View Full Version : Nice Bancroft, but not his rookie
Archive
03-28-2005, 08:06 AM
Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57993&item=5177454732&rd=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57993&item=5177454732&rd=1</a>
Archive
03-28-2005, 10:08 AM
Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>why wouldnt you consider this his rc? The 1916 M101-4/5 is considered his rc so why not another card from the same year?
Archive
03-28-2005, 10:19 AM
Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>The E135 Collins McCarthy set is from 1917, not 1916. The label is incorrect.
Archive
03-28-2005, 10:21 AM
Posted By: <b>wesley</b><p>Josh, E135 Collins-McCarthy and related cards were actually issued one year later in 1917.
Archive
03-28-2005, 10:32 AM
Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Gotcha. Shouldnt someone let old cardboard in on that? They still list that set as being released in 1916.
Archive
03-28-2005, 11:02 AM
Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>should clue in PSA and SGC too, since they both still show it as 1916.
Archive
03-28-2005, 12:02 PM
Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>Does anyone think that changing the years long after theyve started grading them might be more of a problem than being off by one year? I could see it causing problems with people claiming a 1916 is his real rookie,not the 1917 eventho its the exact same card just labeled wrong.I could see if theres only a couple examples graded but neither of these companies just started grading these cards.I think you would have more people claiming one is better than the other than you would have people making false(even if its unknown to them) claims that its a rookie.<br /><br />I think the main reason they wouldnt change it is because of all the re-holdering they would be asked to do,and who is supposed to get charged for it,the customer who just wants the right year,the company that is only going by the books we all use or the book for being wrong eventho it was once widely accepted?<br /><br />Id like to see the right year on every card but it doesnt seem logical when years change all the time.Just look at that thread Hal started a few months back about the A&G's<br /><br />David obviously wasnt trying to decieve anyone with this auction,just so everyone knows
Archive
03-28-2005, 12:13 PM
Posted By: <b>wesley</b><p>John, PSA, GAI and SGC in fact do currently label the M101-5 Sporting News cards as 1916. They can just as easily start labeling the E135 as 1917 issues even though this may cause some inconsistency with cards submitted in the past.
Archive
03-28-2005, 12:22 PM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>The Grading companies follow the Lemke "big book" catalog...<br /><br />so they are grading these cards based upon their most recent designation in the books.<br /><br />Lemke does a good job of informing collectors as to everything they need to know about all of these cards, so they should never be relying SOLELY upon a PSA label anyway.<br /><br />I am glad that Lemke is constantly upgrading the "Bible" whenever new data is uncovered about certain sets...<br /><br />but I guess everyone will have to buy one EVERY YEAR to avoid being "outdated."<br /><br /><img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>
Archive
03-28-2005, 12:31 PM
Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I'm pretty sure my 2004 SCD bigbook has the 1917 designation for E135 and BStore, and my old Beckett Big book (copyright 2002) has the 1917 date, so it seems the grading companies have had ample time to make the change on those sets anyway.
Archive
03-30-2005, 08:05 AM
Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Just wondering why we all ripped into Mark M. for spending 700+ on a highly graded (either a 5.5 or 6.5 if memory serves) M101-5 Bancroft rc (the thread was on the now defunct cards only board) but no one is even mentioning the ridiculous price paid by josephenna(?) for this card (even ignoring the fact that its not a rc).<br /><br />
Archive
03-30-2005, 08:07 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I applauded Mark and thought he was wise to get the card when he did. Rooky13 was out there trying to get it!<br /><br />Plus... it's always fun to rib someone you know and like!<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
Archive
03-30-2005, 08:28 AM
Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>Josh, that Bancroft E135 card is not that bad. You think the price is ridiculous, yet I see that Mark bid 44 cents less than the winning bid, and you yourself bid $200 and change. So at what point did it become ridiculous--$201.00? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
Archive
03-30-2005, 08:41 AM
Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Todd, I'm not sure that Josh is saying the price of the SGC 40 e135 Bancroft was ridiculous. Only that since there was a whole thread started on how 700 was ridiculous for sn SGC 70 M101 Bancroft, then it's curious that nobody made the same observation in this Bancroft thread given that the e135 was not a rookie and was three grades lower. <br /><br />I am kicking myself today because I just checked under my couch cushion and guess what I found..exactly 44 cents. Doh.
Archive
03-30-2005, 08:53 AM
Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Todd, <br /><br />Actually yes - at 201 it became ridiculous. Seriously though, maybe my sentence is less than clear, but Mark is correct - every one thought that 700 was a crazy price to pay for the m101, but no one seems to think that the price paid for this card was too high.
Archive
03-30-2005, 09:00 AM
Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>People also overlook that, with John McGraw's batting instruction, Bancroft managed to slug an impressive 32 baseballs out of the park (lifetime) and bat with such machine-like precision as to achieve a lifetime batting average of almost .280. All the while, he was racking up a mind-blowing RBI total well in excess of 400, placing him somewhere on the all-time leader list for that category. Comic book man say 700 banroft rc = BEST..PURCHASE..EVER.
Archive
03-30-2005, 09:03 AM
Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>wow - even I did not realize his numbers were that impressive. please tell me which members of the vet. committee he slept with to get into the hall.
Archive
03-30-2005, 09:22 AM
Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>You've convinced me. Still, in the spirit of helping others, I have a pair of m101-4 Bancrofts that I can let go for only $600 each. Get 'em while they're hot.<br /><br />Edited to add: I also have a Holsum Bread Bancroft that I can let go for $500, as it is only only in the vg range.
Archive
03-30-2005, 09:25 AM
Posted By: <b>Elliot</b><p>Maybe his 4 years managing ( WP of .407) helped get him into the HOF. One year his team finished 5th.