Jackie Robinson Bond Bread mystery
 

Hi everyone,

I have a question about the Jackie Robinson Bond Bread "portrait / facsimile autograph" card that I was hoping someone could weigh in on. One of these cards was sold on REA a few years ago, and the description of the item had the following text:

"In the 1970s, a legendary find of approximately seventy-five high-grade examples of this card 'walked in' at a New York convention. Several years ago, the mystery gentleman from the 1970s contacted REA with a few cards he'd kept from the find."

I am confused by this because if you look at the population report for this card, the number of high-grade examples is much lower than 75. So I'm not quite grasping the disconnect between the pop report (which gives a low number of high-grade examples) and the story that 75 high-grade examples are out there somewhere. Any thoughts/explanations?

Thanks!

-Matt

It's hard to say for sure, but it could be a combination of the following:

1. The number of cards brought into the show in the 70s was a bit less than 75.

2. While all of those cards looked high grade, some of them had minor flaws which would knock down the technical grade (eg. a minor surface wrinkle), assuming they were graded by a third party grader.

3. Only a small amount of those high grade cards from the 70s card show were ever sent into PSA, SGC, or BVG.

Grading companies didn't exists in the 70s. Therefore high grade meant "in uncirculated condition." So they're either waiting to be found again or they're in private collections that don't care as much about grading.

Bond Bread
 

OK, thanks very much to you both!

In addition to those other possibilities, there is also a chance that the 70 included not only the Portrait but some of the other eleven white bordered Bond Breads. Just a thought

Maybe the original story was wrong and they weren't Bond Bread cards, but the square corner variety that showed up in quantity at a warehouse later. PSA won't grade these square cornered examples. Just a thought.

I posted this question elsewhere, but if I submitted my square corner example as a "1949 Sports Stars, Set of 48" do you think PSA would grade it?

The Sports Stars, Set of 48, is discussed extensively in the very lengthy thread regarding the same topic.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I really don't know. I've never tried to prove to PSA that they should grade an issue they don't currently recognize. From what I've read, they require a lot of supporting information before they will grade an issue that isn't well known or has an unknown background. Maybe they will decide to grade these cards in the future, but it will take some type of evidence that they haven't seen yet.

Seems to me that a lot of these stories are just big fish stories. Someone supposed something a few decades ago and it became collecting lore. An AH catches wind of it, uses it in a catalog, and it becomes a 'fact' until it is debunked with further research. Separating the truth from the puffery and chaff is where good researching comes into play. Some examples:

--Changing the 1932 US Caramel set date to 1933 based on careful analysis of data on the card backs.

--1948, er, make that 1949 Leaf cards.

--Debunking the dates assigned to postwar Exhibit cards based on uncut sheet and advertising research.

--T202 Joe Jackson research thread here, proving Shoeless Joe has a T202.

--Finalizing the T220 and T220 silver border checklists. There's a heck of a thread here on the boxing page if you are interested.

--Refining the T218 master border checklist.

--Debunking the Recruit back T206 Wagner and the standing pose T206 Wagner stories. The former was a 'should be one' story and the latter was reported in the hobby press then corrected years later when everyone realized it was the other Wagner.

--Analyzing the 1933 Goudey Sport Kings premiums. This article has a particularly good example of how a supposition becomes a story then becomes fact then is debunked:

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...ings-premiums/

I suspect that the legendary walk-in of all these cards that no one has seen since is another tall tale that got repeated until it became lore. That said, the opposite sequence is true of the card itself. The research published on this site proved that the portrait card with facsimile signature was indeed a 1947 issue.

Great examples Adam. I would also include the resistance to classifying T213-1 Coupons as T206's.

Why would they classify a card as a t206 that isn't? Burdick gave white border cards the t206 classification and Coupons t213 for a reason.

There's plenty of information out there if you are so inclined to search. But I'd guess you have already made up your mind.

Burdick wasn't perfect and as he started mounting his collection at the Met, others took over more duties in the cataloguing he had handled previously. Don't get me wrong, his research was monumental and mostly done by mail but things get updated in any discipline or field as new information comes in.

The fact collectors many decades later still use the ACC numbering system (the final, 1960 version as earlier versions had different schemes) is proof of just how well he did his research but the idea was always to add to it, either via the Updates published for a dozen years in the Card Collectors Bulletin by Buck Barker or via the physical updating of the catalog, which was aborted in 1967 by Woody Gelman for unknown reasons but 7 year updates were the idea and the historical precedent (1939, 1946, 1953, 1960). Supplements were issued as well annually for many years and incorporated in the next edition.

In fact, toward the late 60's the "R" section was getting a bit of a makeover in the updates, with a system that referenced the year of issue. It's about impossible to pull off now with so many cards and variants issued every year but a guide that was updated through 2000 would be fantastic and something this hobby desperately needs IMO.