View Single Post
  #14  
Old 09-28-2021, 04:22 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 30,914
Default

I am not aware that Burdick said the Henry Johnson's are W575-1 nor did he distinguish -1s from -2s. In his latest revision in 1967 he said "W575" and named different similar sets including the -2s, but not Henry Johnson's.
Had he had the internet his job would have been easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli View Post
This aggravates me beyond belief.

And Mac, your Henry Johnson also aggravates me, for two reasons:

1) It seems like that card was submitted and graded as a W575-1 without respect to the back stamp, and the back stamp reduced the technical grade of the card. Nowhere on the card does it say "Henry Johnson Confectioners." This card is its own unique issue, and should be graded as such - it seems as if the card should be a higher-grade card, with the back stamp identifying the issue.

2) With all respect to Jefferson Burdick, Henry Johnson Confectioners cards are not W575-1s. The checklist does not match the W575-1 checklist. They are blank-backed cards from the E121 Series of 80 set, and as such, the "W575-1" designation should be dropped altogether. They should be catalogued as "Henry Johnson Confectioners," and nothing more.

Sorry. The way grading companies treat this entire issue is a sore spot with me.

-Al
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote