1981 Fleer Schmidt error and others....

Dhjacks

I was surprised to see this Schmidt card sell for so little, considering there have only been two submitted (both 10's). Also, this variation is not listed in the Schmidt master set, why not?
I also noted that the #79 Reggie Jackson batting pose has only one submission. Just wondering how rare they are. I saw dalew has a beauty of a set....any comments would be appreciated.

FleerSchmidt

dalew

There are 40 variations to this set and up until I emailed BJ variation list for the Master Set I don't think that PSA has been slabbing alot of these cards correctly.

After looking through some of the Ebay listings I've noticed that PSA has mislabeled alot of them and those that are selling the cards don't know the difference.

The Schmidt batting card is the correct one. There is also a Schmidt portrait, which is the variation for the player.

Same can be said for the 3 variations on the Carlton low numbered card and 2 on the Carlton high numbered card.

Also, the Brett card, Jackson, etc., have variations.

I've sent in about 35 variation cards, and even when I've filled out the variety they still have mislabeled alot of cards, especially the ones with small fingers and no fingers on the back.

So, I send them back as mechanical errors and they fix them.

Dale

mikeschmidt

I have never seen a Portrait #5 Schmidt card graded -- the card merely signifies that PSA has finally caught on to this variation. For example, nearly 90% of the 1981 Fleer #640 (Schmidt/Rose/Bowa) of the cards that I own or have seen are the "number on back" variety -- with only a handful of them being the "no number on back" variation -- even though most are labelled as "no number on back"

As to your second point -- cards/variations are only added to the Master Set as they are requested by different constituencies (usually those putting together the graded sets or dealers getting the oddballs graded) and after they have been graded. The Mike Schmidt Master Registry was at 94 cards less than 18 months ago -- it now sits over 300, with more cards in queue.

mikeschmidt

P.S. For what it is worth, bidders out there seriously overpaid for this card by not doing their research. I have purchased this card in the past for as little as $25 -- and I have even bought (off of Ebay, mind you) the much rarer #640 portrait Schmidt PSA 10 for only $33.

Also -- look at the bidding pattern. Take away high bidder #2, and this card sells for $29.60, not $131+

Dhjacks

Thanks MikeSchmidt. It looks like none of the variations are very rare. I appreciate your response. I was considering sending some of them in for grading.

mikeschmidt

Dhjacks:

The #5 portrait is legitimately much harder to find in top grade -- I would pay well for one that is graded, should you submit. The few that I have all mysteriously came back miscut.

Dhjacks

I'll send it in...it looks pretty nice, though not 10 material. Any other cards needed by anyone from this set?

Virtualizard

Just in case anyone is interested, here is my PSA 10 version of this card that I paid $14 for!




Chalk this one up to quality control. As with other sets, variations are generally way off in the Pop Report. Ask someone knowledgeable about any set before bidding outrageously on a variation. There's a good chance that you might be bidding on the more common variation of the card if you go by the Pop Report alone. Check with some 1971 Kellogg's or 1969 Topps collectors if you don't believe me.

JEB.