1921 Baltimore Orioles Tip top Bread.

[JLange]

I am going to direct this comment generally, since I think there is a lot of sentiment similar to Dan's, so I will not single him out as a villain.

Ok, why would anyone keep a hobby find "secret?" I can understand if the forum or venue was not matured to the point where people would acknowledge/appreciate a find, but with Net 54 that is simply not the case. I can also understand if someone is just getting around to scanning or documenting a find, since scholarly work and research does take time. But once you are armed with the facts and photos, get the find out in the open and catalog it. As with other finds, let others fill in the blanks with anecdotes, articles, and ancillary items. Baseball card collecting is at times scholarly, and at times a very petty hobby. The only way for Everyone to appreciate the item is to publish and publicise it, and let value fall where it may.

The Lefty Grove is an instant classic. Why did I need to wait my whole collecting life to find out about this when a hand full of people already knew about it?

You just make Bob Lemke's job and everyone else who is trying to document and preserve our hobby that much more difficult.

Dan and others on this board, I respect and greatly appreciate your hobby insights, knowledge, and experience in our great hobby. Please continue to share openly that we may all benefit from your collective wisdom.

Regards,

[Orioles1954]

I spoke to another collector from a tiny town on the Eastern Shore of Maryland who has a Grove.....I know of three in the hobby now. The fellow from the Eastern Shore was admittedly not the most internet savvy.

James

[bcbgcbrcb]

James:

Dan stated earlier in this post that he does not have a Grove in his collection. Is there actually a third one out there somewhere?

If so, this card is not going to have the mystique of the Just So Young or Alpha Photo Orioles. I guess it all depends on the "ceiling bid" of one individual and at least one other "person" who keeps driving the bidding higher and higher but do we really expect the price to continue rising at its current rate when this is certainly not a unique item?

[oldjudge]

Dan is one of the class acts in the hobby and has contributed more than 99+% of collectors. Disclosing unlisted cards is a tough decision. In most cases the card will be worth less if it is in the catalog than if it is "unlisted". The people who don't own the card always want to see the card disclosed--they have nothing to lose and information to gain. The owner of the card always has a tough choice; one that should not be second guessed either way.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

James:

Dan stated earlier in this post that he does not have a Grove in his collection. Is there actually a third one out there somewhere?

If so, this card is not going to have the mystique of the Just So Young or Alpha Photo Orioles. I guess it all depends on the "ceiling bid" of one individual and at least one other "person" who keeps driving the bidding higher and higher but do we really expect the price to continue rising at its current rate when this is certainly not a unique item?

Oh, it will have the mystique. The other fellow who has one doesn't have a computer and isn't active in the cyber world of the hobby. I can confirm two copies and have heard of a third.....all in Maryland.

[oldjudge]

Lyman--I don't think unlisted equates to more valuable in all cases. I think on something like Old Judge poses very few people know what is truely rare and so they equate unlisted with rarer than listed. As such, unlisted sells for more. On the Just So Young it's value might actually be higher because it is listed and discussed. Everyone knows it is legitimate and rare.
As for the Tyng Old Judge I think that as soon as it became listed it's value probably dropped by 90%. I would be shocked if the next copy sold for more than a few thousand.
My choice has always been to disclose new Old Judge finds, but that is a personal decision. I have no problem with those who choose the other path.

[lhardem]

Fair enough, Jay. Thanks for your clarification. We are probably in closer agreement than it appears. Let me summarize where I think we agree:

1) The "unlisted is more valuable" rule does not always apply.

2) In most cases were it does apply, it is because the buyer (sometimes erroneously) equates "unlisted" with "rarer" and therefore may pay a hugh premium because he doesn't know the difference (or has money to burn and doesn't really care). In either case, the true value of the card is much less.

Hope I got that right.

Cheers,
Lyman

[Rich Klein]

Leon and myself would discuss this endlessly. We agree there are times where it is better off to disclose a new find and probably times where there are not times to disclose such a find. Since I missed where Dan does not have a Grove; then I can understand more why he kept that a secret. But now; more will come out and Dan won't have the secret any more AND he may get less money than if he were the one to break the news of the item and sell them. That's why I think he "Blew it" so to speak. Hey, it was his decision and I hope (*for him*) that if and when he sells these cards; he gets ever more then H&S does.

Regards
Rich

[lhardem]

Originally Posted by JLange

I am going to direct this comment generally, since I think there is a lot of sentiment similar to Dan's, so I will not single him out as a villain.

Ok, why would anyone keep a hobby find "secret?" I can understand if the forum or venue was not matured to the point where people would acknowledge/appreciate a find, but with Net 54 that is simply not the case. I can also understand if someone is just getting around to scanning or documenting a find, since scholarly work and research does take time. But once you are armed with the facts and photos, get the find out in the open and catalog it. As with other finds, let others fill in the blanks with anecdotes, articles, and ancillary items. Baseball card collecting is at times scholarly, and at times a very petty hobby. The only way for Everyone to appreciate the item is to publish and publicise it, and let value fall where it may.

The Lefty Grove is an instant classic. Why did I need to wait my whole collecting life to find out about this when a hand full of people already knew about it?

You just make Bob Lemke's job and everyone else who is trying to document and preserve our hobby that much more difficult.

Dan and others on this board, I respect and greatly appreciate your hobby insights, knowledge, and experience in our great hobby. Please continue to share openly that we may all benefit from your collective wisdom.

Regards,

Jason, I agree wholeheartedly with your post that new finds should not be kept secret. Your post is right on.

While I agree that there may be valid reasons for some reasonable delay while gathering additional facts about a find, the attitude that "I'm going to take this secret to my grave" is just couterproductive for the collector and definitely not in the interest of the hobby.

I have never understood the rationale that keeping an "uncataloged card" secret will make it worth more in the future. As you suggest, sharing the find with the hobby very well may uncover additional facts that would only stimulate interest (and value) to the find.

As I believe it has been pointed out before, keeping "new discovery" secrets is like asking "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make any noise?" If nobody knows about it or is there to hear it, what difference does it make. I strongly believe that a card's value can only be enhanced when it is revealed and widely discussed.

As editor of Old Cardboard, I have spent the past six years of my "retirement" with the sole purpose of providing new and interesting information to the hobby about vintage baseball cards and memorabilia. From my perspective, I have great admiration for our authors and others who have freely shared information about the card sets in which they have expertise. By doing so, they have contributed very significantly to the hobby. And in the process, I firmly believe, have increased the overall value of the cards they discuss.

Lyman

[oldjudge]

Lyman--With all due respect I think you are dead wrong on the valuation question. An unlisted Old Judge pose of Jim Tyng sold for approximately $20,000 in the last REA auction. Over the years I have found easily 25 unlisted Old Judge poses, cards probably no more or less scarce than the Tyng pose, and I guarantee you that since they are "listed" they would only sell for a small fraction of the Tyng price.

[lhardem]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Lyman--With all due respect I think you are dead wrong on the valuation question. An unlisted Old Judge pose of Jim Tyng sold for approximately $20,000 in the last REA auction. Over the years I have found easily 25 unlisted Old Judge poses, cards probably no more or less scarce than the Tyng pose, and I guarantee you that since they are "listed" they would only sell for a small fraction of the Tyng price.

Jay, with equally due respect to an Old Judge expert:

1) Are you saying that the Jim Tying card being "unlisted" is the sole reason the it sold for that price?

2) Did not the card, in effect, inherently become "listed" the instant that it appeared in the REA catalog--before it sold for that price?

3) What is your opinion of the value of the card today. Since it is now listed, is it worth much less today?

4) Do you think that your same rationale applies in other situations (say for an entirely new set like the 1921 Tip Top Bread issue, rather than a card like the Jim Tying card from an already established iconic set)?

5) Are there any exceptions to your "unlisted has a higher value" rationale or do you think that rule always applies?

6) What is the rationale that explains why an "unlisted" card has more value?

Jay, you know that I luv ya (and Dan Mckee is one of my all-time closest collector friends). We just seem to differ on this issue. Perhaps your answers to the above questions may convince me differently.

Lyman

[Leon]

While I agree with Jason and Lyman I see Jay's point too. I don't think you can make a blanket statement on ALL unknown cards losing value when they are made known, as well as, or, increasing in value from being known. Some sets are so scarce an unknown card isn't that big of a deal, as there are many that aren't known (N175, Frederick Foto's etc)..... Overall, I do like sharing knowledge but understand both sides of the argument. Personally, I tend to fall on Lyman's side in discussing the rarest issues....And again, that doesn't mean I don't think some cards are less valuable when catalogued. On these Tip Tops I don't think it made a difference in their value....I also think individually they would have done just as well or better....but they aren't doing bad as a lot either....regards