Bell Brand Registries

rjd · January 20, 2005 10:20PM

Anyone notice Mile High Card Co. instantly#1 on both 61 and 62s?? A most incredible find of 61's, ??where did they come from?? Newly entered +/- 10% of registered cards. Quite a find, many cards highest graded.

MorrellMan · January 20, 2005 11:40PM

Holy cow! Kevin's not gonna be happy about that.

I'm not surprised about Mile High's '61 set. Of the four Bell Brand sets, for some reason the '61s are more plentiful in high grade condition - not that any of these cards are plentiful in the true sense of the word, but it seems whenever I find groups of Bells, the 61's are the nicest. I don't really know why that is.

Edited to add: The registry doesn't show cert #s (understandably), but these may have been high quality sets in his collection for a long time that he decided to get graded because of all the wild and decidely undeserved attention these little puppies have been getting of late.

Griffins · January 20, 2005 11:47PM

Alan Munson bought a collection, had it graded and consigned it to Mile High.

rjd · January 21, 2005 12:24AM

Thanks, interesting. Most (if not all) are newly graded cards. The 62 Perranoski 8 just appeared last week (my 7 was highest), same with the 61 beauties. I assume they are headed to the MH Spring Auction, open up the wallets. The #'s on the 61 and 62 Bell regestries have really shot up. Bob

Griffins · January 21, 2005 1:04AM

RJD- you're assumption is correct, from what Alan told me yesterday. Spring Mile High.

On a side note, I guess I have somewhat mixed feelings about auction house lots on the registry. On one hand it's nice to see what's coming up, but I hate it when they don't delete the sets once the auction is over. Memory Lane's '41 Play Ball set is still up there, and I think a couple others as well. I know the registry isn't supposed to be used for advertising (which doesn't seem to be enforced) but it would be nice to see sold lots removed.

MorrellMan · January 21, 2005 2:33AM

Interesting that Alan, no slouch himself on ebay, would consign to a "bigger" auction house for this material.

Although I'd like to have a problem with it - the facts appear to be this: MH has a set graded to sell, it's put in the registry as the #1 set, the auction states this is the #1 registry set - there really seems to be nothing wrong there; it's all true and above board. What's the flipside?

Griffins · January 21, 2005 3:10AM

The flip side is that the registry is not supposed to be for advertising items for sale. It's for collectors, not sellers. Mastro started putting a few sets in there a year or two ago, and now every auction house is doing it. It just bothers me when they don't delete the sets after the auction is over- since the sale is transitory in nature, the set was never actually held by someone, so I think it should be removed entirely, rather than just retired.
The problem is this: Auction house A lists the set. It sells, and the buyer then lists it. Now #1 and #2 are one and the same. A year or two goes by, and the buyer consigns it to Auction house B, who lists it, and you get the picture. Now the top 4 spots are taken up by the same set.

I realize this happens with collectors as well when sets get sold increasingly as a intact set (e.g. Vargha's '34 Goudey set). But in some of those cases the new owner also works on the set, upgrading it. At least you have 2 collectors on the registry. But pimping auction lots and then leaving there after the auction is over is something that should be revisited, in my opinion.

We know, from recent events, that this board is read regularly by PSA staff, can some consideration of this issue be given?

rjd · January 21, 2005 3:19AM

I echo Giffins comments, he is more diplomatic than my view on this. I am on the registry as a collector, not as a sales device. This is about (big surprise)

$$. Bob

MorrellMan · January 21, 2005 4:07AM

...knew I could count on you, Anthony - thanks!

I thought (similar to "assume") that once a graded card was entered into a registry, it couldn't be re-entered in the same set listings. However, once the owner of a registered set sells it, there really should be some sort of mandatory way of purging it out of the registry system, since he is no longer the owner. I may be oversimplifying this, but it sounds like common sense. If you no longer own an item, your name should be disassociated with it in all ways except liability from the time you owned it.

As far as whoring sets from the registry, I agree it just feels wrong.

Griffins · January 21, 2005 4:53AM

Once you no longer own a card (s) you are supposed to delete it from your registry. If you chose to delete the entire set and it is over 90% complete it stays on the all time list, but drops out of the active list. If you delete a 90% (or better) set card by card it goes away from both lists. Once the set is retired (meaning it is 90% and still onthe all time list) you can no longer use those cert numbers if you keep some of the cards, or reacquire them. There are at least a few sets on the registry that I know of where the owner sold some of the cards, retired the set to stay on the all time list, and re registered most of those cards under another name to get back on the list.

rickster · January 21, 2005 4:59AM

If someone would sell me two 9's in the '61 set I could knock them right off the #1 perch and blow their whole "#1 on the Set Registry" auction strategy.

I'm assuming that they plan on auctioning the set as a whole, as opposed to individual cards, or it makes no sense to list it on the registry (other than previewing the auction to all us Bell Brand collectors). If it is a dealer anticipating a sale, it shouldn't be registered here, but I don't know how you prevent it. We could show them and boycott the auction!!

That '61 is one great set. I wonder what the centering looks like, since I've found PSA to be pretty liberal in grading these as it concerns centering.

At least they didn't get a '60 set. And I'm sure Griffins is happy there isn't a '58 set as well. Kevin, at least you were King of the Hill for a while.

Rick

MorrellMan · January 21, 2005 5:01AM

...amazing what people will do to get in line for the million dollar prize money
for those annual "Best of..." registry awards...

Griffins · January 21, 2005 5:08AM

Actually, I'm always relieved when I get an auction catalog and there is nothing in there I "have" to have.

Not that I'm addicted or anything, I can quit any time.

onlychild · January 21, 2005 6:18AM

<< <i>Kevin, at least you were King of the Hill for a while. >>

heh

NickM · January 21, 2005 1:21PM

I'll take the opportunity to plug Bernie Carlen's (PlayBall) 1940 Play Ball set, which is the #1 registry set for that year, and is up on ebay right now. This is an absolutely fabulous set (7.34 GPA) of one of the truly underappreciated major card issues - in addition to all the HOF players then active, the set featured retired legends throughout, including one of the few Shoeless Joe Jackson cards ever made.

Nick

Griffins · January 21, 2005 1:41PM

Bernie is a really great guy, and I hope it sells. This is not what I"m talking about here, though. I know it may seem a bit of a double standard, but is this case it is a set a passionate collector has worked on for 5 years, and it is now for sale. I hope if it does end up selling it sells on ebay so Bernie can recieve 100% of what is due him for so much effort.

rickster · January 21, 2005 11:25PM

KEVIN IS BACK ON TOP. Take that Mile High

I always admire the collector doing it 1 card at a time.

Hey Kevin, now you're hiding the set??

Rick

MorrellMan · January 21, 2005 11:39PM

Kevin - congrats!!! You're the most passionate '62 BB collector I know - NEVER SURRENDER!!!

Everyone's excited for you - go Kevin!

onlychild · January 22, 2005 1:21AM

<< <i>KEVIN IS BACK ON TOP >>

Yes, but short lived. Just making a statement!

NickM · January 22, 2005 8:05AM

If I were buying a registry set intact, and it had been listed for sale by an auction house, I would be very upset at them if they did not delete the set from the listings, rather than retire it and leave it among the All-Time Finest after they sold it to me. A collector-sold set is a different story to me in that fashion.

I personally have no problem with an entire set being registered so that it can be sold as the number X Finest registry set. I don't think that takes away from the registry in the fashion that listing your inventory as a set when it's offered for sale on a card-by-card basis (especially if sale prices are included in the registry comments) would.

Nick

rickster · January 22, 2005 8:54AM

If this set was listed in the registry as "Joe Schmoe's 1961 Bell Brands" just prior to the auction, and then Mile High listed it in their auction as " the #1 registry set", we wouldn't even be discussing this topic. An auction company listing a set for the purpose of selling just seems like an improper use of the registry to me.

onlychild · January 22, 2005 12:47PM

<< <i>An auction company listing a set for the purpose of selling just seems like an improper use of the registry to me >>

To you and eveyone else! It really pisses me off!

Every collector here should be concerned. This auction may not effect "you" now but next time it just might. (AN ADDED EDIT) Yep, it has involved others...the 58 Bells have now been hit. High grade stuff that is two cards from the top spot.

If they want to sell with the registry in mind, they should state, "set will qualify for the #? spot on the PSA registry" or something to that effect.

I don't throw tons of money at PSA but I do contribute in many ways. I will not hesitate to take my contributions and business elsewhere if this continues.

I hope the PSA staff is reading this and realizes how WRONG this is!

Kevin

onlychild · January 22, 2005 1:14PM

Now the 58 Bells and 61 Morrell Meats!!!!!

Who's next?

onlychild · January 25, 2005 5:39AM

I still haven't got over this!

We are just single collectors putting together sets, one card at a time. Auction companies have "many people" with resources beyond our reach.

If this is acceptable, I propose that for the 61 set Rick, RJD and I (don't know what happened to KHT) combine our cards to make a "super set".....just like the auction house is doing. We will call it "RBK 61 Bells".

I'm game if the others are. Although I only have one card to offer in this set...it is a biggie.

rickster · January 25, 2005 7:59AM

Kevin,
your "9" would help, but RJD and I are strong in the same cards, so we would still fall short of knocking them off the #1. Kind of shows how strong a set it is. 7.65 in Bells, no matter what year, is hard to beat.

Not a bad idea though, if only to stop them from advertising it as #1. I still think that we should all voice our displeasure to Mile High, maybe they are unaware that they are pissing off the collectors who made Bell Brands prices skyrocket, as well as some potential customers. I've been known to vote with my feet before.

Rick

Bell Brand Registries

Comments