Who spells his name correctly? Cochrane himself or PSA??

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2793547360&category=55917" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2793547360&category=55917</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Dan, most of us know of your dislike for PSA, but when you start a thread about another PSA gaff, please make sure that truely is one. Callahan mispelled Cochrane's name. PSA just coppied it the way it is spelled on the card, which they seem to fail to do quite often.<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris (the illini)</b><p>Dan, I understand your reasons for hating PSA, but posting every mistake PSA ever makes becomes a little redundant after a while...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Reid Bruce</b><p>A little off subject, but I sent a 1916 Holsum Bread card to SGC for grading and first received it back misidentified. I sent it back again and received an identification as a 1916 Holsum Bread E121. I wasn't aware that the E121 set was from 1916. (I think the proper set identification, if there is one, would be Collins-McCarthy, even though the Holsum cards are unnumbered.) Am I wrong on this? Any comments?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Jay, PSA labelled it "correct spelling" with the E yet the slabbed card is clearly the error w/o the "E". <br><br>Chris, Sorry for the redundencie but it helps make me feel a little better so please just do not read them or send me $6000.00 and I will stop exploiting how PATHETIC they are.<br><br>Please do not tell me you know how I feel unless you have had this amount of money taken away from you by sheer negligence. Thanks for your understanding. Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris (the illini)</b><p>Dan, I did not say I know how you feel. I said I understood why you hated PSA. Big difference. <BR><BR>If it makes you feel better to repeatedly point out errors made by PSA on a baseball card message board, then have at it. I will take your advice and ignore your posts.<BR><BR>Take care,<BR><BR>Chris

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Thanks Chris, I appreciate that. Sorry to misunderstand you, I am buzzing off of cold medicine. If you will notice, I am also the one that posted the mserably overgraded SGC George C Miller card. I had a gem I sent in and received a 5 EX from them, it was a Gehringer and it is MUCH nicer. I sold it to Mitch Rosen, Mitch if you are reading, could you post a scan of the SGC EX Gehringer? Thanks again.<br><br>Now so that this post isn't a complete waste to the board, a little information/education....The CORRECT spelling of Cochrane is MUCH tougher than the error. The standard catalog has the error as being more expensive but that is completely wrong.<br><Br>The error was printed first with the mass production of all of the more common callahans that you see. The fix or correct spelling came with the later release with all of the short prints like the Dimaggio and chandler. Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd (nolemmings)</b><p>PSA takes the time to research or otherwise knows that there are two variations of this card, one with correct spelling and one without. Then they can't get it right? How hard is it to look at the name on the flip and compare it to the card within the slab? You don't even have to know how to spell his name to see that the two don't match. I have no problem with Dan pointing out such buffoonery wherever/whenever it is found. It seems Cochrane is the Irish word for Hermanski.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Hey Reid,<BR>My feeling on the Holsum Bread card is it should be 1921/22 W575-1/D-unc..(and is how I personally catalogue them)..that tells me what size it is and what type of advertising it is......we've actually had this discussion before and I forget what the exact outcome was but I remember Brian P had the best hypothesis....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd (nolemmings)</b><p>I don't know why the last SCD big book "re-classified" Holsums to 1917, and what is meant by it being called a "subset" of Collins-McCarthy. Perhaps Mr. Lemke can share this with us. For one thing, his exemplar in the book--Ping Bodie-is clearly not a Collins-McCarthy design, for it lacks the distinct background, or lack of background, found in that set. While some later card sets borrowed from this design, no CMs use a "regular" background. More curiously, Ping Bodie is captioned as playing for the Washington Americans, a team for which he never played. Strange.<BR> The partial checklist provided is not really determinative either. I believe the players listed played for the same teams in 1917 as 1920-21, the exceptions being Jack Barry, who didn't play at all after 1919, and Cicotte, who of course didn't play after 1920. This might help better define when w575 or maybe e121 were issued, or might mean nothing, but I don't think it establishes a 1917 issue date. Looking at my Holsum Dave Bancroft (batting), it has a CM background but lists him as a Giant, where he did not play until mid-1920. So I think it's safer to keep Holsum as a w575 or e121 variant, like it used to be listed, unless there's more info out there that shows otherwise.<BR>Todd

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Reid</b><p>What further adds to my confusion is that I have a J. Carlisle Smith (aka Red Smith) Boston N.L. Holsum which matches the CM set...and Smith didn't play after 1919. It's definitely a confusing set.<BR><BR>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>brian p</b><p>Because of that great search feature, I was able to dredge up my thoughts on the D/W thing. I sure seem unnaturally coherent back then--perhaps it was when I was employing a ghostwriter.<BR><BR><a href="http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=153652&messageid=1071543424&lp=1071547281" target=_new>http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=153652&messageid=1071543424&lp=1071547281</a><BR><BR>Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob Lemke</b><p>I'll revisit the matter prior to the 2005 book. If you have any checklist additions, pelase share them now; it may help pinpoint date of issue.