's, I mean at times it can be absolutely hilarious... Just the other day I was reading how "revolutionary" Pro Set was, and how Pro Set was the new hottest product in the hobby, then of course a few issues later they did a whole expose on how terrible Pro Set was and it took them 3 pages to point out all of the errors.. Of course reading their predictions/projections all of these years later is just fantastic because Beckett, their contributors and their readers were wrong - extremely wrong more than not... My favorite section of older Becketts tho has to be "Readers Write In" where Beckett readers send in their .02 cents on various hobby related issues and in many cases expose their epic stupidity, of course there were also many astute readers as well that made fine points and contributions .. I really should start posting some of the stuff from early 90's Becketts because some of this stuff is just hilarious, fascinating, stupid, entertaining and interesting all at the same time.. Thank God a few years back I had the foresight to buy a ton of early 90's Becketts because they're worth every penny I paid for them, and believe it or not they're super cheap I mean for a few bucks you can get a nice stack of issues - I have several huge stacks of them, I probably have at least 100 between the 4 major sports, I also have quite a few issues of "Baseball Card Price Guide Monthly" from the 80's which are great too, they actually come with cards inserted into the issue as well but that publication is a bit more "based" than Beckett.."

A few years ago I starting buying some of the older Becketts again. What I really loved was the articles from 91 - 94. Around '97 they went a little crazy with the fonts and the marketing but I still enjoyed them up until around '99. In the early 90's it was hard to see other teams or players that were not in your region or conference so it was a great source of overall hockey information for me. The draft issues were always good and the cover pictures were fantastic. The first one I received was the Grant Fuhr Leafs one with the '92 throwback jersey on the front.

[Savard18]

A few years ago I starting buying some of the older Becketts again. What I really loved was the articles from 91 - 94. Around '97 they went a little crazy with the fonts and the marketing but I still enjoyed them up until around '99. In the early 90's it was hard to see other teams or players that were not in your region or conference so it was a great source of overall hockey information for me. The draft issues were always good and the cover pictures were fantastic. The first one I received was the Grant Fuhr Leafs one with the '92 throwback jersey on the front.

Oh I love reading older Beckett's and like I believe I pointed out - I really enjoy the "Readers Write In" section, because some questions are interesting, fair and inquisitive while others are just plain up stupid and some of the stuff people wrote was stupid to the point it made me physically LOL.. I really love the "I think so and so should be worth way more than it is because of X,Y & Z" and they write it in a tone that implies anger, then they make threats canceling their subscription because the cards of their favorite players aren't acceptable to them while they expose their ignorance of fundamental economics, lol - it's just too great... But the artwork and photography is really amazing, and since they're so cheap and abundant If I like a photo or a piece of artwork which is usually on the inside front cover or the back of the cover I usually cut it out and and frame it.. I recently did that with a Bobby Hull colored pencil sketch, I thought it was fantastic and since I'm a Hawks fan and I PC Bobby Hull I just had to frame it..

But yea, I have hockey issues #1-25 or so,, I also have a lot of football, basketball and baseball issues but I'm not much of a football or basketball fan so I usually read the hockey and baseball issues.

And obviously the Beckett listed value is just hilarious... I mean Dominik Hasek rookies booking at .10 cents, Roy RC's for $17.00, Gilmour RC's for $2 bucks, lol... Yes, no problem I would gladly trade 15 Joe Juneau rookie cards for 1 Patrick Roy RC, lol... And boy, back then Brett Hull RC's were booking for $100.. I'm still trying to find the issue where Selanne's UD rookie went absolutely bonkers booking at $50 bucks, I think that was some point in 1993 tho... I remember that craze, collectors at card shows were buying Selanne rookies they could find and were paying way more than high book, and the odd part I found about that craze was that the sealed boxes didn't move much in value at all - you could still get one for like $40-50 bucks.. But yea that was back during "Selannemania", tho during that time I remember Selanne getting all the hype while Mogilny still got a little hype but not much despite tying Selanne for the Richard Trophy with 76 goals each.. I have a really cool Goal Leaders card from that time that feature both Selanne & Mogilny, I believe it's an OPC Premiere card, it's not worth much if anything at all but I have it in my PC just because it's cool and I like it.

[781Rangers]

I think the Gilmour cards jumped in value once he went to Toronto and probably peaked after the '93 cup run. The hot and cold list was always interesting. I think Selanne playing in a Canadian market probably helped his value. Buffalo might be a passionate fan base but they have to compete against some very strong and historically established markets. Mogilny was amazing to watch that year as I was able to see a lot more of him then Selanne. I think there was a point where the Fedorov french young guns was going for $150 around '91 and then the price fell. I could see why a Hasek rookie would be .10. If they were going based on the one playoff series against Pittsburgh as a backup it might be a fair assessment. He was also 32 when he came to the NHL and usually goalies at that age are not expected to do well. I am sure playing behind Belfour they assumed he would not get much playing time.