Topps Dice cards

[raulus]

I’m definitely with you Al, that my strong preference would be to keep the sheet intact. Sadly, my guess is that we won’t get a vote on this one.

And even though it’s not my preference, I can understand why someone might buy it with a plan to cut it up.

[whiteymet]

Hi Gang:

Just received permission to post this:

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Hi Gang:

Just received permission to post this:

Are they going to stick with it being 1961? Norm Siebern is wearing an A’s uniform that was only used in 1962 and Dick Groat has an airbrushed Cardinals hat on his card, he was traded to them in November 1962.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Are they going to stick with it being 1961? Norm Siebern is wearing an A’s uniform that was only used in 1962 and Dick Groat has an airbrushed Cardinals hat on his card, he was traded to them in November 1962.

It seems to be from 1963 and I think it was part of the evolution to what became the 1967 Punch Outs.. This is what I've blogged about the set over the years:

https://www.thetoppsarchives.com/sea...%20Dice%20Game

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Are they going to stick with it being 1961? Norm Siebern is wearing an A’s uniform that was only used in 1962 and Dick Groat has an airbrushed Cardinals hat on his card, he was traded to them in November 1962.

For better or worse, PSA labels it as 1961, and they don’t seem too eager to change their labeling. So pretty much everyone else gets to use the same nomenclature, even if it’s clearly the wrong year. Otherwise, you’d run the risk of having potential bidders think it was a different issue, and choose not to bid.

[toppcat]

There sure are a lot of slabbed cards out there with incorrect dates. Despite my efforts over the years to precisely date sets I'm less and less convinced exact dating for collectors is needed in most cases and even less convinced the grading companies have any real interest is redating obvious errors. This set's actual dating, while fun to decipher, has no impact on its desirability.

[ALR-bishop]

As someone who has collected a lot of Topps base, insert, supplemental and test sets I have always admired your insight, research and dedication to the hobby Dave. And your blog is a hobby treasure chest of valuable info to collectors

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by raulus

For better or worse, PSA labels it as 1961, and they don’t seem too eager to change their labeling. So pretty much everyone else gets to use the same nomenclature, even if it’s clearly the wrong year. Otherwise, you’d run the risk of having potential bidders think it was a different issue, and choose not to bid.

You may be right but if true, that's pretty lazy. Let's continue to promote false attribution? How hard would it be to list it as a 1961 1963 Topps Dice Game, with a strikethrough to draw attention and an explanation in the lot description? As for PSA, you'd think they would welcome a potential re-holdering fee. It's a good thing no potential rookie cards are on the sheet or all hell would break loose.
BTW, do we know if the back of the sheet is blank or instead contains the game info?

[swarmee]

People would demand the reholdering for free as Mechanical Errors, I bet.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by swarmee

People would demand the reholdering for free as Mechanical Errors, I bet.

Maybe, but how many cards are we talking about? These are as scarce as hen's teeth.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

You may be right but if true, that's pretty lazy. Let's continue to promote false attribution? How hard would it be to list it as a 1961 1963 Topps Dice Game, with a strikethrough to draw attention and an explanation in the lot description? As for PSA, you'd think they would welcome a potential re-holdering fee. It's a good thing no potential rookie cards are on the sheet or all hell would break loose.
BTW, do we know if the back of the sheet is blank or instead contains the game info?

No clue about the back of the sheet. Have to ask Fred if he knows.

In terms of PSA being lazy, my guess is that most auction houses would find your recommended approach to be more work than it’s worth to try to push on the precise dating of this issue. So in some ways (if my assumption is true), then you could argue the AHs exhibit similar levels of sloth. Although we could debate whose sloth is more damning!

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by raulus

No clue about the back of the sheet. Have to ask Fred if he knows.

In terms of PSA being lazy, my guess is that most auction houses would find your recommended approach to be more work than it’s worth to try to push on the precise dating of this issue. So in some ways (if my assumption is true), then you could argue the AHs exhibit similar levels of sloth. Although we could debate whose sloth is more damning!

I hope the AH in this case takes the time to correct and/or explain before the auction begins in a few weeks. I shake my head at the notion that it would be "more work than it's worth" to correct the date. A change of a word or two and a couple of sentences of explanation as part of auctioning a five or six figure item does not seem onerous. I can say with every degree of confidence that Al Crisafulli at LOTG would nail this down if it were in his auction.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

You may be right but if true, that's pretty lazy. Let's continue to promote false attribution? How hard would it be to list it as a 1961 1963 Topps Dice Game, with a strikethrough to draw attention and an explanation in the lot description? As for PSA, you'd think they would welcome a potential re-holdering fee. It's a good thing no potential rookie cards are on the sheet or all hell would break loose.
BTW, do we know if the back of the sheet is blank or instead contains the game info?

Todd:

FYI the sheet reverse is printed with the game info on each card I have been told.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Todd:

FYI the sheet reverse is printed with the game info on each card I have been told.

Excellent! That should bump the value, or at least not subtract from it. Thanks Fred.