Holmes to Homes Walter Johnson

[nolemmings]

If Mile High knew about the lack of card number and the possibility of this being a promo card, then it was sure sloppy to make no mention of it in the auction description. I mean, talk about your obvious "which one of these cards is different from the others?" situation. Five toned, back-damaged Holmes to Homes cards looking like most all examples from that set and then this. Maybe I am unrealistic in my expectations of auction houses, but this is a pretty big miss in my view. The final price was sound regardless, but it would have been nice and helpful to have done some research into the card and make inquiry of the consignor, and then if nothing came to light, at least make that known and provide a proper identification.

Oh well, I hold out hope that someone can help piece the puzzle together.

[PhillyFan1883]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

If Mile High knew about the lack of card number and the possibility of this being a promo card, then it was sure sloppy to make no mention of it in the auction description. I mean, talk about your obvious "which one of these cards is different from the others?" situation. Five toned, back-damaged Holmes to Homes cards looking like most all examples from that set and then this. Maybe I am unrealistic in my expectations of auction houses, but this is a pretty big miss in my view. The final price was sound regardless, but it would have been nice and helpful to have done some research into the card and make inquiry of the consignor, and then if nothing came to light, at least make that known and provide a proper identification.

Oh well, I hold out hope that someone can help piece the puzzle together.

I hope we get some answers too, Todd. Maybe an old newspaper article can shed light. I like the idea of it being a promo card since Wajo, and Holmes to homes were D.C based.. If there is no more information I wouldn’t call it sloppy by the AH since SGC slabbed the card. I think Ryan pointed out something smart that the Wajo was glued in on the front side instead of the back. Given its a 1 of 1 I guess the AH didn’t have more information or figured it would be fine with the unknown. I know the cards walked into the national raw so who knows if that person had more information or not. I think the clean back is easily explained by Ryan’s theory since they walked in with the same person.

[ValKehl]

For anyone interested in more info re Holmes Bakery:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=137123

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...LpR_story.html

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by PhillyFan1883

I hope we get some answers too, Todd. Maybe an old newspaper article can shed light. I like the idea of it being a promo card since Wajo, and Holmes to homes were D.C based.. If there is no more information I wouldn’t call it sloppy by the AH since SGC slabbed the card. I think Ryan pointed out something smart that the Wajo was glued in on the front side instead of the back. Given its a 1 of 1 I guess the AH didn’t have more information or figured it would be fine with the unknown. I know the cards walked into the national raw so who knows if that person had more information or not. I think the clean back is easily explained by Ryan’s theory since they walked in with the same person.

I’m having trouble following your logic. It is because the card was taped on the front that makes it stand out from the others. Someone comes in with 6 Holmes to Homes cards, ONE OF THEM A RUTH ROOKIE, and yet there is apparently nothing to be shared about provenance. No questions asked? I can sort of understand it as relates to the five that show the same back damage as nearly all the rest known to the hobby, since it would seem they all originated from the same source (a press release said a family in KC). But this one? If there are privacy issues or the consignor cannot/will not answer questions, then at least note the absence of a number. There are very few Holmes 2 Homes collectors and not even that many m101 collectors, so it might not have been obvious that the card should have had a #90. Even if it did not affect the bidding, it would be appropriate to acknowledge the anomaly for purposes of accuracy.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether Mile High was sloppy. It is not enough to hide behind the grading company, IMO, since SGC also failed to note the Successful Farming promos it graded that lack numbers and yet REA investigated and discussed them in its auction listing several years ago. I am thankful that Mile High spent considerable time telling us about the McCoid collection and others in the past, so I am disappointed that they gave us nothing here.

[PhillyFan1883]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I’m having trouble following your logic. It is because the card was taped on the front that makes it stand out from the others. Someone comes in with 6 Holmes to Homes cards, ONE OF THEM A RUTH ROOKIE, and yet there is apparently nothing to be shared about provenance. No questions asked? I can sort of understand it as relates to the five that show the same back damage as nearly all the rest known to the hobby, since it would seem they all originated from the same source (a press release said a family in KC). But this one? If there are privacy issues or the consignor cannot/will not answer questions, then at least note the absence of a number. There are very few Holmes 2 Homes collectors and not even that many m101 collectors, so it might not have been obvious that the card should have had a #90. Even if it did not affect the bidding, it would be appropriate to acknowledge the anomaly for purposes of accuracy.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether Mile High was sloppy. It is not enough to hide behind the grading company, IMO, since SGC also failed to note the Successful Farming promos it graded that lack numbers and yet REA investigated and discussed them in its auction listing several years ago. I am thankful that Mile High spent considerable time telling us about the McCoid collection and others in the past, so I am disappointed that they gave us nothing here.

I agree the missing number should have been mentioned. I dont believe saying it may have been a salesman copy would have been correct though if there was no proof to verify that. I am not suggesting that was your position.. Even though I think we agree it more than likely was a promo card.. All I was saying is the back is clean because the card was glued in with Wajo facing down. All of the cards walked in with the same person.

More importantly for my purposes- Do you know anything about the Erie Coffee back Leon posted with his back run??. I have never seen or heard anything about this back. I dont remember seeing this in your article on the M101s. Any information would be helpful.. Feel free to email me if you would prefer.

[Brian Van Horn]

.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by PhillyFan1883

More importantly for my purposes- Do you know anything about the Erie Coffee back Leon posted with his back run??. I have never seen or heard anything about this back. I dont remember seeing this in your article on the M101s. Any information would be helpful.. Feel free to email me if you would prefer.

Just type in Haserot in the search function. Several board members own or at least once owned these cards--maybe they have something to say.

[oldjudge]

I do not own one, but I’ll say something. First, since they are not printed they are not like any other ad back. Second, you really have no way of knowing if they are real or not since anyone can make up a stamp. Finally, if a merchant was making a hand stamp to stamp the cards he gave away (it was cheaper to buy blank back cards than buy cards with ads printed on the back, I assume), why wouldn’t he stamp the card so the hand stamp with the ad could be seen rather than leaving so much of the ad off the card? I’m generally skeptical and I would stay away.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I do not own one, but I’ll say something. First, since they are not printed they are not like any other ad back. Second, you really have no way of knowing if they are real or not since anyone can make up a stamp. Finally, if a merchant was making a hand stamp to stamp the cards he gave away (it was cheaper to buy blank back cards than buy cards with ads printed on the back, I assume), why wouldn’t he stamp the card so the hand stamp with the ad could be seen rather than leaving so much of the ad off the card? I’m generally skeptical and I would stay away.

The Holmes to Homes is a stamped back too.
The story goes that there were around 6 of these coffee cards found together. Since I didn't think my back set would be complete without one I had to have one.

[Jobu]

To the last question, maybe they stamped the backs before cutting the cards up and therefore the borders weren't clear?

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I do not own one, but I’ll say something. First, since they are not printed they are not like any other ad back. Second, you really have no way of knowing if they are real or not since anyone can make up a stamp. Finally, if a merchant was making a hand stamp to stamp the cards he gave away (it was cheaper to buy blank back cards than buy cards with ads printed on the back, I assume), why wouldn’t he stamp the card so the hand stamp with the ad could be seen rather than leaving so much of the ad off the card? I’m generally skeptical and I would stay away.