I'm confused

murcerfan

where does it end?

this card has had a population of 6 for over 3 months (funny that his other auctions quote a more recent pop report date).

........... and it is definitly NOT a single print.

jeesh......

marz

Hey Dave,
how hard is it to find these things in 9 holders?

murcerfan

all but two psa 9's are in one of 4 safe deposit boxes across america.

......i'd say that would make them reasonably tough, but not impossible if you can crack safes as good as you knit.

packCollector

murcer, no idea why he is using 11/13/03 pop report on this one but at least he represents it in the add. i have never had any troubles with Mickey and he has been straightforward and honest in all our communications. Although I don't like that he represented the card as a 1/4 , the date of the pop report is in the add and any knowledgeable collector will go back and check it for themselves. I know I do on every card and never take anyones word for it. The worst is the dealers that use pops that are 3 months old and don't tell you or just get the card bak and quote the pop before theirs was graded. I love the 1/1 auctions when I have 1 sitting in front of me.

and here is the worst mistatement that I have seen from a large dealer : 1/1 this must be from the 1999 pop report

I can tell you where there are 5 others

MorrellMan

ad was revised 3/19 that card is not 1/1

murcerfan

I can tell you where there are 5 others

Bull !..........unless they were graded yesterday or in Chicago last weekend.

edited to add: maybe you meant three 9oc's ??..... if so my appologies.

PlayBall

Murcerfan,

I believe he was referring to the 1970 Dad's Cookies Orr PSA 9 in his link, which shows 13 PSA 9's and 0 PSA 9(Q).

I agree though, if sellers are going to use the POP report in their auction, they should get it right.

packCollector

murcer, I was referring to the dad's cookies psa 9 orr. the pop is 13 not 1/1

I have one ,
mark wallinga
aaronmann
mark (mostly*hockey) has one on ebay right now in a bruins lot
oysh bought 1 last month.

packCollector

edited to add : believe me I know there are not 5 other psa 9 tgm's , i am another one of the fools trying to complete this set

murcerfan

thanks.........I didn't realize we were talking about Dad's Cookies here.

murcerfan

too bad those Dad's won't fit in a ticket holder.

mickeys

Murcer F-

As I told you in our private correspondence, the card is listed in Beckett 7 Annual as a SP and the SCD 2004 Guide makes no differentiation. We don't have access to any other materials to verify the Beckett error.

I went back to modify the Freehan description based on your note but it already had bids - couldn't be changed.

The fact that instead of responding to my private lengthy note to you - asking which of the 22 DPs listed in the Beckett 7 was actually a SP - you took the issue to a public message board, speaks volumes.

I'll let the rest of the Board members fill in the next line themselves.

Beckett 7 Link

Mickey

Basilone

According to Beckett: SP= Short-Print (does not mean "single print") DP= Double Print

To me,the cards labeled "DP" or "double-printed"....fall outside of the normal print run. Just because a card does not have a DP does not make it automatically a SP but rather a card that had a normal print run. If the card had a less than normal print run it would be labled SP (Short-Print).

murcerfan

spin it all you want Mike.
..... it's true I'm a bad guy with evil agendas, no doubt about it.

but why do YOU quote different Population report dates for different auction listings??
You can use my password to access the CU site if you want to access the latest one.

also here are the uncut sheet pictures I sent you this past weekend.
the one on the left is the double printed sheet of 22, containing Freehan and Lolich.

mickeys

I'm not following you John.

In some sets there are "regular" prints, "single" prints which are twice as scarce and "double" prints which are twice as common.

For the 1971 Greatest Moment set the Beckett says exactly the following:

"This test set was retailed in gum packs on a very limited basis. Double Prints (DP) are listed in the checklist below: there were 22 double prints and 33 single prints."

Agreed, these aren't single prints in the same manner as other sets (1958 Preston Ward) where the entire set is "regular" printed and one or two cards are notably "single prints". But the guide explicitly calls them single prints and the hobby does as well I believe.

My question was the following - the Beckett guide lists exactly 22 cards with the DP flag and the Freehan is not among them. Given an uncut sheet has surfaced, can someone with both sources tell me which of the 22 DPs identified by Beckett is actually NOT on the DP sheet - this will be useful in that I can update our DB and avoid future threads such as this tedious call-out by Murcer F.

Mick

mickeys

Take it up with Beckett.

Mick

murcerfan

Beckett is doing the PSA population reports ??

Basilone

My opinion is that when a card is listed in an auction as a SP that it is considered a "short-print".

For example, in the Hockey beckett for 1986-87 Topps Hockey set:

#2 Pat LaFontaine DP
#9 John Vanbiesbrouck RC DP
#90 Mike Bossy DP
#137 Paul Coffey DP
#149 Wendel Clark RC DP


Does that mean every other card in the set should have a "SP" in the auction title? When I see SP in a auction title...I think of "short-print" whether it is a 1965 Topps Baseball High# or a 2004 Topps Heritage card.

Beckett puts the SP designation next to short-print cards...not single print cards. If that was the case..every card would have either SP or DP next to it.

1954

Beckett asked me to do an article on the 1971 Topps greatest moments. I gave them the CORRECT information with regards to values/double prints/single prints. They decided not to issue this information because my article contradicted what they had in their books. I got paid for my services so it does not matter to me. I know the truth about the set and so do the other big dogs that work on this set. I don't blame Mickey for not knowing this information, however the pop. report is a different story. If a dealer is going to inform the public about the pop report, he better be correct on this issue.

1954

Basilone

1954-

Maybe you could provide a summary of your article/findings. I'm sure many of us (myself included) could learn a thing or two about the set.

John

jackstraw

john
in the case of the 84,85,86,87,88 and 89 topps hockey sets the sp does not mean short print it means single print. all this means is that the first sheet of 132 cards is just that but since they didn't have enough cards to fill the second sheet so there is 66 double print cards.

Basilone

Jackstraw-

I know that....single print in those sets mean normal print run. According to Beckett SP = short-print...not single-print.

There is a difference between the two (once again..in my opinion)

John

jackstraw

ok i am confused? there is a difference between a single print card on a sheet vs a short print card on a sheet? i guess i don't understand the arguement?

murcerfan

'54,
agreed......Many e-bay sellers seem to have gotten into this 'practice' of touting old numbers.

........ and all that said....I bet the pop report issue won't happen again with Mickey's.
as my experience is that he IS a solid seller with some great inventory.
He is also offering a very nice PSA 8 Rose from the set, usually not centered as nice.

mickeys

John

I agree now with that nuance.

The Beckett says there are "33 single prints" in the set but doesn't refer to them as short prints.

My listing - for the record - also refers to the card as a Single Print and doesn't use the somewhat misleading "SP" anywhere in the listing. I think we were both arguing around the same point.

The cards are single prints which means they are regular printed - but scarcer relatively to the 44% of the set which was double printed.

Another confusing example is 1965 Topps FB. The set has 132 of the 176 cards single printed. For years (and common sense dictates) that it makes more sense to flag the 44 DPs as such but the 2003 Tuff Stuff Std Catalog reverses that and marks as "SP" all 132 of those numbers. This is sort of like your example of saying EVERY card should be flagged as Single Print by default. Not sure the history behind the convention changing on this one?

Mick

Basilone

<< <i>My listing - for the record - also refers to the card as a Single Print and doesn't use the somewhat misleading "SP" anywhere in the listing. I think we were both arguing around the same point. >>



Yes...I agree...EDITED...you clearly state the card as a "single print" in bold in your auction description.

Basilone

I guess this thread tells us to stay away from Beckett publications.

What does Lemke's book say...(anyone have it handy?).

packCollector

those are the coolest sheets I have seen in a while.

1 question , were these cards on 66 card sheets? how do the numbers add up to single and duoulbe print 22,33 wouldn't it be double and triple printed to get to 66 leading to 1.5 x more availability? just curious

acowa

A lot of it comes down to this: Is this seller worthy of me giving them the benefit of the doubt? With Mickey's, the answer is yes.

I would focus on sellers who are consistently intentionally misleading buyers. But, to each his own.


Regards,


Alan

mickeys

John

SCD 2004 says "Twenty Two of the cards were double printed, sometime resulting in unusual pricing structures." There is no DP or SP designation on any card in the listing so it's left to the reader's imagination which 22 cards he is talking about.

Mick

Off topic, I checked my listings and I don't see an "SP" in the title. Which listing are we talking about? We can take this part off-line - drop me a note at mail@mickeys-sportscards.com

mickeys

Jackstraw,

I would offer that a "short print" is a card such as 63 Fleer Joe Adc**k or 63 Fleer FB Long - these are cards which were originally printed in the same quantity as the rest of the set - i.e., "Regular Prints" - but then were not printed in equal quantities as the others due to outside factors, such as production control problems (e.g., 52 Bowman FB divisible by three) or replacement on the sheet.

I would love to know the origin behind some odd SP cards such as the 61 Skowron among others. Good topic for another thread...

Mick

pc

everyone should be one half as honorable as MIckey.

minibeers

I totally agree with pc. Everything (and I mean everything) I get from Mickey's I'm happy with. It is so much fun going through his inventory on the web site when I know that whatever I choose to buy, I'll be happy with.
cheers,
minibeers

packCollector

very few dealers tend to be conservative on there grading and offer high grade stuff in raw form that you can trust. I have only bought a few cards from mickey but in all cases the cards far exceeded my expectations. one of hte most honest dealers out there

Wabittwax

I think it is perfectly legitimate to call a big dealer out on these boards if they make an error in their listing. Nothing should be hush-hush if it looks like somebody is trying to pull a fast one (not saying you are). People tend to get upset when things aren't held privately but we are a community here and we are looking out for everybody's best interests. If a big dealer makes an error, then they should be willing to defend themselves here or potentially lose many major customers. We are kind of a "watchdog" for the card community. The back door, hush-hush, bad dealers making money days are over.

Southsider

These boards are invaluable.

I've added Mickey's website to my favorites based on the professionalism and integrity I've seen on display here.

I've also been able to cross off a certain other dealer who failed miserably to resolve a complaint with professionalism, by shall we say, acting like a child throwing a tantrum in a sandlot.

mickeys

All feedback is legitimate (and appreciated).

In the case in question, the listing is not in error according to the Beckett 7 annual. However, I did respond to Murcer's other feedback and go into all the listings where edits were allowed and removed the reference to Jerry Grote being a tough card and also updated the pops. For the Lolich listing, I added a disclaimer that there was a dispute between Beckett and the Hobby on the card and to bid accordingly.

Given that I didn't think it was fair to have the post appear as though it was some sort of investigative sting or something. I apologize if I overreacted, Murcer is a good guy and I didn't mean to say otherwise.

Regarding the pops, we have a system which "scrapes" the PSA website and updates about 50,000 records periodically for SMR and POP. For some reason, the update on the 71GMs produced a blank file so those Pops were a few months old (accurate but out of date). I added some error handling to this and as stated will ensure these glitches occur less frequently if at all.

Howitallbegan

Mick

You have always been one of the best guys to deal with whether selling or buying and you have proven it once again

Basilone

Mickey-

You are correct there is no SP in the title. I must of been looking at another listing. Thanks for the correction.

John

pb19991

Every transaction i've had with Mickey's thru e bay or thru their web site have been nothing short of spectacular. very courteous and professional in every aspect. if there was an error on the listing in question i have to believe it's because of the set being such a rarity and not a lot of info on it. i will continue to purcahse and build my set thru Mickey's whenever possible. Phil

pc

WABBITWAX IN HIS INFINTE WISDOM WROTE:


<< <i>I think it is perfectly legitimate to call a big dealer out on these boards if they make an error in their listing...If a big dealer makes an error, then they should be willing to defend themselves here ... We are kind of a "watchdog" for the card community. The back door, hush-hush, bad dealers making money days are over. >>



you are a prime example of why we have such a litigious society.would it be so much trouble
to email the seller and notify him of an error in a listing?.last night legacy listed some bowmans
with topps in the title field.i emailed them to let them know of what i KNOW is an honest and
harmless mistake.you on the other hand would clearly have come on these boards to bash them.
you should consider the source and take the initiative to make the hobby and business a better
place rather than support negative commentary.

WinPitcher

depending on the sheet, triple prints double prints single prints and short prints can all be possible....

mickeys

Just to close out on this, I compared the two sheets posted by Murcer to the Beckett 7 Guide - there were three discrepencies.

The three cards NOT flagged as DP by Beckett which appear on the 22 card sheet are Mickey Lolich, Bill Freehan and Jim Northrup. Interesting that they are all Tigers. Perhaps the cards are "demand scarce" rather than "supply scarce" since the Bengals were only 3 years removed from greatness.

The three cards flagged as DP which appear on the 33 card sheet are Alex Johnson, Jim Fregosi and Lou Brock.

A quick check of the pop report total submissions seems to bear out the sheets - Lolich (35), Freehan (35) and Northrup (24) are a bit below the normal DP counts (ranging from 38 - 62) but still reasonably high. The other three cards - Johnson (19), Fregosi (16), and Brock (20) - are flagged as DP but are clearly in the range of the other notoriously tough cards.

Interestingly there are several "DP" cards with low pops too - Munson, Morton, Bando, Campy and Wright are all 25 or below. I had heard there was a fire that destroyed a lot of the undistributed inventory and that cards had been stored in "bricks" by player. Perhaps this also accounts for some of the scarcity.

Also regarding pops, collectors should know that given the inconsistency in printing on this set, many cards may have been resubmitted multiple times to PSA and as such overall submission counts may not be the best guage for scarcity.

Mickey

NickM

Mickey - with regard to things like '61 Skowron, there has been at least one thread on the boards recently discussing a belief that Topps intentionally destroyed part of the print run for 1 or 2 cards (usually commons) from each team, so as to keep kids buying more packs before they could complete the team set or full set. It's possible that Skowron fell into that category.

Nick

1954

The sheets show exactly which cards are double prints. The story is true that many of these cards were destroyed in a warehouse fire. How many were destroyed and how many of them were single prints vs. double prints? I don't know that answer.
One of the items that I discussed in the article written for Beckett on the 1971 Topps Greatest Moments was a problem that exists with ten cards. Ten of the 55 cards are often found with a "gash" on the right hand side of the card. My theory was that these ten cards were on the same line and the cutter/sorter pushed the cards into a metal object which created this damage.
Eleven months after writting about this damage, Lelands Auction house auctioned off the uncut sheets. After reviewing the two sheets, I was correct on how this occurred. The third line from the top and bottom are the 10 cards which are notorious for the "gash".
It also made more sense to why so many cards are off centered or tilted. The cards in the middle of the sheets are found more centered than the top or bottom cards of the sheet.
I hope this helps a little.

Shane

NickM

1954 - who are those 10?

Nick

1954

Nick -
The third row from the top is Wright, Morton, Jackson, Johnson, Wilhelm
The third row from the bottom is Campy, Bando, Melton, Carty, Pepitone

It is easier to find the Wright, Morton, Campy and Bando without the "gash" because those were double prints.
The other six are the 'SP' cards and not many of these exist without the gash. I have seen some high end examples where the gash is very faint, however it still exists. For all of you Reggie Jackson collectors out there, mark this one off your list in PSA 8 form. If you want a PSA 7 in this card be prepared to pay close to $800 for it.

Wabittwax

Your right in a sense that if the dealer is known to be trustworthy, then it is probably an honest mistake. That would be better off to handle through an email. I'm just saying that I've seen people get mad on these boards for people pointing things out when it is obvious of there intentions.

mickeys

1954 - thanks for the "expert testimony" - very informative.

Any idea why Beckett has those three Tigers as Single prints and the other three noted earlier as Doubles? Or better yet why they wouldn't agree to update the guide after the uncut sheets surfaced?

Seems like a bad idea for them to dig in their heels on something with physical evidence to the contrary.

NickM

mickeys - perhaps the same reason as Beckett would give for not updating prices on sets that trade (raw) routinely for several times their Almanac high book price (aka, they don't give one because they don't really care).

Nick

minibeers

While it sucks to the the recipient of a public call-out, it shouldn't matter if the dealer has a good repuation. Look how many people came out of the woodwork (like me) to support Mickey. Dare I say that he probably has a couple more customers after this thread rather than less.
cheers,
minibeers