Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

1984 Fleer Update - Mike Fitzgerald #U37 - Missing from Factory Sets?

Hi everyone,

I wondered if anyone out there has any knowledge about this card. I have read that this card was missing from some 1984 Fleer Update factory sets. This would seem to make sense because there are only three Fitzgeralds that have been graded by PSA (the lowest pop along with Gene Richards). Has anyone else heard that or have any information on this? If you could let me know, that would be great.

Thanks again.

Comments

  • mikeschmidtmikeschmidt Posts: 5,756 ✭✭✭
    I certainily never heard of such a thing. I've ripped a few of these sets in the past - and I do not specifically recall any missing cards.

    All that being said - there are a *number* of cards from the set that have only 5, 6 or 7 examples graded. So finding a specific card that only has three examples graded isn't what I would call an outlier. There appear to be only three people currently putting this set together in graded form [with Vintage Corvette having two complete sets]. But there just is not enough data to make any conclusions here. I do not think it was generally missing from factory sets.

    ~ms
    I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
  • WinPitcherWinPitcher Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
    I never heard that either and I sold many of those sets back in 84/85

    Steve
    Good for you.
  • helionauthelionaut Posts: 1,555 ✭✭
    I think it's more likely the low pop results from a) chronic condition problems and/or b) why would you grade a Mike Fitzgerald? I'm just guessing here, but those are the most common reasons for low pops in established sets. That is, until someone pays $100 for one, then they come out of the woodwork. There are uncut sheets of this set floating around, so if anyone has seen them maybe the placement of the card could illuminate.
    WANTED:
    2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
    2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
    Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs

    Nothing on ebay
  • Thanks for the info guys. I appreciate it. The PSA Population Report is probably a bad way to gauge if this card was missing from some factory sets. But I did read this somewhere in my web surfing. I guess, this card could be missing from some sets and nobody would notice anyway, unless they went through the set and opened it and checked the cards number by number. Mike Fitzgerald seemed to get a bad rap in the 1984 sets. I have also been told that his 1984 Donruss card is next to impossible to find in high-grade.
  • between 84 and 94, I opened probably 50 of these sets..(YES...before PSA..&*%##$)...I always took out the stars and tossed the rest of the set....never checked one for completeness.

    Oh to turn back the clock!!
  • mikeschmidtmikeschmidt Posts: 5,756 ✭✭✭


    << <i> Mike Fitzgerald seemed to get a bad rap in the 1984 sets. I have also been told that his 1984 Donruss card is next to impossible to find in high-grade. >>



    There are four graded examples by PSA - three eights and one nine. Given that there are still some examples from the 1984 Donruss set where only one example is graded - I'm not sure on that one, either.
    I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
  • PlayBallPlayBall Posts: 463 ✭✭✭
    I can't really help you with whether the card is missing in some sets, but I can shed some light on the POP report. For basically all of the commons, myself and Matt Alderman ARE the population report. He graded two of every card to have two sets. This is the reason you see some 5-7's in the POP report. Most of the rest of the cards were submitted by me.

    The two most difficult cards from my experience are #100 Robinson and #112 Summers. No specific flaw, just something wrong with all of them. With Fitzgerald and Richards, I got 9's on my first try so I didn't bother submitting any more. But the other two were elusive, so I submitted more of them trying to get a 9. That is why you see higher "total" POP numbers for those cards. Also, the POP's on those cards have not changed since August 2003, so it's not like any other wackos like me are bothering to submit them. Basically, the total POP numbers in this set (for commons) are directed related to how my sets progressed.

    And I still have a crapload sitting around.image
    Bernie Carlen



    Currently collecting.....your guess is as good as mine.
Sign In or Register to comment.