Kelloggs on the SMR

Guffy

Why don't we start a campaign to get Kellogg's cards on the SMR. I realize there is not enough interest and/or population to do all of the sets, but certainly 1970 and 1971 Baseball are worthy.
Any interest? What can we do to get PSA to move in this direction? I would like to see 1970 Football on the SMR as well. Am I alone?

zardoz51

of course not! You are not alone.

However, in one of my previous posts, I did ramble on as to how I feel that the SMR would not reflect the true market for these cards.

thegemmintman

Guffy, you're definitely not alone. Zardoz and I discussed this recently as well.

I e-mailed Joe Orlando a couple of times on this last year. He seemed very open to the idea and asked me to remind him at a later date. I never did because he moved up the hierarchy at PSA, was busier than usual, and I didn't want to nag him. Also I'm lazy.

Let's all e-mail him in the next couple of days. His e-mail is "Joe@collectors.com"

Key Points:

If the 1968 Topps 3-D with only 260 total cards graded is in the SMR every month then the 1970 Kellogg's 3-D with over 5,000 cards graded and a much wider collector base has to be also. The 1971 Kellogg's has over 700 cards graded and is the toughest Kellogg's issue. The 1970 Kellogg's Football has almost 500 cards graded and should be given admission to the SMR as well.

I only collect the 1970 Kellogg's baseball, but I would be happy to plug the two other sets for you.

They only need to list PSA 8, 9 and 10 SMR values only. Stars mostly. I could provide some estimates on values if he is willing to go forward with this idea.

Any other thoughts?

thegemmintman

Zardoz, are you concerned that the SMR would price these cards too low or too high?

thegemmintman

'71 Kellogg's Seaver PSA 10 just closed at $900.

zardoz51

Gemmint

To be honest, I would like to see them listed in the SMR however I feel that they will not do the cards justice in pricing, and price the stars at high levels while lumping the commons into the usual category and singular price. I'm certain that the two of us have paid substantially more for some of the commons than we did the stars in 9's.

If I may copy what I've stated in a previous post:

It is with great amusement that we see PSA 10's of this issue, even in such prestigious auction houses as Superior, with starting bids of $50, as if they are hoping to get 100-125 per. When these cards sell in the $300-$600 range, surely they must get the message. As to why this set is not listed in the SMR, does it really make a difference? I'm sure that they will not value these cards at the same levels that the free market dictates. Though, in a way, it would be nice to see a listing in the SMR to give the set the "credibility" that already exists within the collecting community. It would merely reinforce what we already know.

Guffy

By the way, I was surprised you didn't go after that card. I was guessing it would go for $1100

thegemmintman

Guffy - I only collect the '70 Kellogg's Baseball, but you never know when I may jump on a Kellogg's card outside of that set .

mikeschmidt

Why can't the SMR just have a grouping of about a dozen sets that it continually rotates through the SMR every three months or so.

I am sure that the printing costs are their concern. So why don't they take a bunch of these perceived "lesser" sets, and spotlight a few of them on one page of the SMR every three months. That way they wouldn't be so concerned about the cost of putting in Kelloggs pricing every month -- but it would be in periodically so others could track their prices.

thegemmintman

Mikeschmidt - I understand what you're saying, but I don't really agree with it. Look at the '68 Topps 3-D set with 260 total cards graded. How many collectors are actually putting that set together - very few. Now look at the '70 Kellogg's 3-D set with over 5,000 graded. There are a slew of people collecting that set and submitting those cards. I realize full well that it's value doesn't even approach the '68 Topps, but why should the set be on a rotating basis in the SMR when there are so many more collectors to the set that could use the information monthly?

A set with over 5,000 cards graded deserves to be in the SMR monthly, plain and simple. It's just good business to put it in the SMR.

Zardoz - should we tell him the news?

zardoz51

I don't suppose that it would hurt.

I do agree with your statement in regard to the frequency issue. If ever a set deserved to be listed on a monthly basis, it would be the 70K in light of the large number of cards graded, an ever growing collector base for the set, and the daily "trade" in this issue.

mikeschmidt

thegemmintman:

I always do respect your opinions, but I do disagree with your comparison. 1968 Topps 3-D Roberto Clemente cards in PSA 10 have sold for in excess of $25,000 in the past. Just because the cards in that set are high-priced does not mean that people aren't collecting it. It means more that the supply isn't there.

It becomes an interesting issue I guess. But I think that SMR should try to balance a) card value and b) card availability.

There is no sense in my mind for SMR ever to include the Plow's Candy set. There simply is not enough of them, despite having strong value. However, I think it is important.

For example, PSA has only encapsulated 3,300 T205 Gold Border cards. You will never convince me or anyone else that they are less important than 1970s Kelloggs, simply because more Kelloggs have been graded.

And part of my objection is this: I actually do think that 1970 Kelloggs should be included. However, I think that it becomes a slippery slope as to what to include and what not to include. I can think of a dozen Kelloggs sets off the top of my head. Once you get one in -- others will want the rest. And I do not think that the SMR ever will intend to be a publication that has a *huge* pricing guide of all cards that are actively traded.

Again, my suggestion is to include 1970 Kelloggs -- but draw the line there. Or, better yet: Have one page in each month's SMR of rotating sets. And have all of those rotating sets available on the SMR Online. That way, anyone that wants the info. can access it, but the concern about costs is not so prevalent.

I think the SMR has many problems -- and as a business man, I assume that offering something new will come at a cost of taking something away. Personally, I don't think the sets included/excluded from SMR are its biggest issues to address right now. Solve the problem by offering the prices online but not in the monthly periodical. Thus spoke Zarathustra.

zardoz51

Whereas the Topps 68 3-D's have had the credibility attached to them owing to their provenance, the Kelloggs have always been considered to be the "redheaded stepchildren" of the 3-D world. IMHO

thegemmintman

Mikeschmidt, I would never suggest that the T205 Gold Border cards are less important or less deserving than the '70 Kellogg's. Such a notion would be ludicrous.

I'm only suggesting that it's simple economics. The '70 Kellogg's 3-D set has a much broader following than the 68 Topps 3-D. I'm trying to compare a Red Delicious Apple with a Macintosh Apple. In other words 3-D only. It's extremely obvious to me that the '70 Kellogg's 3-D has made far more money in submission fees for PSA than the '68 Topps 3-D ever will. There is still a ton of Kellogg's cards in all years out there to be graded whereas the 68 Topps 3-D is a rare find in any condition.

Of course people collect the 68 Topps 3-D. I never said they didn't. It's a very rare an unique card. But what's more important from PSA's standpoint, letting Charles Merkel and a couple of other people see how much their Clemente PSA 10 is supposedly worth each month or provide information to the masses that are submitting tons of cards every month and making PSA a lot of money?

I respect your opinion a lot. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject.

BTW, I certainly don't think that all the Kellogg's sets should be in the SMR.