1887 N172 Comiskey vs 1973 Topps

[BradH]

Originally Posted by Leon

..Someone wrote a tiny 25 on the back which is the reason for Comiskey being a PSA 2 MK...

Can't see the back, but it looks as if someone also wrote a tiny 14 on the front ...

Don't get me wrong, I'd still take the Comiskey over the Schmidt any day. I'm not really a big "rookie" collector, especially the multi-player cards like this one, but I can see why someone would pay a premium for a card in nice condition like this example.

[oldjudge]

The person who wrote the "14" on the card's obverse worked for Goodwin & Co. This card is part of the short number series, all of which should have a number not starting with "0" in the UR. Occasionally, the number wore off or was inadvertently left off the glass plate negative, but it should be on this card--it is in the photo. I can recommend a good book on the topic. 😀

[edjs]

Why do you guys keep calling that a "Schmidt?" That card is a "Cey." Go Dodgers!



edited to add, this is not my penguin.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by edjs

Why do you guys keep calling that a "Schmidt?" That card is a "Cey." Go Dodgers!



edited to add, this is not my penguin.

That is because it is Schmidt's rookie card. Cey's rookie card was 1972 Topps.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by edjs

Why do you guys keep calling that a "Schmidt?" That card is a "Cey." Go Dodgers!

No, it is a "Hilton"

It is not even Cey's rookie card!

Steve

[edjs]

Did I say this was Cey's rookie? Because if I said it was Cey's rookie, you should say don't say that about Cey, but I don't see where I said Cey's rookie. If I could see where you saw me say Cey's rookie, I could see what you say about Cey. But I don't see what you saw, so what can I say, it's Cey!

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by edjs

Did I say this was Cey's rookie? Because if I said it was Cey's rookie, you should say don't say that about Cey, but I don't see where I said Cey's rookie. If I could see where you saw me say Cey's rookie, I could see what you say about Cey. But I don't see what you saw, so what can I say, it's Cey!

Ron Cey's Rookie Card is in 1972 on a 3 player card. IIRC at this early hour, the card number is 761.

So Cey Hey! And let's go back to Mr. Schmidt

[SAllen2556]

A very historical card where we see the origin of mistakenly using an apostrophe on a word simply meant to be plural. Card collectors, some 130 years later, continue to discuss their Goudey's and their Matty's in the spirit of this very card.

n172.jpg

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by BradH

Can't see the back, but it looks as if someone also wrote a tiny 14 on the front ...

Don't get me wrong, I'd still take the Comiskey over the Schmidt any day. I'm not really a big "rookie" collector, especially the multi-player cards like this one, but I can see why someone would pay a premium for a card in nice condition like this example.

I totally agree. I buy prewar almost exclusively and I find the 73's to be one of the more hideous sets Topps has ever put out, but your talking about a high grade sp rookie of perhaps the greatest 3rd baseman of all time. Not really surprised it went for what it did.