NEWLY Discovered Uncataloged D351 Grennan Bakery Card #3

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Finally in my possession after about 10 years of clawing, biting, and scratching, the uncataloged #3 D351 Grennan Bakery card of Wamby. It is funny, I was absolutly BLASTED on this board about not having previously uncataloged items cataloged. Lyman Hardeman of Old Cardboard constantly abuses me about this. Yet.... the first words out of this gentleman's mouth as we started the negotiations was "Come on Dan, it is uncataloged so it has more value" INCREDIBLE! Anyway, I bent over and touched my ankles and parted with several rare hot dog regional cards to score this incredibly rare, currently uncataloged D351.
Details: Card #3 Unassisted triple play in World Series by Wamby.
Situation: Brooklyn batting in fifth inning of fifth game, 1920 World's Series, Miller on first base, Killduff on Second.

Also, NEWLY Discovered Orange Border by Chuck "foot loose" Blue and previously UNCATALOGED Doyle. Thanks to a good friend for not raping me on this transaction due to the uncatalog. Though I must say that Chuck did think the value was much higher than other commons for the same reason.

Sorry Lyman, I will stick to my guns and keep my many uncataloged issues and players, uncataloged!

The Philly show is fighting for air but I enjoyed the weekend with my many long time friends in the hobby and the many very nice new friends I have made in the new hobby.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Let's see 'em!

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

using bent over, spread them and rare hot dog all in the same sentence......

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

I will try to get a scan up in the next few days Cobby, thanks Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

quite possibly the coolest table at the philly show....

especially when you show some of those uncataloged gems!


great seeing you again.

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

More importantly what were the rare hot dog cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Other than using the excuse of uncataloged = more $$$ what is the point in keeping a card a secret?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

You hit it right on the head.

That is the very reason to do so.

I don't see it as an 'excuse' at all.

If someone has to pay more for an 'uncataloged' card... why would he want to catalog his card and subsequently lessen its valuation? Especially if we are talking about many cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Mosley

Sorry that I didn't make it out to the show this weekend to be able to say hello in person but congratulations on the new additions to your collection.

Just be sure to bring them along the next time we organize a little get together!

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

U bet Scott! I missed you but saw the popcorn machine man!

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

oops! the dog cards were esskays and Hunters. No Felins or Briggs this time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

Leon and I would discuss this occassionally during my time at Beckett and the issue of disclosing uncatalogued cards is truly up to the individual and there may be reasons NOT to disclose said card or reasons to get as much publicity as possible for a new discovery.

We always discussed both sides of this and this whole issue is a shade of gray.

Regards
Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I suppose some collectors may take pleasure in knowing they own the most complete set of some issue...I personally wouldn't withhold cataloging an uncataloged card. I think I would take more pleasure in people knowing that I had a possible one of a kind card in my collection.

edited to add that sounds a little conceited so I'll add that I also would take pleasure knowing I helped add to a checklist of cards older than my great grandmother and not even Jefferson Burdick knew the card existed.

Did that sound less conceited?

[Archive]

Posted By: John Harrell

Dan,

Great find!! Hope you post some pics for all us "collector grade" types.

John

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

Hell even I have Esskays and Hunters...

Congrats!

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Dan you have many esskays and hunters. This is your 2nd time collecting them I believe which is even more impressive! My father had the Baltimore News and Washington Times cards cataloged. I have mentioned the D351 Grennans here and posted a picture of my Walter Johnson in the past. I also had the Alpha Engraving Orioles cataloged. And I just mentioned the uncataloged Orange Border. I ain't all bad, I am just not into throwing $$$$ away. I am sorry that some people can not see that point.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

picture posted

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

Or is the entire advertising and PR industry wrong? I mean if you kept the Alpha set concealed no one would have bought it...

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I'll give a perfect example why you WANT to catalogue an uncatalogued card. The e90-3 Hofman variation I used to own was consistently ridiculed as not being a new variation. Once I was able to get SCD to list it as a new variation and SGC to grade it, all the of the sudden it became a valuable card.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

I think with variations, you are right that having it catalogued raises its value. But I think variations are diferent than new additions to a catalogue. I think, for example, that more money would be paid for an E104-III card that is uncatalogued than one that is listed in the checklist.

Marc

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Well put Marc. Having a card cataloged in a set that isn't completely cataloged will make that card the value of just another in the set. Example Orange Borders. I mentioned the Doyle only because a good friend sold it to me for what I would pay for any common I needed. Hence there was no reason to keep it a secret. You are correct about the Alphas, but I waited til I had them all that were known in the hobby. At that point, I was in complete control of their value. It took me 8 years to get them all and I wouldn't have dared mention them before I had them all. Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

"At that point, I was in complete control of their value."

Wow. After you finish that, would you mind having Iran stop it's nuclear weapons proliferation and also, I'd appreciate if you could make sure it doesn't rain this evening.

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

Thanks for the picture Dan, and the kind words.

Sorry Matt but I don't understand your post. As I recall Dan had all the known Alphas and therefore whatever he was a willing seller at was the value as long as there was a willing buyer. If there was no willing buyer, then he wouldn't sell. Seems a lot simpler than Iran or the weather.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

"as there was a willing buyer" - exactly the point - no seller is ever in complete control of the value. Value is determined by what the buyer is willing to pay. The seller is only in control of how much he wants to sell for, which is very different then being in control of the value.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

I own a Cameo Pepsin pin that was uncatalogued at the time I bought it 10 years ago. I never told anybody about it but it is now in the Big Book (Standard Catalog) so another one must have been found. IT is valued the same as all the other commons.

An even better example is the Star Player Candy card of Buddy Myer. I have owned it for over 10 years and I just brought it to daylight, as a new addition to the set, a couple of years ago. Here is a card that is a new addition to a scarce set and the player is Jewish to top things off. But when you look in the price guide, he is valued just the same as all the other commons.

My guess is that the determining factor on valuing an uncatalogued card is what it eventually sells for. If uncatalogued cards sell privately (or never sell), then the people who make up the price guides have nothing to base their values on and have to use similiar cards as a guide.

Now if I ever decide to have the Meyer card graded and then consign it to a MAJOR auction house and it sells for more than a common card, the people who produce the price guides could then say that the ONLY known copy of this card sold for X amount. Just like Leon's Fans cigaretter card. There is no value listed in the price guides but I am sure that when (if) it ever sells publicly, then a special notation will be put in the guides.

Note to Leon and others -- I am NOT saying my Buddy Myer card is as significant to the hobby as the Fans cigarette cards, I was just using that as an example.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

I am sorry you took exception to the word "complete" which is an overstatement on Dan's part and was duely noted in my post. He did have control of if a transaction occured or not, since for a while there was a belief that he would never sell the set. I do not believe that his overstatement needed to be compared to Iran or controling the weather.

But then again I am a pansy who just wants everyone to get along.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

"I do not believe that his overstatement needed to be compared to Iran (sic) or controling the weather."

Wow - you're posting to debate the degree as to which my sarcastic analogy was accurate?

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

Yeah, what an effing loser, eh?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Marc, funny you mentioned uncatalogued e104-3s as I've had 3 and I can't say any of them sold for more than what a catalogued one would sell for. Believe me, I tried getting more them too, but no one was going for it.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: brian p

Cataloguing makes a card legitimate in the eyes of many collectors--its existence has been authenticated by experts. It is just like graded cards for some collectors--if a grading company has slabbed it, the card is worth more because more people now believe in its higher value.

Brian (non-slabbed and misidentified in all catalogs)

[Archive]

Posted By: sagard

Is a scan on the internet and a discussion of the card not enough to "catalog" the card? Seems like it would be to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Jay. Hey! Good to see you.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

sagard,

I had talked about my Buddy Myer card but until I showed a scan of it on this board (along with my other 15 Star Player Candy cards) it was not catalogued.

After the scan of all teh Star Player Candy cards was shown, people requested JUST the Buddy Myer card be scanned and shown. I did that and then people agreed it was an uncatalogued card. It then was listed in the 2006 Standard Catalog.

When Old Cardboard was doing a story/photo gallery on the Star Player Candy cards, Lyman E Mailed me and asked if I could/would send a high resolution scan of the Myer card to him so that it could be included in the article. Lyman told me that a person has 70 of the 73 known players in the set, so getting those scans were easy. The only cards that person did not have were Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Buddy Myer. He found the Ruth with another collector and got my Myer scanned. The only card NOT found was the Gehrig and so the argument is now on going on whether a 1928 Star Playe Candy card exists of him or was even made in the first place.

To get a little off topic, I think (pretty much KNOW) there IS (or was) a 1928 Star Player Candy card of Gehrig made. I say this because I bought my 16 cards from a dealer at a paper show in the mid-1990's. He said his Dad had collected the cards as a kid but didn't know very much more about them.

When I first saw the cards in his binder of ephemera, I did not know what they were. So, I went out to my car and looked through the SCD big book until I finally found them. When I saw what they were and how rare they were, I RAN back into the show and straight to the dealer's table. I bought the 16 cards I now own. The problem was, the Ruth and Gehrig cards were gone.

The cards I bought were priced from $3 to $5 dollars a piece including the Hll of Famers (I don't remember what the Ruth and Gehrig were, probably higher - $10 dollars each maybe?) so I am guessing that someone saw Ruth and Gehrig and KNEW those names and took a chance on them but left the others behind.

My fear is that some Parent or Grand Parent bought the cards for a young collector and gave them to him as a present and the young collector didn't know what they were and either threw them away or some how otherwise destroyed them. These cards are REALLY thin.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

Jay: Good to see you posting AND on topic.

As for the Buddy Myer card; speaking from my experience doing an Standard Catalog type publication; when additions are made to checklists, they are usually made at the same price as the other cards in the set just because there is no empirical evidence they should have different prices. To me, good examples of that in work I did in the past included the 1890's Cameo Pins.

An example of an checklist addition at a DIFFERENT price was the 1936 World Wide Gum Phil Weintraub (if I'm spelling this wrong or have anything else wrong, this is done from memory AND before my morning coffee). There was enough proof of the substantial difference in this price to make this card list significantly higher than other cards in that set.

I can not state what Beckett is doing on these subjects now, but I can say that it sure appears to me that Don F. is actively looking for issues like this for the Krause book and I hope he gets good input from many of you so we can add even more depth to price guide works.

Just remember, it's easier as Barry said to assign one "generic" price across the board to each common rather than try to use a site such as Bobby's to be too detailed than is needed for a general work.

Regards
Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

What is the philosophy behind generating a misleading price based on lack of evidence? I wrestled with this issue a lot in doing my boxing book until I decided to go the opposite and simply say the item is very rare and would likely sell for a lot if it came up for auction. The worst, IMO, aspect of this sort of pricing is that it misleads people who are not specialists in the field into pricing something rare at a common price. Was the issue ever kicked around at Becketts?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

And I believe, as the amount of cards in a tome changed and grew exponentially; sometimes you just had to put the same price down for a card to get the conversation started. You'd be amazed how many people want prices for every card just as a guide.
While I did start to have cards known to be scarce with no prices; most people (i.e. your average collector) wanted SOME price down on paper; at least to start the conversation. I believe that we all did that to start the conversation and then get feedback the price is too low. I'll also speak on behalf of Don F. here who I guarantee will appreciate ANY and all feedback about issues like this for his work with F&W.
Frankly, the problem is the same for our beloved pre-war cards and some parallel inserts of modern players. There are always players who sell above what the average player of the same ability does even if their base card is equivalent.
You are fortunate that your card universe is significanly smaller than any of the major sports -- when I left Beckett, there were more than 25,000 different sets in the baseball data base alone -- I have your fine tomes on Boxing and I would say it may be 1-2% of that amount of boxing cards.

Regards
Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Mr. Klein,

I understand your plight as far as putting a price guide together. That is why I said I can understand why you would price a new discovery of a common card the same as any other common card in the set even if the card is from a scarce set and the player is Jewish.

I know that type collectors often pay more for a card if they don't have an example of a certain set in their collections. I know that people who collect Jewish players sometimes pay more for a card just because the player pictured is Jewish. Finally, I know that somebody that has a complete or near complete set would pay more for a new discovery. I thought of all of those things before and during my post.

Then I also thought that until a new discovery is actually SOLD in a public forum, a person or people putting a Price Guide together would have NO basis valuing the card higher just because it is a new discovery.

I thought, so what if it is a type card, another card from the set would do just as well for the type card collector. So what if he is Jewish. There are OTHER, different cards of this player so why would somebody pay MORE for an undiscovered card if they just want an example of this Jewish player. Finally, as far as I know, I have the second largest collection of Star Player Candy cards (16 of 73). The person with the most has like 70 of the 73. Since the set is HARD to complete, a new discovery might not be that much more valuable because there wont be a LOT of interest in it from set collectors because there are not that many people attempting to finish the set. Different story if this Myer card was a new addition to the T206 set.

So, I am happy to have the card and whatever the Price Guides value it at is fine. I know the value in the Guides wont change until the card is graded and sold publicly. Even then, it might not change. There is nothing I can do about it and I am not really worried.

Thanks for taking the time to respond,

David

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

You are exactly correct imo.....a new discovery to a set that is almost impossible to complete really won't cause a big jump in value vis a vis the discovery..again, imo. I "discovered" a new E224 (Oakes) and it really isn't considered anymore valuable (or not very much more)than the other commons in the set. Ironically the person with the Star Players you mention also has the full set (-1) of E224 types 1 and 2.....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Thanks, Leon.

When I was typing my original post a couple of days ago, I was thinking of YOU. You have a FANS cigarette card which is unique and in the 2006 Price Guide I have, there is NO value listed for it or the only other known card in the set, which is also unique. I thought about it and realized how could a person put a Price Guide together and list a value if a unique card had NOT been sold publicly?? Not really possible.

That is why I don't really have a problem with my Myer card being listed at the same value of the other common cards in the set. Since mine is the only one known and it has not been sold publicly (except to me when I bought it for $3 dollars at a paper show) then there is no way to value it until it hits the open market.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

To play devil's advocate:
By your logic, shouldn't its value be listed at $3 since that's what it sold for? We don't take into consideration other extraneous factors like the auction closed at a bad time and that's why the final value was so low; we just look at what the sale price was.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Hopefully I am not beating a dead horse and taking up too much of people's time and space on the board with this issue but I wanted to say one last thing. Someting that might help new collectors or collectors who also have uncatalogued cards. Then again, maybe not. You can decide for yourself.

When I first bought the Star Player Candy cards and saw NO listing of the Myer card, I was worried because I thought it might be fake. Then, I spoke to my Mentor and he said probably not. He said the card was probably just uncatalogued. Hearing that, I became like 12 year old Sean (who posts every once in a while on this board) and started thinking about the BIG dollar value of the card. My Mentor told me to slow down with those thoughts because even though the card was uncatalogued, it didn't mean it was any more valuable than another card from the set. He proceeded to show me a couple of (then) uncatalogued cards that he owned.

He said that if the Myer card WAS valuable, that when the time came that I was going to sell it, that people would pay big dollars for it. If the card wasn't that valuable, they wouldn't. He said the value didn't matter anyways if I wasn't going to sell it because since I had only $3 dollars in the card THAT would be the most I was going to lose and since the card doesn't eat, I am not putting any more money into it that I couldn't ever get back out of it.

Once I found this board and read about other people and their collections and read about people bringing new discoveries to light, I felt much better. I saw that what my Mentor said was true and that the REAL value was in owning a card that nobody else had and then in sharing that card so others could enjoy it and talk about it.

Being that my card brought the number of cards in the set to 73, there was a discussion on this board about what that meant. How many cards were REALLY in the set?? What OTHER cards, if any, haven't been found yet?? Were the Star Player Candy football cards printed on the same sheets as the baseball cards and should they be included in the total number of cards in the set??

Bringing my card public and having people talk about it and what it meant as far as the rest of the set goes is something I can't put a monetary value on. Just the idea that I had something that nobody else had and that it caused people to stop and think and then take the time out of their day to respond on a public board was also priceless.

So, again, to everyone who reads these threads and takes the time to respond, THANK YOU!!!! You have probably made somebody's day.

David

Edited for spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Matt,

I thought about it and Yes, that would be the value since THAT was the ONLY public sale. However, I also thought THAT would get the people in trouble who were putting the Price Guides together because the value would be SOOO much lower than the other cards in the set. People looking at the guide would wonder why the one particular card was valued sooo much lower.

Things came to mind like, "Is that a typo in the Price Guide?" "Were there a stack of cards discovered and they are THAT much more easily found?". Stuff like that. Things that might cause E mails and telephone calls to the Editors. So, like I said, I just went along with the value given. Plus, THEIR value is MORE than what I paid for the card, SO I shouldn't complain.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

David - that's exactly the point (of the devil's advocate) - you HAVE to respect the use of sale prices of similar cards in the set to help shape the listing for your card. If you just used sales data for that 1 card ($3), it would be absurd.

[chalupacollects]

Found in Wisconsin I believe. Maybe someone can help put a date to these now?

[ValKehl]

I once had card #7, which pertains to WaJo's win in the 12thi inning of the 7th game of the 1924 WS, in this set. I traded it to a local collector back in February 1998, and I've regretted it ever since. This same card is pictured on Old Cardboard's web site: https://www.oldcardboard.com/d/d351/...cardsetID=1159