1947 Bond Bread Ted William's
Vintagehoarder1986
Posts: 137 ✭✭✭
Looking to hear opinions about what this would grade.
0
Vintagehoarder1986
Posts: 137 ✭✭✭
Comments
It's a reprint, so I doubt they will grade it. I recently sold mine on ebay for around $60. While the square corner William's are a later reprint, they are still collectable.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
There are also numerous knock-offs of the card. Unauthorized replicas of this one and most of the B & W star cards. A lot o them ran off around the early 80s as the hobby was starting to take off. Both the reprints and replicas are printed on a different type of thinner stock with less plies, typically one non-splittable ply, the same stock as the sepia-toned exhibit card replicas that were so prevalent in the 80s. They have a sound more like the snap of a Fleer or Donruss card when the edge is lightly tapped on a hard surface. The same people were printing these and many other B & W or monochromatic cards like the 1982 Strawberry Tidewater Tides and other pre-rookie minor league cards of Wade Boggs, Dwight Gooden, and others.
There was one guy making the rounds in the early to mid 80s with 800 card boxes filled with the minor league pre-rookie card of a star player!
Doubt this is a reprint. This was bought from a highly reputable dealer. Just because a card isnt graded, doesnt mean it's a reprint or counterfeit card. This has faint print spots on the back. I'm certain reprints do not have that. This also does not fluorescence under black light. The reprints have a blue tint, while the originals have a purple tint. This has a purple tint, whereas, some others of these I have owned, have been blue.
How thick is the card? 1981-1985 Fleer or Donruss thick? 1957 to 1980 Topps thick? Or 1952 to 1956 Topps thick? Looking at the card edge on, is it only one ply of cardboard, or like a match from a book of matches with multiple plies of paper that can be carefully separated and split?
I really have no examples to compare to from those years. The card was bought from American Legends. They have a card shop in New York and have been in business since 1992, so I'm not questioning authenticity of the card. I will send to SGC and see what they're willing to grade it at. Thanks for looking and commenting!
I'm posting this link to a page dedicated to 1947 Bonds that is accurate and extremely comprehensive. I was going to weigh in with the technical differences between all of the reprints and knockoffs, as I've seen and owned so many, and now, thankfully, I don't have to because someone here did a lot of writing, a lot of work, and IMO, though posted on a different forum, the info on this subject is very important and beneficial to my fellow members here.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=92743&highlight=bond+bread
Ive seen that thread before. If anything, its possibly a 1949. I'll send to SGC and let them decide. Seems we're at the mercy of grading companies with oddball issues like this that have very little, to any information available.
When I say reprint, I am basically saying it isn't an original 1947 Bond Bread and is a later copycat printing of some sort. It does have a following as there are many of these sold on ebay.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
not sure why op is going round and round w ya on this one don. i told him the exact same things a while ago. verbatim on the “reprint” thing, too. was just musial vs williams in that thread. only the player has changed here.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1060933/1947-bond-bread-stan-musial#latest
@Vintagehoarder1986
anything remotely similar that you purchased in that lot is going to be met with the same answers as stated above and previously. im just a box of rocks but @dontippet is pretty darn knowledgable and most likely been in the game dating well before american legends and 1992. again, we arent here to rain on your parade, rather save you from perhaps overpaying on insurance, shipping and grading fees is all.
I appreciate the responses. I'm not here to dismiss or insult anyone's intelligence of the hobby. However, the original question of the Musial and Williams threads wasn't whether these cards was authentic, it was what it would grade. Both threads immediately took to irrelevant matters surrounding authenticity or not truly being Bond Bread cards. Whether American Legends have been around since 1972, 1982,1992 or 2002, I am certain they wouldn't be selling reprints of any kind. If they were indeed selling reprints, then Im sure they would be listed as such. That's all I'm getting at. I'm not here to argue or discuss authenticity matters of these cards. If I was, I would've said so in my original posting.
What we are trying to tell you is that we don't think any of the big three grading companies will grade it. So, you won't get a grade. Just look on ebay. There are numerous examples in great condition just like yours, but you won't find an example graded from one of the big three grading companies.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
@Vintagehoarder1986
best of luck w the grades!
Submitting to SGC today. I'm going to test the waters with just one card, just in case it does happen to not be authentic. > @dontippet said:
I've seen a some graded examples on Ebay before, although, theres not many. Most on Ebay are hit and miss. Many are clearly counterfeit cards, especially those graded by FGA. Gonna try my luck and test the waters and submit today with SGC. I'll post results when I get them. I'm not saying anyone here is wrong. In fact, you could be right. Im not ashamed to admit I was wrong, if that happens to be the case. If I am wrong, then I'll at least learn from the lesson and know not to submit anymore of the cards and to stay far away. I will proceed with caution with only one card for now. If this one turns out ok, then I'll submit others later.
were the graded examples newer-style tuxedo holders or the old school w green flips? that answer might be telling in and of itself.
Let us know the results. I am real curious to see what SGC says.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
Will do. They might very well reject it...I dont know. Like I said, if that's the case, I'll at least know for sure. I will keep this updated. Blurry face, the slabs looked newer.
It's good you're submitting it; if you have doubts, SGC or PSA will eliminate them.
IMO, the chances of a major grading this as an authentic, vintage, Bond card are equal to the chances of winning Lotto without buying a ticket. Even without seeing it edge on, the paper is too thin and not the same ply or stock that they were printed on in the 1940s. This is in the same class as the Sepia-toned exhibit cards that were booted in the 70s/80s and were all over the place in trade papers and at shows, some selling for a decent amount, like the originals, until word got out. Being in the area I was in, I had the benefit of seeing all of the scams in real time, as they unfolded. The Bond knockoffs, the Exhibit fakes, and just about every other B&W low-budget printed piece that could be knocked off in a convincing matter.
A central feature was common to most. Too thin (not multi-ply) + sepia.
Well, I hate to bust your bubble, but this card was not free, and neither is the lottery. You have to pay to play...that's with everything. Nothing in life is free...life comes with risk. After all, how would you ever know if you dont try?
I hope you didn't pay much for it. They go for around $50-$75 on ebay, sometimes a bit higher. I think I got around $50-60 for min a few months ago. It was a pleasant surprise as I'm sure I didn't pay more than a few bucks for it about 30 years ago. Good luck with the submission.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
Thanks. No, I didnt pay much. In fact, I've seen the stop sign designed card only fetch 40.00 in auctionin poor condition . The seller was mad and didnt even ship it with tracking. He shoved it in a birthday card and mailed it. I certainly couldnt have been to blame...hes the one who ran the auction. Theres always risks involved. Anyway, we'll just see what happens with the card in question. As I've said before, if it's fake, then it is what it is. I wont lose sleep over it, but I'll be glad to know I tried, regardless.
The cardstock is most definitely different from Bond Bread...no doubt. This doesnt mean its necessarily fake, but perhaps just a later version.
Yes. MUCH later. Replicas printed 30 to 40 years later. As stated, the epicenter for printers knocking off these and many other monochromatic issues was my back yard. I and the local yokels would be the first line of hobbyists/dealers/collectors offered the cards first, and then whomever took the bait would dispense the cards outward. One of the printers, agent of the printer, or grafter/middleman had ten 100 count stacks of the Jackie card. He was asking $300 per stack, $2500 if you took all 1000 cards. My buddy and I took one look at the stock, the color and thickness of the paper stock and gave each other the old roguish eyes, the slightly arched eyebrow.
Musial, Williams, Berra, Kiner, Di Maggio; they knocked off all the superstars from the set. I could have bought thousands of them for almost nothing and been the "Typhoid Mary" of the hobby when it came to spreading around B&W issue knockoffs.
I like the word "replica". I certainly don't think it's fake, but it is a reprint or a replica or something like that. There are enough out there that there is certainly a market for these, no doubt.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
They are 40 years old now, so I imagine there may very well be a market for them. What they more accurately may be called are "unauthorized" replicas (knockoffs). Recreated by someone with the machinery to copy them, but not necessarily the original stock and inks used in production. Bootlegs.
Now this differs from the knockoffs of the minor league cards at that time, which were not technically replicas, but unauthorized reprints, produced by a rogue printer, as they were printed later on the same machinery, using the same plates, and inks that produced them during the regular print run!
In the case of the minor league cards, 800 ct. boxes of each superstar's pre-rookie was being offered for as little as $250 per box!, at a time when the cards were retailing for about $5@.
We didn't know until later that the guy shopping these around was the actual printer! He had printed up God only knows how many extra Strawberry, Gooden, Boggs, and Clemens cards for himself, including hundreds of extra sheets left uncut.
Once the sheer numbers of these cards started fanning out and showing up en masse, that pretty much killed interest and the value of them and the entire minor league rookie card market stalled, "If the printers are printing up nobody knows just how many extra for themselves, what's the value of these?" That's what did it, and particular pre-rookie cards printed by certain companies nosedived while interest in others stalled.
The quality is grainy on them as well. I probably picked mine up between 1989 and 1991. By the fall of 1991 I was pretty much not into sportscards much. 40 years old sounds about right.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
I think these could be 1949 issues of some kind. I'm not certain if they ran into the 50s or not. Most definitely a reissue, I will say that much.
Much later. The ones printed on this thin single ply card stock, this tone, were the ones knocked off by one east coast printer decades later. And others soon climbed on the bandwagon, being a printer could be very $lucrative$, if their consumer was unaware, or aware and availed themselves anyway, as they found out.
These were counterfeits. Knockoffs. The purpose in counterfeiting them was $$$$$ through deception. Some dealers that bought them were unaware of it, although if you ever handled a group of legit cards, there would be no mistaking them as anything but atypical, some dealers knew, saw an opportunity to cash in, bought them, middle them out, and sold them anyway, passing them off as genuine to other dealers and customers.
This was at a time when Alan Hager's Accucard was the only grading service for cards in existence, almost a decade before PSA and the rest of the mainstream services.
Also, although the legit grading services were still in the future, there were very astute and advanced dealers readily available to seek opinions from at shows or by corresponding with them. Someone like Lew Lipset, Levi Bleam, Kit Young, et. al. Someone who has handled thousands, maybe tens of thousands, or more, of a particular issue taken straight from 50 year attic storage who could look at something and say, "this is atypical", and know for sure in a heartbeat.
PSA made the hobby a whole lot less of a guessing game but prior to their existence, there were ace-level experts who could be asked and opine with a super high level of accuracy.
I think these could be 1949 issues.> @Mo_Mentum said:
Explain the printing spots on the cards then. Whether you consider it a "counterfeit" or not, theres no denying that these have print spots on them, which I don't think a true counterfeit card would have. You only have a few pictures to go by that were posted, and you cannot always judge a card by those pictures. > @Mo_Mentum said:
There are definitely counterfeits out there, so you're not wrong. However, to continuously deem someone else's stuff as "counterfeit" is not only rude, but its irrational without any factual evidence to back your claims. Show me counterfeit cards that have print spots like these or some that were rejected from SGC. I mean, anyone can get on here and claim that anything is counterfeit.
Print spots are faint, but they are definitely there.
My reasoning for saying they aren't from 1949 is because they are in awesome condition. Take a look at the ones on ebay right now, they are in great shape. 1949 cards, especially on thin stock, wouldn't still be in great shape. Like others have said, just by their condition, it appears they were printed in the mid to late 80's when everybody started using penny sleeves and storing cards in a white box. That's exactly what I did with mine.
What do you mean by printing spots? Are you talking about the grainy print dots on the front? IMO, that shows that it is a knockoff of some sort. Pixelated pictures are usually a sign of a reprint. Mine was pixelated and that's one reason I knew it wasn't an original. If you take a look at 1947 Bond Bread PSA cards, you won't see the pixelation.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
No, print spots are on the back of the card. These entail authentic details, in my opinion. I have an original Bond Bread to compare them to, but I guess I'll know for certain when SGC tells me.
Well, I wasn't thinking in terms of being rude. Unless a rude awakening can be considered rude, depending upon interpretation. It's a hobby forum where knowledge is shared. This is the place for it. Sharing that knowledge isn't rude. Especially that you're the OP. I assumed you welcomed a discussion because you are the one that presented the subject.
It's a subject that I'm very familiar with. You're of the opinion that I'm talking through my hat. I understand that. But I also understand the not so subtle difference between the originally authorized vintage issue and the different iterations that were knocked off much later on. Not a year, not two years, not 3 years later, but starting from approx. 30 years later.
And one can deniably argue all day, look at this spot and that. See. See, it's the same! And no matter which spots are where, one inescapable fact remains. The paper stock is different. They weren't initially printed on this.
Much like autograph hounds that can argue all day about a Ruth autograph authenticity. "The track is wrong, he didn't make an R like this", or, "THIS is definitely good because look at the baseline", etc., etc., meanwhile the paper for the photo it's printed on wasn't produced until 1959! So much for the fine details of the signature, right?
There are folks who think they know it all. We all know at least one of those. I don't know it all. But I do know enough to know exactly what this is, and isn't. And if sharing facts is rude, call me "Rick Rude".
Clearly no one is changing anyone's mind...post your grades when you get them...lock thread.
I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind. He asked. I know all about the nuts and bolts of the subject, so I assembled them. If I had any doubts about what I know, what I might have done is start every sentence with "Maybe..." and end each one with a question mark. That's what we do on forums. Somebody asks. Somebody knows. They either answer or move on without doing so. If everyone did the latter, it wouldn't be much of a forum, right? There'd simply be an OP and that would be the end of that.
Cardstock is different, yes...this doesnt mean its necessarily counterfeit. The Bond Bread issues are also transparent in their own right, but not as much because the cardstock is slightly thicker. Facts are not facts, unless factual evidence is proven. Otherwise, it's just another opinion. Nuff said.
For the record, the original post of this was asking for the grade, NOT the authenticity, so no, I did NOT ask for anyone's opinion on authenticity. People just voluntarily made this into an authenticity issue. I wont be posting another one of these again on here, because too much mystery and descrepancy revolves around it. Thanks everyone for their responses, anyway.
i think 2 different threads covering the exact same topic, exact series w the same exact answers was enough too! 😉
btw: i feel ya @Mo_Mentum. its sad that as a collecting site, a collector is deemed rude when they know w/o a doubt on a certain subject. sugar coating with “maybe” & “question marks” is for the birds. usually my answers are based off making mistakes & the answers given are trying to save a fellow collector from making the same one(s).
Well, this wasn't the intention. I originally asked for the grade, and everyone made them both about authenticity, which is why they both turned out the way they did. It is what it is. I understand the controversy around the set, too, so its whatever. I'll make a new thread with the grades if SGC will grade the Musial.
i completely understand. but on a card site, if someone posts a card asking for the grade and the community sees an issue w authenticity knowing that the foundation of a card’s assigned grade is based off of authenticity first, they will usually speak up.
very rarely, if ever will you get a response like “well, if it were a real ‘47 bond bread it would grade a 9 or 10”. and to take it a step further what would really be rude is if someone responded “psa 0” and gave you no reason as to why and just left you hanging, imo.
Completely understandable.
Nothing to ad....In before the Lock!
YeeHaw!
Neil
Just a bunch of babbling, pontificaters. Nothing left here to see or say. Thanks.
My input killed two birds with one stone. It was input into the grade, because of the inauthenticity. I didn't bother to lend an opinion on the grade because IMO, it is not an authentic card; it's a knockoff, reprinted without authorization at a later date. How would you grade that? Whether the piece is a perfect 10 or in shreds, how are knockoffs graded? I didn't put a grade on it because it's not a legitimate card in my opinion. It's not a 2nd or any other printing, and it's not some tribute special edition card. It was booted by a printer knocking off this series, and I just so happened to see it real time as the distribution of them unfolded. I was offered literally thousands of them myself from different middle men who all got them from the same source. A hobbyist/grafter with a printing press. I took one look at the card stock and passed. If you've already handled hundreds of Bond cards, in the first second you see or hold one of these, it's very obvious.
So yes. By sharing info about the knockoffs, of which this one certainly is, it answers the question of grade = No grade because it's not a regular issue card.
Just curious as to why you wouldn't send it to PSA instead of SGC?
If I missed the answer to that somewhere within the thread, my apologies.
You're welcome.
You said it correctly....in your opinion, which means you are admitting that you're stating your opinion on the matter, not fact. You have not personally handled the card...you seen two pictures and stated your opinion, which you have beyond pontificated at this point. Anyway, I sent it to SGC, because PSA does not grade these issues. They only graded one Bond Bread Musial a PSA6, then stopped grading them altogether. That card was the stop sign design from 1947.
Besides, PSA has their services suspended and I wasn't going to spend over 200.00 to grade anything.
please learn to quote the right person. while i agree w mo, those are not my words or post above. thank you.
I didnt intentionally misquote you or anyone else, it must've been a glitch, but if you agree with the same person who said it, what's it matter if its misquoted? It still represents your feelings on the matter, regardless.