Recent Legendary Auctions Shipment
jgrigali
Posts: 364 ✭✭
Just bought a 1954 bowman set from legendary auctions, lot #72 in the november auction...get it in today, it's missing #32 del crandall, and check out this ted williams
Should I have known better when they didn't include a scan or mention the 2nd biggest card in the set? I sent them an email, tried to leave a voice mail but i need the "partys extension" to leave one...
Unreal
Should I have known better when they didn't include a scan or mention the 2nd biggest card in the set? I sent them an email, tried to leave a voice mail but i need the "partys extension" to leave one...
Unreal
0
Comments
Keep us updated on the response and resolution from them. That is ridiculous.
My eBay Auctions
My PSA Sets
~WalterSobchak
If the Ted Williams card was included AND real...you can best believe Legendary would have mentioned it. My guess is, they did not make mention of it, because the card was not real, and just included for the owners sake. If the card was not mentioned, I would not have expected to receive it. If Jimmy Piersall (the alternative) was included, then you really don't have a case here.
<< <i>Not to defend them, but nowhere in this auction does it make mention of the Ted Williams card being included. Was the Jimmy Piersall card included? >>
Bobby makes a good point. (did I just say that?)
http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=160088
But it still should have been mentioned that the Williams card was not included in the "complete set".
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
My original comment directly above Bobby's has been deleted.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
On the PSA Registry, the 1954 Bowman Basic Set does include both Williams and Piersall. The Master sets has the 40+ variation cards also.
Either way, Legendary should have mentioned the Williams card was not included.
James
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
This lot is fine as stands.
Rich
I'm not educated on the big deal of if the Piersall card is included or not. What's the deal with that particular card making up for no Williams?
In my opinion if you state complete set it should be complete unless otherwise stated.
If there is some strange rule then it should be noted. Not every buyer has complete historical knowledge of every set . If you are a seller you have a responsibility to educate your buyers , clients, customers. That is how a good business runs and takes care of their customers. It's good for business when everyone is happy
To me it seems even stranger that the Ted Williams card was what it was.. What the heck ?
<< <i>A complete set is a complete set no? That means every card right ? Not this card is not here if this card is here or if the moon is not full or the sun shines a certain way.
In my opinion if you state complete set it should be complete unless otherwise stated.
If there is some strange rule then it should be noted. Not every buyer has complete historical knowledge of every set . If you are a seller you have a responsibility to educate your buyers , clients, customers. That is how a good business runs and takes care of their customers. It's good for business when everyone is happy
To me it seems even stranger that the Ted Williams card was what it was.. What the heck ? >>
A complete set is 244 cards with the #66 being the Jimmy Piersall (he's also card #210 in the set). The set IS complete at 244 sans the #66 Williams. I've seen T206 Sets sold minus the Big-4 with facsimiles of the Wagner, Maggie, Plank and Doyle. Many sets are considered complete minus certain shortprints or variations. It is a case of knowing what you're buying and asking questions if unsure...
IMO, this is somewhat similar to j@ckoff$ on Ebay that list 1979-80 Topps Complete Hockey Set and then in the description write (only missing one card, #18). But at least they say it somewhere.
I would be interested to see how people would feel if this was the 1963 Fleer Set and the Checklist was there but the Joe Ad***k was not, or vice versa, and the Seller said "complete set". Both cards are SPs and replacement cards for the other, so to speak.
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
<< <i>I'm not educated on the big deal of if the Piersall card is included or not. What's the deal with that particular card making up for no Williams? >>
this particular set has TWO #66 cards. The rare and most valuable Ted Williams and his replacement, Jimmy Piersall. They are BOTH #66. If Williams was included instead of Piersall, it would have been noted, and the bidding would have went a lot higher. Since no mention was made, if I was bidding on the set, I would NOT have expected to received the Ted Williams card.
<< <i>
<< <i>A complete set is a complete set no? That means every card right ? Not this card is not here if this card is here or if the moon is not full or the sun shines a certain way.
In my opinion if you state complete set it should be complete unless otherwise stated.
If there is some strange rule then it should be noted. Not every buyer has complete historical knowledge of every set . If you are a seller you have a responsibility to educate your buyers , clients, customers. That is how a good business runs and takes care of their customers. It's good for business when everyone is happy
To me it seems even stranger that the Ted Williams card was what it was.. What the heck ? >>
A complete set is 244 cards with the #66 being the Jimmy Piersall (he's also card #210 in the set). The set IS complete at 244 sans the #66 Williams. I've seen T206 Sets sold minus the Big-4 with facsimiles of the Wagner, Maggie, Plank and Doyle. Many sets are considered complete minus certain shortprints or variations. It is a case of knowing what you're buying and asking questions if unsure... >>
not really complete if there is another card in the set right ? How can you say you a complete set of something and be missing a card ?
Makes no sense to me.
<< <i>not really complete if there is another card in the set right ? How can you say you a complete set of something and be missing a card ?
Makes no sense to me. >>
When it's pretty standard knowledge, or easy to look up (from Beckett.com, no subscription required to view checklists & descriptions):
The cards in this 224-card set measure approximately 2 1/2" by 3 3/4". The set was distributed in two separate series: 1-128 in first series and 129-224 in second series. A contractual problem apparently resulted in the deletion of the number 66 Ted Williams card from this Bowman set, thereby creating a scarcity that is highly valued among collectors. The set price below does NOT include number 66 Williams but does include number 66 Jim Piersall, the apparent replacement for Williams in spite of the fact that Piersall was already number 210 to appear later in the set. Many errors in players' statistics exist (and some were corrected) while a few players' names were printed on the front, instead of appearing as a facsimile autograph. Most of these differences are so minor that there is no price differential for either card. The cards which changes were made on are numbers 12, 22,25,26,35,38,41,43,47,53,61,67,80,81,82,85,93,94,99,103,105,124,138,139, 140,145,153,156,174,179,185,212,216 and 217. The set was issued in seven-card nickel packs and one-card penny packs. The penny packs were issued 120 to a box while the nickel packs were issued 24 to a box. The notable Rookie Cards in this set are Harvey Kuenn and Don Larsen.
The 'complete' set is with Piersall (1-224), the 'master' set includes Williams and all variations. There are hundreds of sets like this, 1969 Deckle Edge is complete w/o the SPs, 1972 Topps baseball is complete without all the yellow/green variations, etc. IMHO, the set was listed appropriately, but as others have said, mentioning the Williams was not included for clarification would have helped out those not familiar with the nuances. Still, if I'm bidding that much, I would clarify before bidding, not after the item is received.
Good feedback in this thread.
CU Ancient Members badge member.
Collection: https://flickr.com/photos/185200668@N06/albums
<< <i>The set, as opposed to the master set (including all variations, errors, etc), is considered complete without the Williams. And the description neither mentions nor pictures the Williams, as it certainly would have if it was included. Bidders should have deduced that the Williams was not included. However, I agree with the others that it would have been best if they noted the Williams card was not included, to avoid confusion. "The set is considered complete without the scarce Ted Williams variation." If I auctioned a 1987 OPC set on eBay, I would note that the issue does not have a Barry Bonds card, as some might idly assume it might. I wouldn't be in the wrong if I didn't note that a card that doesn't exist isn't included, but would think it prudent. You have to anticipate what bidders will be thinking.
I once sold a wirephoto and the winner said he thought he would be getting a slide. I didn't feel amiss that I didn't include in the eBay description that the winner would not be getting a slide. Same as if he said he was expecting a toaster. >>
I own several 1987 OPC Bonds RC's.
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
<< <i>
<< <i>The set, as opposed to the master set (including all variations, errors, etc), is considered complete without the Williams. And the description neither mentions nor pictures the Williams, as it certainly would have if it was included. Bidders should have deduced that the Williams was not included. However, I agree with the others that it would have been best if they noted the Williams card was not included, to avoid confusion. "The set is considered complete without the scarce Ted Williams variation." If I auctioned a 1987 OPC set on eBay, I would note that the issue does not have a Barry Bonds card, as some might idly assume it might. I wouldn't be in the wrong if I didn't note that a card that doesn't exist isn't included, but would think it prudent. You have to anticipate what bidders will be thinking.
I once sold a wirephoto and the winner said he thought he would be getting a slide. I didn't feel amiss that I didn't include in the eBay description that the winner would not be getting a slide. Same as if he said he was expecting a toaster. >>
I own several 1987 OPC Bonds RC's. >>
I think that was the wrong Barry, Bonds is in, Larkin is not.
<< <i>
<< <i>not really complete if there is another card in the set right ? How can you say you a complete set of something and be missing a card ?
Makes no sense to me. >>
When it's pretty standard knowledge, or easy to look up (from Beckett.com, no subscription required to view checklists & descriptions):
The cards in this 224-card set measure approximately 2 1/2" by 3 3/4". The set was distributed in two separate series: 1-128 in first series and 129-224 in second series. A contractual problem apparently resulted in the deletion of the number 66 Ted Williams card from this Bowman set, thereby creating a scarcity that is highly valued among collectors. The set price below does NOT include number 66 Williams but does include number 66 Jim Piersall, the apparent replacement for Williams in spite of the fact that Piersall was already number 210 to appear later in the set. Many errors in players' statistics exist (and some were corrected) while a few players' names were printed on the front, instead of appearing as a facsimile autograph. Most of these differences are so minor that there is no price differential for either card. The cards which changes were made on are numbers 12, 22,25,26,35,38,41,43,47,53,61,67,80,81,82,85,93,94,99,103,105,124,138,139, 140,145,153,156,174,179,185,212,216 and 217. The set was issued in seven-card nickel packs and one-card penny packs. The penny packs were issued 120 to a box while the nickel packs were issued 24 to a box. The notable Rookie Cards in this set are Harvey Kuenn and Don Larsen.
The 'complete' set is with Piersall (1-224), the 'master' set includes Williams and all variations. There are hundreds of sets like this, 1969 Deckle Edge is complete w/o the SPs, 1972 Topps baseball is complete without all the yellow/green variations, etc. IMHO, the set was listed appropriately, but as others have said, mentioning the Williams was not included for clarification would have helped out those not familiar with the nuances. Still, if I'm bidding that much, I would clarify before bidding, not after the item is received. >>
i think variations are different than missing players. Yeah sure there is two different but why would they just clearly say no williams , easy enough. I dont expect anyone to state variation of colors or errors not included thats senseless , but if there is a player card that is not included that should always be stated.
Not everyone is educated in sets. As a business standpoint, I do not understand why you would not do it. You could easily get a chargeback , and lose.
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
<< <i>i think variations are different than missing players. Yeah sure there is two different but why would they just clearly say no williams , easy enough. I dont expect anyone to state variation of colors or errors not included thats senseless , but if there is a player card that is not included that should always be stated.
Not everyone is educated in sets. As a business standpoint, I do not understand why you would not do it. You could easily get a chargeback , and lose. >>
Try buying a 'complete' 1972 Topps FB set, most all of them are missing the entire 3rd series, some w/no mention either way and you can tell by the price which it is ($300-400 w/o, $3000+ w). Before dropping over a grand on a set, I'd sure as heck become educated.
<< <i>I'm not educated on the big deal of if the Piersall card is included or not. What's the deal with that particular card making up for no Williams? >>
The Piersall was the replacement card #66 (same as Williams) when the Williams was pulled. Set is complete with 224 cards (as auction said). Would it have been in their best interest to say NO WILLIAMS. You betcha.
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
http://www.psacard.com/PSASetRegistry/SetComposition.aspx?c=640