Looking for Vintage, highend Johnny Bench Cards

1968 Uniroyal
1970 Shillito and Jamesway Trucking
1967/68/70 Team Issued Postcards
1970 or 71 Topps Super 4 square proof (blank back)
1974 Topps Deckle Edge (white back)
1970/72 Topps Candy Lid
1970 Dayton News #2 (69 and 70 stats)
2016 Topps Heritage Auto (Blue and Red)
2017 Topps Heritage Auto (Red)

Trying to complete my personal collection.

Thanks, Jim Wood

Comments

  • bishopbishop Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭
    edited July 22, 2019 8:57AM

    1968 Variants

    Topps Baseball-1948, 1951 to 2017
    Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
    Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007

    Al
  • Thanks for he response, I have seen the top photo, but can not remember what it is? I might be interested. Interested in selling? Price?

  • redlegsredlegs Posts: 758 ✭✭✭

    Hi, I think you met a friend of mine (Pat Roth) at the National a few days ago. He supplied me with your email address. I hope you were able to find some hard to find Bench items. Phil

  • Phil, Glad to finally link up with you. I had been told about you when I was in Cincinnati back in the spring. I forget who mentioned you, I believe Mike Siska from Ideal Cards in Cincinnati. I did fairly well at National, not exactly what I went to look for. My list was in a post above. I did find a 74 Deckle Edge, undeckled, white back proof. I was really happy with two unknown finds 1974 Topps Puzzle (paper and card stock proofs). I also picked up a 73 Candy Lid Proof and a Kenwood Plaza. Already have one, but the one I found should grade several levels better than the SGC 4.5 my first one drew. I will probably return to Moeller High for the Nov show. Met some great folks in my latest Bench searches. Glad to finally add you to my list.

    Here is my revised want list:
    1968 Uniroyal
    1970 Shillito and Jamesway Trucking
    1967/68/70 Team Issued Postcards
    1970/72 Topps Candy Lid
    1970 Dayton News #2 (69 and 70 stats)
    2016 Topps Heritage Auto (Blue and Red)
    2017 Topps Heritage Auto (Red)

    Do you have anything for sale?

    Thanks, Jim Wood

  • Just received some cards from National that I had sent off to SGC to grade. My Johnny Bench Kenwood graded at a 7 and 2 of my Johnny Bench hostess panels graded a 6. I was very disappointed in the high end vintage proofs (74 Topps Puzzle - paper and card stock proofs, 74 Deckle Edge (white back), 71 Topps Super 4 square, 73 Topps Candy Lid uncut, 72 Topps Candy Lid uncut all graded as "authentic". Some are very nice and would probably numerically grade 6-9 if given a chance. Based on my research of other companies, the use of "authentic" seems to be widespread. Just w word to the wise if you plan to invest $$$ in vintage high end proofs, be aware that grading may be less then expectations.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,131 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wouldn't the best you could do on a proof type card be authentic?

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • DBesse27DBesse27 Posts: 907 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    Wouldn't the best you could do on a proof type card be authentic?

    That’s always been my understanding.

    Yaz Master Set
    #1 Gino Cappelletti master set
    #1 John Hannah master set

    Also collecting:
    1964 & 68 Venezuelan Topps
    1974 Topps Red Sox
    Patriots team HOFers
    Andre Tippett

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,131 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2019 1:30PM

    @armyguyindestin said:
    Just received some cards from National that I had sent off to SGC to grade. My Johnny Bench Kenwood graded at a 7 and 2 of my Johnny Bench hostess panels graded a 6. I was very disappointed in the high end vintage proofs (74 Topps Puzzle - paper and card stock proofs, 74 Deckle Edge (white back), 71 Topps Super 4 square, 73 Topps Candy Lid uncut, 72 Topps Candy Lid uncut all graded as "authentic". Some are very nice and would probably numerically grade 6-9 if given a chance. Based on my research of other companies, the use of "authentic" seems to be widespread. Just w word to the wise if you plan to invest $$$ in vintage high end proofs, be aware that grading may be less then expectations.

    This item was not allowed into the Killebrew Master set;

    Can certainly understand the grade, but ABSOLUTELY belongs in the Killebrew Master Set, along with all three 1967 Punchouts.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • So from comments I am seeing maybe I am learning that "Authentic" is the best you can do on proof cards. I had not heard that before or seen it in writing. If "authentic is the best that can be given for proof cards, would like to see it in grading company policy before I submit.

  • JBrulesJBrules Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭✭

    SGC certainly grades some proofs. Not sure how they determine what gets a numerical grade and what does not. Maybe if you have them cut them then they will give them a numerical grade. I believe they now offer that service.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,131 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't submit to SGC, but here's what I got back from PSA;

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Wow, love the Killebrews. When you sent in your 75 Bench (Guernsey Auction) did you send a copy of the auction letter with it? If so, maybe that was the difference. I thought I had seen some photos of square corner, blank back proofs that had numerical grades from PSA, but my latest search only turned up "authentic ones" I guess since my cards are in my personal collection and not for sale, at least "authentic" provides proof that the cards are real. I was planning to have some regraded by PSA, but if the new grades will be "authentic" again, I see no reason to pay twice.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,131 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1970 TOPPS SUPER HARMON KILLEBREW SQUARE CORNER PROOF-BLANK BACK *  1   2   1   2   1   
    

    That last "1" indicates one graded higher. They might have given them number grades at one time.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Just sent a long e-mail to SGC with photon and as much supporting comments as I could think of, we will see what they say. Besides the whole "authentication" issue, there was a poor job of research done on my last set of cards. Case in point my 1974 Topps Deckle Edge (White Back) Proof was missing the term (white back). There is a white and grey back proof, Description details correctly annotated matter. Since I am retired and have too much time on my hands, I decided to spend a little challenging SGCs work. Once they answer, I expect my cards to be reassessed with proper descriptions placed on them. I would love to shame them into some numerical grades, probably wishful thinking. Some of my proofs are really nice so any chance for improvement would be welcomed. And the fun continues!

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,131 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @armyguyindestin said:
    Just sent a long e-mail to SGC with photon and as much supporting comments as I could think of, we will see what they say. Besides the whole "authentication" issue, there was a poor job of research done on my last set of cards. Case in point my 1974 Topps Deckle Edge (White Back) Proof was missing the term (white back). There is a white and grey back proof, Description details correctly annotated matter. Since I am retired and have too much time on my hands, I decided to spend a little challenging SGCs work. Once they answer, I expect my cards to be reassessed with proper descriptions placed on them. I would love to shame them into some numerical grades, probably wishful thinking. Some of my proofs are really nice so any chance for improvement would be welcomed. And the fun continues!

    You and I are in similar "boats". Although I have just recently retired and am putting together a couple of submissions.

    I have had some big debates with PSA over the years. Frankly, I have no real idea of how or why some of their decisions are made. I will be doing some research in the future and trying to reopen a few cases that went against me.

    Good luck!

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JBrulesJBrules Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭✭

    @armyguyindestin said:
    Wow, love the Killebrews. When you sent in your 75 Bench (Guernsey Auction) did you send a copy of the auction letter with it? If so, maybe that was the difference. I thought I had seen some photos of square corner, blank back proofs that had numerical grades from PSA, but my latest search only turned up "authentic ones" I guess since my cards are in my personal collection and not for sale, at least "authentic" provides proof that the cards are real. I was planning to have some regraded by PSA, but if the new grades will be "authentic" again, I see no reason to pay twice.

    I bought the 75 Bench already graded so not sure if the original owner sent in the information. I am guessing that he must have or how else would they verify the auction name. It will be interesting to find out what SGC has to say.

  • redlegsredlegs Posts: 758 ✭✭✭

    All of my Johnny Bench proof cards graded by PSA or SGC are all given the "Authentic" designation with one exception. I have an older SGC graded 1971 Topps Super blank back Johnny Bench that is graded a SGC 88. One thing I don't understand is why PSA won't grade the Topps 3 card blank back panel proofs. I submitted a 1973 Topps panel with Bench, Carlton, and Baylor but it came back ungraded. I had included a copy of the documentation from Topps Vault.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,131 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @redlegs said:
    All of my Johnny Bench proof cards graded by PSA or SGC are all given the "Authentic" designation with one exception. I have an older SGC graded 1971 Topps Super blank back Johnny Bench that is graded a SGC 88. One thing I don't understand is why PSA won't grade the Topps 3 card blank back panel proofs. I submitted a 1973 Topps panel with Bench, Carlton, and Baylor but it came back ungraded. I had included a copy of the documentation from Topps Vault.

    I think technically, no "proof" cards should receive a number grade. The square corner '69-71 square corner cards were obviously not (?) issued in packs, so one could make an argument against even holdering them.

    My opinion (worthless of course) is that these cards should be graded the same as any card for the Master Set and should count towards your "score". If there are several copies, (similar to the requirements on new numbered cards) they should be allowed to achieve a numeric grade.

    It seems odd that in a "Master" set you wouldn't want to open it up for; more competition, a bigger and better Master set and more submissions. Seems like a win/win to me.

    I think a master set should be just that. If you don't like it, you have the option to focus on a more basic set.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Redlegs/JoeBanzai , agree with your comments. I am not a master set guy as I use multiple grading companies, but the grading issues ("authentic vs numerical" is frustrating. I spoke to a supervisor at SGC yesterday, he was good enough to call me back after the e-mail I wrote to them. Proofs or "one off" cards are difficult for them to grade numerically based on little to compare to example wise, so authentic will normally be used for these type of cards. but they will err on the judgement of the grading/research team if they can find good data/examples of cards to compare for numerical grading. The end result will be occasional numerical grading for proofs. I saw a recent example of a 1975, 7 card progressive proof where part of the cards were graded "authentic" not a few were numerically graded. Talk about confusing. I know it can be difficult when a grading company runs into s specific card collector, like me or you that might know more about some Bench specifics then their research folks. We might want some specific wording on the card that their research folks may not place on them. What their team did is not incorrect, in my view incomplete. In all fairness to companies, if they tried to respond to all these type of requests, they would bog themselves down into unproductive time. In my case 71 Topps Super "square corner, blank back proof) is more correct then just "proof". On the 74 Deckle Edge Proof, the term "white back versus grey back" is important. On my 74 Topps Puzzle Proofs (paper and card stock proof") is important. They both exist and they are different in the material. Both are scarce, but one is more. Details do matter. In the end, if and when I sell or advise my daughter on a future sale after I am gone, we will sell in an auction as a collection and/or approach folks that we know are kindred Johnny Bench enthusiasts. They will know what the cards are and the values associated with them. I appreciate all of you who chimed in on my discussion. Many of you have helped raise my education level. I think we have about exhausted this discussion so if anyone has any wrap up comments, otherwise I will move on to a new discussion for the future. Thanks, Jim Wood

  • redlegsredlegs Posts: 758 ✭✭✭

    I recently submitted a few sheets from my sealed 1969 Photostamp albums. These are from the rare straight line variation backs. I assumed that PSA would not grade these with the variation designation since they aren't listed anywhere in any of the guides so I went the complete sheet route because the sheets are so much different from the more common versions. These sheets are in smaller albums so they all have staple holes and a fold in the middle. I'm glad that PSA took that into consideration. PSA 5's are probably the max that any of these sheets could get.


  • redlegsredlegs Posts: 758 ✭✭✭

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,131 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I tried to get PSA to differentiate and was shot down.

    If memory serves, aren't there three variations? Dots, dashes and a straight line?

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,131 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @armyguyindestin said:
    Redlegs/JoeBanzai , agree with your comments. I am not a master set guy as I use multiple grading companies, but the grading issues ("authentic vs numerical" is frustrating. I spoke to a supervisor at SGC yesterday, he was good enough to call me back after the e-mail I wrote to them. Proofs or "one off" cards are difficult for them to grade numerically based on little to compare to example wise, so authentic will normally be used for these type of cards. but they will err on the judgement of the grading/research team if they can find good data/examples of cards to compare for numerical grading. The end result will be occasional numerical grading for proofs. I saw a recent example of a 1975, 7 card progressive proof where part of the cards were graded "authentic" not a few were numerically graded. Talk about confusing. I know it can be difficult when a grading company runs into s specific card collector, like me or you that might know more about some Bench specifics then their research folks. We might want some specific wording on the card that their research folks may not place on them. What their team did is not incorrect, in my view incomplete. In all fairness to companies, if they tried to respond to all these type of requests, they would bog themselves down into unproductive time. In my case 71 Topps Super "square corner, blank back proof) is more correct then just "proof". On the 74 Deckle Edge Proof, the term "white back versus grey back" is important. On my 74 Topps Puzzle Proofs (paper and card stock proof") is important. They both exist and they are different in the material. Both are scarce, but one is more. Details do matter. In the end, if and when I sell or advise my daughter on a future sale after I am gone, we will sell in an auction as a collection and/or approach folks that we know are kindred Johnny Bench enthusiasts. They will know what the cards are and the values associated with them. I appreciate all of you who chimed in on my discussion. Many of you have helped raise my education level. I think we have about exhausted this discussion so if anyone has any wrap up comments, otherwise I will move on to a new discussion for the future. Thanks, Jim Wood

    "Details do matter"

    It's too bad these companies don't want to bog themselves down, only wanting more profitable cards to grade where they don't have to make decisions.

    Boo hoo.

    They set themselves up as experts and some of their customers are more knowledgeable than they are. How much harder is it to grade a square proof card than it is to grade a square regular card? None.

    You would have to spend a little time initially setting up the process because it's a non standard item. After that, it's no different at all.

    Hard to believe, but I made a mistake once (I did discover it, so maybe it wasn't really a mistake?), sent in a card that was an OPC and listed it on the order form as Topps. Realizing what I had done, I called customer service and gave them the order # and apologized for my error and asked would they please make sure it got done correctly. The person said their research department would figure it out. Anyone here betting on that? Card came back as a Topps and I had to send it back a second time.

    Having to redo your work, does that fall under the category of being "bogged down"?

    If they want to have an extra charge for non standard items so they can maintain their profit margin, the collector could decide to pay it or not. The simple fact is, if they are charging a fee and not getting the information correct, that is not the right thing to do.

    In general these companies do a good job.

    Rant over. Have a great weekend!

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • redlegsredlegs Posts: 758 ✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    I tried to get PSA to differentiate and was shot down.

    If memory serves, aren't there three variations? Dots, dashes and a straight line?

    The dash variations were from 1970, not 1969. They all came in stand alone sheets except one lone exception. One sheet in particular was only available inside of a magazine. This sheet was perforated so you could tear them out.




Sign In or Register to comment.