PDA

View Full Version : Uncatalogued cards


Archive
01-06-2005, 03:48 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>With collectors paying large premiums for uncatalogued cards many collectors are now reluctant to expose recent finds of unctalogued cards becuase the subsequent listing of these cards would devalue them. I'm in that position myself. I have 2 uncatalogued cards, but won't mention them here or even what set they are from becuase I want to protect their value. But the collector and historian in me wants to bring these cards into the open so that others know they exist.<br /><br />The n173 thread brings up a good point, when an uncatalogued card does come to light, they are listed but the value of card is list the same as similar cards, regardless of the fact that this is the only example to exist. How can the price guides claim to use sales price to come up with values when they obviously don't reflect it in cards like this. I'd love to hear from Mr Lemke as to why this happens?<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Archive
01-06-2005, 04:51 AM
Posted By: <b>Joe_G.</b><p>Some sets, such as Gypsy Queens, contain many uncatalogued cards but as mentioned little or no premiums are placed on them when added to the price guide. Value should really depend on how mature the checklist for the card in question is. Gypsy Queens are known to have a very incomplete listing. Uncatalogued N173 players (sometimes just certain poses of players) are still surfacing from time to time. <br /><br />Many of the catalogued N173 cards of common players are unique themselves yet carry no premium on price since being listed 5, 10, 20, 50 years ago. Collecting a complete set of N173s would be futile and thus many common player cards don't carry a huge premium. You can always inform potential customer that the card you have is responsible for adding another card/pose to the checklist and take that angle. If the seller really wants the card in question, you can set the price and see if he/she bites on a premium. An N173 HOFer (typically a more popular player) would be different from a common as on average they were requested in higher numbers and saved over the years so it is less likely a new pose of a popular player from 1888/89 would surface. If so, such as a new N173 Kelly pose, a significant premium would likely be realized.<br /><br />In the case of a more mature checklist such as T206 etc., an uncatalogued card would be a gold mine.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Joe Gonsowski

Archive
01-06-2005, 07:21 AM
Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>Won't they be worth more as catalogued, but one-of-a-kind?

Archive
01-06-2005, 09:04 AM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>I am with Jay on this one, I have several uncataloged cards and entire issues. I have had to pay a high premium to get most because they are uncataloged. I won't dare have them cataloged, it is like throwing money out of the window while going down the freeway. Actually, I am very careful not to mention them to Bob or Lyman. Leon I believe shares this point with me too.<br><br><br /><br />However, I did have 1 issue cataloged but I waited 10 years before I did and I made sure I owned all that was known of it. And you can throw those prices right out the window on the 1894 Alpha Baltimore cards.

Archive
01-06-2005, 09:06 AM
Posted By: <b>Reid Bruce</b><p>With really rare sets (which is where you are going to find most of the valuable uncataloged cards), isn't it reasonable to assume that many of the "listed" cards are also one or two of a kind finds. As such, the value of your uncataloged card really is the same as the cataloged cards because both are equally rare. Also, don't forget that value is determined by a sellers willingness to pay, not the price listed in a guide. If you wish to sell a rare card for which there is a limited market, try to sell it for what you think it is worth, not what the guide says. Ultimately, it serves the hobby to have previously unlisted cards become listed because it contributes to the knowledge base of collectors.

Archive
01-06-2005, 09:14 AM
Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>I know that I try here to not price cards which are recently discovered and no market information is gathered on yet. If only one or two copies are known, I believe in not putting in a price -- if more surface, then prices can be notated.<br /><br />However, knowing they exist usually can only help as in most cases as then collectors who use advanced tools for their collections can put those cards on a want list. If you don't know about a card, you do not need it.<br /><br />I do see both arguments on the subject but I honestly have always believed that (and this was even before I came to work here at Beckett) that once a card is known and "validated" in a price guide software and known to exist you have a far better chance of selling said card.<br /><br />Rich

Archive
01-06-2005, 10:06 AM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Rich, I must completely disagree with you. Many of the collectors on this board are advanced and have alot of what they are looking for. If an uncataloged card appears in an issue that they collect, it will sell just as well as if it were cataloged and probably better.<br /><br /><br /><br />Now I have a few uncataloged cards of known issues, would you pay me triple the listed price for a comparable already cataloged card and then have the new one cataloged? Your new card will be cataloged at the price of the other comparable cards in that issue and you will immediately be in the red with your purchase. Dan.

Archive
01-06-2005, 10:25 AM
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>you sell off book price. i've found both ways work. uncataloged can sell for a premium...but you need to know your buyers. <br /><br />on the other hand, buyers come looking for cataloged cards. if demand outweighs supply, who says you should sell at book value?<br /><br />overcoming a low "book" value just takes some patience, the buyer will come back eventually if there is no other source.<br /><br /><br />

Archive
01-06-2005, 10:36 AM
Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>One of the other pts to mention is that, what happens to your cards if you are not here anymore to explain the whole story beyond them.<br /><br />If you have uncatalogued cards, what happens when you pass on and its up to your relatives. Trust me, it's easier when there is a catalog listing for a frame of reference.<br /><br />Rich<br /><br />P.S&gt; I had something better written the 1st time but it seemed to vanish into thin air

Archive
01-06-2005, 10:56 AM
Posted By: <b>Ray</b><p>with the idea of "hiding" it. I know it depends on what type of collector you are. I collect for enjoyment, not investment. I like the look of a T206 beater more than a T206 that would grade a PSA8. I think by hiding it, you are hurting fellow collectors who are trying to learn more about the sets they collect. If I spent years collecting a set that I believed only had 220 cards in it and once I finshed, it was discovered years later that someone had another 5 cards that were one-of-a-kind and they purposely never shared that info with their colleagues, I'd be a little annoyed. I understand your point of view, its an investment, and I can see where you guys are coming from. I'm not saying its wrong... but from my end, I would see it as taking away from the joy of pre-war collecting.

Archive
01-06-2005, 10:57 AM
Posted By: <b>Glen V</b><p>While I look for hard to find type cards, if a card isn't in the SCD, I'm not willing to pay a fortune for it. There can be questions of whether it is a recently printed collector issue, a newly stamped back on an old card, some poster/notebook cutout that really shouldn't be worth much, or just some fake. Once it gets put in the SCD, it gives the issue more legitamacy and I'm more inclined to add it to my want list.<br /><br />If the cards are in the SCD but are pretty rare, I don't put much weight on a card being uncataloged. Lots of N173 Old Judges, Leader Candy, Old Mill Cabinets, etc. listed in the SCD might be one-of-a-kind cards, and its known that the checklists are incomplete and new cards can be added anyday (especially when collectors reveal what they have).<br /><br />If I found a new T206, E107, etc., then I can see the premium for an uncat card and would never let its existance be known until I sold it.<br /><br />

Archive
01-06-2005, 11:06 AM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Rich, I hope I am hanging around for awhile. I guess I am the only sucker who pays higher for uncataloged cards. I must agree it is better for the hobby to have them cataloged and I am primarily a collector and not an investor but I am not an idiot so if I pay $300 for a card, then have it cataloged and it becomes $100 like the other commons in the set, well then I would be an idiot.

Archive
01-06-2005, 11:25 AM
Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>You would know that I do my best with recently found cards <i>NOT</i> to price them as there is no market history so they don't go into our price guide as priced.<br /><br />In addition, I always try in the informational blurbs to mention that new cards were discovered for said set,...<br /><br />Having said that, there is one more pt I would like to make. If Burdick, Barker, et. al. had not wanted to share information, would we even have a hobby today?<br /><br />Regards<br />Rich

Archive
01-06-2005, 11:36 AM
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>I think uncatalogued cards carry a premium, but only because they are unique. That characteristic applies regardless of whether its on the checklist or not. In fact, the highest value for these cards is to the folks who are putting sets together. I don't think there would be a difference in price between a unique, checklisted California League N172 and a unique, unchecklisted one. Cards like this don't trade on "book" value anyway. The same people want it. The supply is the same. In a bizarre way, letting people know it exists should increase demand for the card.<br /><br />I came clean on some important uncatalogued cards because I thought it was selfish to keep them a secret. This is a hobby after all, right? I may have lost the ability to jam them to someone unknowledgable, but anyone interested in buying them would appreciate their rarity. <br /><br />

Archive
01-06-2005, 12:02 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Rich, back when Burdick and those gents cataloged this stuff, nothing was worth anything so that is a terrible example. Money ruins alot of things, at least I think so, can anyone with money vouch for this? Does Beckett catalog anything prior to 1948? Dan.

Archive
01-06-2005, 01:02 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I pretty much completely agree with you however, (don't ya hate the howevers?)when I first got the Western Playgrounds Rich asked if he could see them and catalogue them. I said yes.......but otherwise I do agree with you. The other point was brought up that is valid too in that if they are catalogued then they could actually become more valuable because then they are "checklisted" and people will put them on their want lists. I think I have helped Mr. Lemke on a few occasions ( Holmes-to-Homes, E94 overprints etc..) but still have a few I am not making known.....so I guess I don't know what the hell I think <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> later

Archive
01-06-2005, 01:13 PM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>It doesn't matter what the book says on rare cards; we all pay what the market demands to get our grubby little mitts on them. <br /><br />I have never been one to hold back information on an issue I've "discovered" (and I've found a lot of them in the boxing card field) and I'd hope that no one else would so so either. A prior post is right on--what if Burdick held back information? The key to creating a legitimate market for these little treasures is information. I simply don't think you pay a penalty for having an undiscovered item catalogued. To the contrary, information is publicity--it spreads interest to those who'd not otherwise look at the item. There is no intrinsic value to these things--if no one knows they exist then there is no desire for the cards and there is no value. <br /><br />

Archive
01-06-2005, 01:14 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>That is cool Leon, I know what I think and I learned the hard way. I basically paid to have a few things cataloged. Dano

Archive
01-06-2005, 01:42 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Really Adam?? That uncataloged strip common that Scott Gaynor posted here did darn well at over $1000 when most strips command a lot less. That uncataloged E-card of Wagner that David Bryan recently ebay'd did alot better than comparable Wagner E-cards of the era. Dan.

Archive
01-06-2005, 02:09 PM
Posted By: <b>andy becker</b><p>dan: i would agree with adam's point that having a card <br />cataloged is free advertising, and increases awareness and desire. <br />the sales you are referencing are high, but how high could they have gone with the proper advertisement? what if the owner had them cataloged, and none came for sale for 5 years? would you pass an item you had been looking for for 5 years? i wouldn't.<br />patience, patience.

Archive
01-06-2005, 02:17 PM
Posted By: <b>Reid Bruce</b><p>Dan,<br /><br />Couldn't it just as easily be said that the rarity of the cards, combined with the fact that they were "one of a kind", caused the sales figures to be so high? I would hate to be the buyer of the cards you mentioned if the concealment theory is true because now both the Wagner and the strip must necessarily be worth less than they were at the time of the initial sale. Basically, what you are saying is that for an unknown card, the first sale is the top of the curve and its all downhill from there. Does the market show this theory to be true?

Archive
01-06-2005, 02:34 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>I feel it will retain its value if it stays uncataloged. Just my opinion. I think those 2 cards would bring as much or more if sold again as long as they were not cataloged. Dan.

Archive
01-06-2005, 02:50 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Great debates on both sides.....Since I am honestly in between on this I will continue not knowing what to do......But I do have another question on this topic. I happen to have an uncatalogued E224 Texas Tommy from my CA find. I feel if I make it known it will be worth less as then it's catalogued...but from a fairly well albeit very scarce set. Thoughts?

Archive
01-06-2005, 02:54 PM
Posted By: <b>Glen V</b><p>Leon, it comes down to timing. Don't think it matters if it's cataloged or not. If two or more people w/ lots of money are collecting the Texas Tommy set, it goes for lots of money. Otherwise it goes for a little more that what a type collector would pay for a cataloged one.

Archive
01-06-2005, 02:55 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>The reason people are willing to pay a premium for uncatalogued cards is that they like the idea of owning something that was not known to exist. Once it becomes catalogued, it becomes a known commodity and loses that appeal.<br /><br />It's sort of like buying the hot new car that comes out and paying a huge premium for it to be able to say that you are the first on the block to own it. Once production catches up to demand, no one cares if you were the first own one and no one is paying a premium for the car anymore.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Archive
01-06-2005, 03:00 PM
Posted By: <b>Glen V</b><p>Sandiegowill recently sold an uncat. orange border that went for a little more than $300. You see cataloged Alleghenys & Lections sell for more. I've seen other uncat. cards sell recently for under $100. Hard to tell what an uncat. card will bring. I certainly was surprised at the price Scott's hit - doubt many of us would have predicted they would sell that high.

Archive
01-06-2005, 03:06 PM
Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>I agree with Richard. I always come clean when discovering uncataloged items. I have contacted Bob Lemke directly on all of them. Personally, I just don't think that it's right to keep these items a secret. This is a hobby, albeit a very expensive one.

Archive
01-06-2005, 03:22 PM
Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>I think there are two different situations here, and each will have different results:<br /><br />1) uncatalogued issue - no cards of any pose are known.<br />2) uncatalogued player within a known issue.<br /><br />For #1, I think cataloging the issue will increase your ability to sell the individual cards to more collectors (they'll feel more comfortable that the cards are real) and to skeptical advanced collectors. I will leave it to wealthier collectors to speculate on the affect of cataloging on price (as you already have done).<br /><br />For #2, cataloging it is definitely going to drop the price in most cases, but not in all. Example: you find a t206 Tris Speaker portrait in your great-grandfather's bible. You are positive it's real and you tell your advanced collector friends about it. What would such a card bring, uncatalogued and previously unknows? So you show the card to Bob Lemke and he catalogs it a year later. You send it to Mastro. Now what will it bring?<br />

Archive
01-06-2005, 03:45 PM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Sort of sums up the conundrum. If the card is uncatalogued and you don't tall anyone about it, and it never transacts except when you bought it, how can you be sure of what it is worth? <br /><br />I disagree with the assessment that the uncatalogued "come out" sale is the top sale ever on a card. Say a Speaker portrait was located and was the only known example and all the card gurus considered it to be the real deal and an essential part of a T206 master set. Do you really believe it would lose value over time once catalogued as a one-of-a-kind card if Mastro were to offer it for auction again? Or would the catalogued status of the card draw even more interest? I defy you to name one true one-of-a-kind card that has lost value once it was catalogued and then offered for sale at public auction. Now, if more cards are found then heck yes, the previously thought of as one of a kind card will lose value--it isn't unique anymore, is it? <br /><br />I understand and sympathize with those who want to keep card rarities secret so they can buy them up on the cheap, but if that is why you want to hide information, just say so up front.

Archive
01-06-2005, 03:54 PM
Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>The Speaker example was intended to represent a PRICE INCREASE when it comes out of hiding. I could be wrong, but I suspect not. For a less popular set or player, the price might drop. It's all speculation of course.

Archive
01-06-2005, 03:58 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Leon, this is a perfect test, you know what you paid for it. Catalog it, sell it to me for half of what you paid, and let's see who is right. Oops! guess this would make me wrong but what a score I would have! Yes this is a good vintage debate and I see I am getting my rump handed to me but all in good spirits. I admit that I am in the minority on this one, oh well, w/o 2 sides we wouldn't have a debate. Dan.

Archive
01-06-2005, 04:29 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am with you on this issue more than I am the other way....so you ain't alone....later

Archive
01-06-2005, 05:05 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I agree with Runscott's post. I would go one step further. I see only one situation in which the uncatalogued status of a card increases its value. The card is from a well known very scarce set (Gypsy Queen for example) and the seller can create the false impression that it is scarcer than all the rest of the cards in the set because it is uncatalogued. I really do think that this false impression is what drives the value up. <br /><br />If the whole set is uncatalogued, I have to agree with Runscott that the value will go up with cataloguing. Look at that recent group of Herpolsheimer E121 style cards. Many of us had doubts about their authenticity. Once catalogued, those doubts will (rightly or wrongly) fade. I suspect their price will then go up. If it was a completely new set (rather than just a new back), I think this effect will be magnified even more. If that wierd E or W Wagner card is catalogued and generally accepted as legit, I suspect its value will soar. After all, it's a one of a kind Wagner.<br /><br />Lastly, if the whole set is relatively common (like T206) and an uncatalogued card is found, I again think Runscott is right. Cataloguing will spur demand for the card. Everyone who collects that set will believe he has to have it.<br /><br />Just my 2 cents. Though this post is big enough to be a quarter.

Archive
01-06-2005, 05:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Ray</b><p>Isn't this a case of "buy the card, not the holder"? Let me explain... You're saying that the fact that the card isn't catalogued, makes it more valuable, but the second it's made public, it most likely will lose its value? So are you really buying/selling the card... or are you buying/selling the "secret" of the card?<br /><br />I'm not trying to start an argument here... but in a way, aren't you concealing information from the public to maximize your own gains?<br /><br />There are a lot of dealers that have been bashed on this forum for doing the same thing, in other ways... selling paper cut-outs as true cards... selling restored cards without disclosing the restoration... selling trimmed cards as unaltered... reprints as the real deal... etc. These dealers purposely withhold information from the public to make more money from them. How is what you are doing any different?<br /><br />This is not a personal attack, I'm just voicing my opinion.

Archive
01-06-2005, 05:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Bill Cornell</b><p>I think Rich's point is a good one - it's a benefit to the collecting community to make the existence known of previously uncatalogued cards. If putting a price on this makes some people not want to share information, I think that's really unfortunate.<br /><br />Bill

Archive
01-06-2005, 05:30 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>I'd call this the "Topps syndrome" in SCD price guides. Vintage sets just do not follow the pattern of modern card sets where there are commons, high numbers and stars. There has to be more thought given to assigning values based on scarcity (a Jennings Tango Eggs, anyone?) and true demand. If a new card is catalogued, it should be footnoted as possibly unique and assigned a higher value. At least periodically someone needs to review not only the pricing but the relative pricing within a set for accuracy. <br /><br />As a practical matter, the SCD guide on vintage sets is simply a checklist. Not until someone actually undertakes to publish a vintage card only guide will the details of each set be publicly reflected. There should be no difference in value between an uncatalogued pose and a catalogued (possibly unique) pose. Lipset's work comes closest, but much more information is now available and could be published. See what has happened to the scarce poses and backs in T206. Greater understanding has led to a greater appreciation of scarcity and relative value. T205, T207, E cards,... it is happening in all the major collectible issues. It will be true of vintage issues also.

Archive
01-06-2005, 06:46 PM
Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>One of the things that drives me crazy about Cuban and Puerto Rican cards is the whole cult of secrecy that seems to exist among some of the oldtimers in the hobby. I have personally alienated myself from several of these people by checklisting some of these previously unchecklisted sets and posting them on my website. <br /><br />Even with American cards, I don't think it helps the hobby or the value of a one-of-a-kind (or really rare) card remains uncatalogued. I know for me, I would never pay a penny more for a card just because it was uncatalogued. <br /><br />I like the idea of cards being catalogued just to know what's out there. Stating values can be helpful as a guide, and most (not all) collectors seem to realize that a guide is not a concrete value a card is worth or will sell for if you throw it on ebay. <br /><br />Many of us will never own the high-dollar one-of-a-kind uncatalogued cards that some on this board have hidden in their collections. But I would think it would only add value to have some of us drooling over those cards even if we have no chance of owning them. Desirability can be more valuable than scarcity. For example, if all of Leon's Western Playgrounds had been auctioned off at the same time, even on ebay, how much more do you think the bagman would have sold for than the others?<br /><br />That said, whoever owns an uncatalogued card has every right to hide that card away or do whatever they want with it. It doesn't matter if their motives are financial or not. I'd personally like to see the card, but I don't feel the owner owes the hobby anything and can feed the card do their dog if the so desire, whether they discovered it themselves, or bought it from a Major auction house.<br /><br />Except for Dan. I think Dan owes it to all of us to post some scans of all the rarities he's been hiding from us all these years. Kidding about that of course, but I will say that in my opinion having the Alpha Engraving cards catalogued and seen has only added to their desirability and value. <br /><br />So it wouldn't hurt to show us some other goodies (nudge, nudge).<br /><br />-Ryan<br /><br /> <br /><br />

Archive
01-06-2005, 07:06 PM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I think just about everyone here and certainly every advanced collector out there treats the catalogue as a checklist, not as a price guide except in the broadest sense. As a checklist, it is very encouraging to a potential buyer to see the card listed. <br /><br />It is also true that when something new comes to light, the price guide editors have thus far shown remarkably little common sense in how they list the item. Putting in a three-tiered price system for many rarities is simply absurd. For example, the Lections listing in the SCD big book states that only 28 cards are known to exist, most of which are f-g condition, yet continues to list the set of ten cards with a full set price and individual card prices in three standardized grades. Nevermind that all of the acknowledged cards together do not add up to three complete sets, so even if each card in the hoard existed in a distinct grade, there would not be any basis to create a three tiered pricing system for every card. <br /><br />By the same token, there are many advanced collectors who are very dubious as to the bona fides of a set that did not emerge until a few years ago. To those collectors, having the cards in the books confers a legitimacy that makes them potential entrants into the market for the cards. <br /><br />I'll give you another great example: Last year I bid into what turned out to be an R94 Babe Ruth card. I did not quite know what it was when I bid on it because it was not in the book so I bid on it at a low level. It must have baffled a lot of others too because I got it for very little. Had the card been in the book I am certain I would not have been able to obtain it for what I bid because the casual interest in Ruth plus the book-conferred legitimacy of the card would drive up the price. Ditto for my unlisted Pinkerton-type PCs, which also came pretty cheaply. <br /><br />My point is that anyone who knows cards well enough to be in the market for a rare or obscure card knows that the book prices are silly and can be disregarded. Anyone new to the hobby, however, needs the information available in the listing in order to feel comfortable participating. For that reason, I simply do not see that the pecuniary harm of letting the hobby know of the existence of a rare card is realistic or outweighs the potential longer term gains from the issue being accepted as legitimate by many more collectors.

Archive
01-07-2005, 10:11 AM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Ray, I really do not think you can compare me to the paper cut outs or hiding the trimming. That is rediculous. And I am not concealing anything to make money, I conceal it so that I do not lose money. I pay a premium for uncataloged, I continue to keep it uncataloged so that I don't LOSE money. Thanks for comparing me to the slime that steals from people by deceiving them. Dan.

Archive
01-07-2005, 10:15 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Dan:<br /><br />Now that they have been cataloged and become mere "commons" that everyone knows about... <br /><br />please sell me the Alpha Engraving cards of Jennings, McGraw and Kelley.<br /><br />Heck, sell me the KEELER as well ... since that is probably the UNCATALOGED card that you are sitting on!!!

Archive
01-07-2005, 10:25 AM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Hal, I was sitting on the Keeler but it has been flattened beyond recognition. It is now a cabinet card.

Archive
01-07-2005, 10:27 AM
Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>So THAT'S how Mastro's Keeler got "cleaned"!!!

Archive
01-07-2005, 10:40 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Poor Wee Willie...<br /><br />No wonder he isn't smiling.

Archive
01-07-2005, 02:57 PM
Posted By: <b>Ray</b><p>Dan,<br /><br />I never singled you out individually. I feel that way about all people who try to maximize the price they can get for a card by "concealing" information.<br /><br />There are no personal attacks here. But since you singled me out, I only feel I have a right to respond.<br /><br />You yourself, admit to conceal information to sell a card for higher value: "...I conceal it so that I do not lose money."<br /><br />Whether you, or anyone else doing this makes a profit or breaks even, they are POSSIBLY getting more for the card than they would if they made its existence public knowledge. So, yes, in my opinion, this practice is no better than what those guys do.<br /><br />You plan on selling the card for more than you believe it would be worth once it is catalogued. Are you selling the card, or the "secret" of the card?<br /><br />I think Bill put it best when he said: "it's a benefit to the collecting community to make the existence known of previously uncatalogued cards. If putting a price on this makes some people not want to share information, I think that's really unfortunate."<br />

Archive
01-07-2005, 03:03 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Unfortunately capitalism sucks......I am still in the middle on this issue ...regards

Archive
01-07-2005, 03:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Ray</b><p>You know what... Dan, I apologize for that statement before. After looking over the thread, I see why you continue to have the card uncatalogued. I don't agree with it, but I can respect your decision. <br /><br />That said, why do you, and other members of the board pay premiums for uncatalogued cards just to keep them uncatalogued?

Archive
01-07-2005, 03:30 PM
Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>I agree with Bill and others that it is best for the hobby that uncatalogued card issues be shared, but these cards belong to Dan and it's his right to do whatever he wants. Certainly there's nothing unethical about not telling us what cards he has.

Archive
01-07-2005, 03:38 PM
Posted By: <b>Ray</b><p>sorry, i editted my last post... He does have a right to hide his cards from the public, that wasn't the part that was "unethical" to me. It was the point that someone would keep a card uncatalogued just to get a higher selling price that I have an issue with.

Archive
01-07-2005, 04:00 PM
Posted By: <b>Robert A</b><p>I don't think the only reason collectors conceal cards in their collection from the public is to "maximize gains." It's one person's collection. Perhaps, the collector enjoys that others don't know that a particular example exists. <br /><br />I can live with the fact that there might be uncatalogued examples from sets that I am interested in. In fact, that makes is more exciting for me as a collector.<br /><br />Eventually, the information will end up in a book somewhere...maybe.<br /><br />I have to admit though, before I read this thread completely, I didn't understand why people would get upset over collectors keeping their own cards a secret. I think that the other side of the argument has been presented very well in this thread and I have enjoyed everyone's comments thoroughly on this issue.<br />Thanks for a great thread.<br />Robert

Archive
01-07-2005, 04:29 PM
Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>I remember waiting to sell a Ju-Ju Drums card I had when I was type collecting until after it was in the SCD - I simply put in the description that it wasn't listed the year before, but is now catalogued and is possibly one of a kind - actually, I believe that helped the value. I found out when type collecting that a few potential bidders will start to question a card's authenticity if it is not listed in SCD (which could actually hurt the auction of a card).<br /><br />Also, Leon can agree with me on this one, after spending several years unsuccessfully trying to find the owner of the Fan's Cigs. Bigbee, I learned that this whole secrecy thing is really bad for the Hobby. What I believed happened there is that the owner never was revealed and died - his heirs not knowing what he/she had, and the card could be lost forever (where, if someone knew who owned the card, they could have contacted the heirs and made them a nice offer and probably bought the card).<br /><br />I don't think the value will be hurt that much on a truly rare card. Especially if someone sells the first year it is in the SCD!

Archive
01-07-2005, 05:11 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I don't need to necessarily speak for my friend Dan but most likely the uncatalogued card(s) Dan has cost him more so that's why he would want to keep them that way. I definitely see that point but the other points are valid too....unless something new pops up this will be my last post on this thread......very good debate though.....and everyone can put this beauty in their pipe and smoke it <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><img src="http://www.geocities.com/typecard777/personaleuncoaklandoaks.jpg">

Archive
01-07-2005, 07:02 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Ray, most or all of the uncataloged cards I pay more for go in my collection. But when the time comes that I may sell (kid goes to college) or I pass and Mastro handles the estate, I want the card to be valued at what I paid or more. This in no way compares to people trying to steal money by selling paper cut outs or hiding doctored enhanced cards. I take offense to that as my 35 years in the hobby, I have built a good reputation.

Archive
01-07-2005, 07:12 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Ray, Dan is a respected memeber here and comparing him to the Roy Huff's of the world isn't going to win you much respect. It's fine that you feel strongly about this, but it doesn't pay to compare respected people to Roy Huff or other bad people. You should to find some other comaprision that is more accurate and won't put you in a bad light.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Archive
01-07-2005, 07:23 PM
Posted By: <b>Bill Cornell</b><p>I think Ray's correct. Dan should spill the beans and increase his chances of entering hobby heaven.<br /><br />Bill

Archive
01-07-2005, 08:25 PM
Posted By: <b>Scott M</b><p>I agree that collectors (such as Dan) have every right to hold back whatever information they want from their fellow collectors for whatever their purpose may be.<br /><br />I just hope that those who think this way would also respect and understand that some of us enjoy sharing information with our fellow hobbyists and shouldn't complain about how it devalues the cards in their collection when someone chooses to share information.<br /><br />Just my .02 cents and should not be taken as a personal attack on Dan or anyone else.

Archive
01-07-2005, 08:40 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Absolutely! I agree totally. I have shared a ton with the hobby. I believe all of the original Baltimore News 1910 and 1914 came from Pop and I. I have just been burned before so I do not catalog everything. I have recently cataloged the 1894 Alpha Baltimore set. Dan.

Archive
01-07-2005, 08:51 PM
Posted By: <b>Ray</b><p>Dan, I never singled you out! I don't know why you took it so personally! I even apologized when I realized you did take it personally. You've been in the hobby longer than I've been alive. I'm not bashing you... I'm bashing the concept of withholding information to make a card worth more than it might be worth. <br /><br />And Jay, don't worry... I won't lose any sleep if you lose respect for me, especially when the forum administrator agrees with me! Does that mean you are going to look at him in a bad light too?

Archive
01-07-2005, 08:58 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Ray, you stated that something I was doing was similar to the people that steal and deceive. I think you will find that the administrator was joking. Bill doesn't completely hate me.

Archive
01-07-2005, 08:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan</b><p>I agree 100% with "the other Dan" on this one. I have a grunch of cards that I have never had graded, nor spoke of (only once to Steve Verkman did I confess...some) I think that he spoke of one of my cards Cobb with Cobb back, I am staying quiet about what I have mainly because... well obvious reasons. I have been quietly accumulating Vintage items for over 30 years now and have obtained a nice variety of items that I am waiting for someone else to discover. The T, E, etc cards that I have posted about, well, those are just not that unusual. I spent years of time invested in finding the tough tough tough items, those, will come out in a major auction some year as "1 of 1" and that will be just that. <br /><br />After listening to so many folks complain about the Vintage world, I have chosen to back out of things for a while, but my real collection continues to exist for the benefit of my children... or my wife and I only if the stock market crashes and I lose all that I have there. <br /><br />Happy New Year to all and to all a good night. Dan.

Archive
01-07-2005, 09:01 PM
Posted By: <b>Ray</b><p>and neither do I. Again, I have nothing against you personally. I never said "Dan" in my original post.

Archive
01-07-2005, 09:06 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Because I stated that "I hold back uncataloged cards" and you stated that holding back uncataloged cards is the same as selling paper cut-outs and not revealing the fact of a cards enhancement when you know and are selling it. The events you mentioned are deceptive and wrong and can hurt people.

Archive
01-07-2005, 09:10 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Hey that's not fair Ray, you edited and removed the piece I answered.

Archive
01-07-2005, 09:15 PM
Posted By: <b>Ray</b><p>Dan,<br /><br />I was more upset that you admitted the following: "And I am not concealing anything to make money, I conceal it so that I do not lose money." You are concealing valuable info to the hobby so that a card maintains its value...<br /><br />Then you go on to say: "I must agree it is better for the hobby to have them cataloged and I am primarily a collector and not an investor but I am not an idiot so if I pay $300 for a card, then have it cataloged and it becomes $100 like the other commons in the set, well then I would be an idiot."<br /><br />If you know its better to have the card catalogued, why buy it at the premium in the first place??

Archive
01-07-2005, 09:20 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>I buy it because I want it for my collection. I do not buy cards to have them cataloged. My searching is to fill my sets. That was a very strange question. I am crashing, I am old, have a nice evening. Dan.

Archive
01-07-2005, 09:21 PM
Posted By: <b>Ray</b><p>Dan,<br /><br />I know you are not Roy Huff or any other sleezeball out there. I would never hesitate buying a card from you, or Jay, or anyone else on this board... and I have in fact bought from some of you (including Jay's brother). I will never have the resources to make the kinds of purchases you do, so maybe in that regard, I have a hard time understanding it. <br /><br />LOL, You must have spent more on that SGC grading shipment than I have in the past 3 years on cards! <br /><br />I sincerely apologize for offending you. That's not what this board is all about... its about sharing a common joy. 35 years or 3, we both love this hobby, and that should be more important than anything else.

Archive
01-07-2005, 09:42 PM
Posted By: <b>Scott M</b><p>If one is buying (and paying a premium) for a card because they want it for their collection then I don't think it should matter that much to the individual if the card is subsequently catalogued because the collector would still be happy to have obtained the card and know that the one they possess is still very rare.<br /> <br />Now, on the other hand, if one is paying a premium for a card because they think its one of a kind and hope to sell it down the road as one of a kind and reap monetary rewards based on that status, well thats more of an investor/speculator to my way of thinking and that individual takes their chances by paying a premium knowing full well that another example may show up down the road.<br /><br />Again, I just hope that the later type of individual realizes that it was their perogative to pay the premium and shouldn't complain about the devaluation of their collection/purchase when another example comes to light from someone else who doesn't mind sharing the information regarding a new card with the hobby. I've had that happen to me and I feel I have just as much a right to share my collection with others as someone else has to keep theirs secret for whatever reason.<br /><br />Again, not a personal attack on Dan or anyone else. Just adding to my point from an earlier post based upon the subsequent comments.<br /><br />Scott<br /><br />