Why Do TPGs Perpetuate This Falsehood?

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by drcy

Get with the times. Hand cut is modern young people's slang for not hand cut.

Sort of like inflammable and flammable.

[Al C.risafulli]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

OT slightly, but there are countless cards of actors and musicians issued by Dutch Gum, they came out of packs, I've opened packs, but they are always labeled H/C.

[Leon]

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.

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

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

[Al C.risafulli]

Ah! I always thought Burdick was the reason you disagreed with me on this one, Leon. So we can just call them Henry Johnson Confectioners?

I feel a modicum of relief.

-Al

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

Ah! I always thought Burdick was the reason you disagreed with me on this one, Leon. So we can just call them Henry Johnson Confectioners?

I feel a modicum of relief.

-Al

I believe I have wrongly lumped them into w575 before but Burdick didn't