Topps Dice cards

[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.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

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

Free insured shipping both ways as well, but it's about the precedent. If they change this set, then why won't they change other sets?

[nolemmings]

Well, I believe one could argue that the re-holder would not be caused by a "mechanical error" but rather a hobby correction, thereby making it debatable as to who should pay the cost. As for precedent, I note that for years Mendelsohn's m101-5 set was labeled by the graders as a 1915 issue when it in fact came out the following year, and now you would be hard-pressed to find many slabs still stating 1915. The same can be said for the e135 Collins- McCarthy set, for years incorrectly labeled as a 1916 issue rather than the true 1917 date-- most all have been corrected and/or at least the date of newly submitted cards is now correct. Somehow PSA managed to endure whatever costs were necessary to get it right. I don't see correcting these things as causing major hobby upheaval, and I am unaware of widespread mis-dating.

[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.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

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.

I definitely agree with you on all points, including Al's desire to be precise and hew to facts rather than rigid orthodoxy around dating.

I'm just not sure that I see the upside for the AH. It's not like the listing in their auction is going to change everyone's minds, so that they'll all start referring to it as a 1963 issue instead of 1961. And while it's likely that there is little or no downside, if I were the AH, it just seems like I would question whether all the fuss to attempt to make the distinction and explain the situation to everyone, in that situation whether the juice is worth the squeeze, if for no other reason than it probably feels a lot like pissing into the wind.

But if the AH wants to go there, then my hat's off to them. And if not, then I can totally understand why not.

I can tell you that I have been asked before if I would send my dice game card in to PSA to get them to re-label it as 1963 instead of 1961, and my personal conclusion to date has been that it's just not worth trying to fight that fight. Now if PSA was willing to do it for free and cover insurance going both ways, then I might consider it.

Emphasis on *might*. Even with insurance, I'm not 100% convinced that insurance would really cover me, because then you still have to haggle with someone over how much it's worth, and with stuff like this, value is always going to be a range, and probably a wide range. Plus they would undoubtedly argue for the lower end of the range. And in some ways, no amount of money (that any sane person and/or insurance company would offer me) would really compensate me for losing it, as I'm unlikely to ever be able to buy another one, and the one that I currently own is in many ways the biggest and brightest crown jewel in my collection.

[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.

[whiteymet]

More Dice Card Photos

[raulus]

I guess now we understand what was meant by staining being a condition issue here.