OK- I'll take my lumps on this '54 SI issue

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd (nolemmings)</b><p>Take it easy on me, please. I was wondering whether SGC would/should grade these, and if so, why not?<BR><BR>I had a chance years ago to pick up real cheap a first edition SI with the card foldout, where part of the magazine and one entire row or column (I forget) of "cards" was mangled. I wondered what would be wrong with carefully cutting the remaining "cards". I doubted there would ever be a market for it, but thought that kids "back in the day" may have done this, and also thought they looked pretty cool. My "thou shall never deface an original, no matter what condition" values took hold, and I walked away.<BR><BR>Still, seems to me that these "cards" were intended to be cut from the sheet. SGC grades bazooka and post issues that have been cut, and even '71 Milk Duds cut from the box. In 1962, Maris and Mantle had their post cereal cards included on a special two-card panel in a magazine, and I know I've seen the Maris example graded by SGC and labeled as coming from the magazine. I may be wrong, but I also believe that the '41 Playball paper version has been graded, which clearly would have been cut from the sheet. <BR><BR>Don't get me wrong, I do not approve of NASA or AAA or whatever. It does appear to me however, that the '54 SI cards are completely different than cutting photos out of an old Reach or Spalding guide. So again, I ask, should/does SGC grade this issue?<BR><BR>Regards...........Todd

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David</b><p>Todd, I agree with you. Though it can be debated whether or not these are real cards like Posts or Bazooka, I suspect that SI at least half-expected that kids might cut up the sheet into singles. As cards had nil value and the magazine itself was a throw away like today's newspaper, I'm sure they didn't care one way or the other what the kids did with it. There's the matter of current value and aesthetics of the 'singles' but there's nothing morally wrong with selling them as singles as long as they are represented as such. Obviously, value-wise the best thing is to keep the entire magazine intact-- but the same could be said for Bazooka and Post boxes.<BR><BR>The big debate was whether or not someone could sneak in the modern reprints as say the were vintage.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David</b><p>Simularly, other than aesthics and destruction of a magazine, I don't think most of us would object to Libertyforall if he advertised his 'cards' as "I bought an old Reach guide, took my scissors and cut out the picture from page 112. Please see my other auctions where I have clippings from pages 115 and 7." It's not so much what you sell, but whether or not you represent it accurately and sincerly.<BR><BR>Frankly, if an old coot came up to me with an Aaron Rookie he had cut from a sheet as a teenager, I'd probably pay a few bucks for it. Obviously not Aaron's real 54 Topps or 54 Johnston Cookies, but at the least an interesting odd ball.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David</b><p>Lastly, if I did buy that cutout single from the old coot (have to be careful as my dad, who occaionally has access to my computer, is an old coot), you can bet that I would offer the Aaron for sale (at profit)-- likely as part of the sales accompanying by 'authenticity' newsletters. It would probably service as a lead in to a little article on how to identify reprint versus original, but I would have no problem offering it for sale. What price is another question.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>The reprints of issue #1 may have discouraged him, though.