1921 Baltimore Orioles Tip top Bread.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Grove now over $20K with juice.

Guess I'll have to stick with my 1920 Baltimore Team Photo w/Grove pictured. Won't be picking up this Tip Top Rookie Card for sure..........

[Exhibitman]

I need some card TARP money...If some twit from a bailed out bank buys them with his bonus money (e.g., my tax money) I don't want to know...

[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.

[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

[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

[slidekellyslide]

I have been trying for two years now to get the 1953 Weaver's Wafers (potato chips) cards I own listed in the SCD big book so it will hopefully root out some more of them..I don't care about the value, I'd just like to obtain more of them and having them listed may bring some out. As it stands I have the only two I have ever seen. I haven't seen the new SCD yet so I don't know if they got in this year. (they'd be listed in the vintage minor league section.)

[Rich Klein]

But now that Bob's back; and with his pronounced interest in minor league cards of that era; if you send him a scan and what you know he can add those cards to the Krause (F&W) data base and hopefully they can be added for 2011

Rich

[slidekellyslide]

Thanks Rich, I did send the info to Bob a few months ago...I also sent the info to Don F, but apparently he did not add them.

[Exhibitman]

As far as value goes...My experience has been that most cards I've discovered and publicized via my site/book have gone up in value as people learned about them. Some additional examples then have come out of the woodworks and the prices have taken a bit of a parabolic arc before stabilizing. Case in point is the pre-1870 CDV of John C. Heenan from the Fredricks Specialite series. My research points to it being the first commercially produced and sold boxing card. Before I researched it and published the card was a $200 item on a normal day, like any other CDV of any 19th century fighter whose name isn't Sullivan Corbett, Fitzsimmons or Dempsey. After I published, it went up tenfold and then stabilized around $1,000, when it can be found. If I'd sat on the info I'd have been able to pick off the handful that have come up over the last 5 years; I chose to spill the beans, which is an example of why I'm never gonna be rich. I definitely understand both schools of thought; I just prefer that the knowledge be out there. As Emil Faber said, "Knowledge is good."

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

As far as value goes...My experience has been that most cards I've discovered and publicized via my site/book have gone up in value as people learned about them. Some additional examples then have come out of the woodworks and the prices have taken a bit of a parabolic arc before stabilizing. Case in point is the pre-1870 CDV of John C. Heenan from the Fredricks Specialite series. My research points to it being the first commercially produced and sold boxing card. Before I researched it and published the card was a $200 item on a normal day, like any other CDV of any 19th century fighter whose name isn't Sullivan Corbett, Fitzsimmons or Dempsey. After I published, it went up tenfold and then stabilized around $1,000, when it can be found. If I'd sat on the info I'd have been able to pick off the handful that have come up over the last 5 years; I chose to spill the beans, which is an example of why I'm never gonna be rich. I definitely understand both schools of thought; I just prefer that the knowledge be out there. As Emil Faber said, "Knowledge is good."

When I discovered JL Wilkinson on the Hopkins Bros postcard I decided to publicize that because I feel like that kind of information is vital to the hobby and he was a hall of famer with no known card. That Hopkins card routinely sold for $10-$20 on ebay and after it was publicized sold for $300-$400...it has since come down since I believe most hall of fame rookie collectors were able to pick an example up...I now see it selling in the $40-$50 range, but I don't think many people are aware of its significance. The card is usually sold on ebay with no mention of Wilkinson.

[Cat]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Grove now over $20K with juice.

Guess I'll have to stick with my 1920 Baltimore Team Photo w/Grove pictured. Won't be picking up this Tip Top Rookie Card for sure..........

Good News Phil - at the $17K level the buyers premium is only 10% so you can put in one more bid and still be under $20K.


Edited to say: Sheeesh it's already at $19K (sans juice).

[danmckee]

Look at the current price of these items in Huggins auction, this is why Dan keeps items secret and uncataloged at all costs.

Here is an issue I would like to collect and I no longer can.

Trust me, I will NEVER help nor catalog any of my uncatalog rare stuff until I am ready to sell. FK'M

Collecting in 2009 SUCKS!

[nolemmings]

Dan, I understand your frustration, but not your logic, at least here. I would suggest that one of the main reasons these cards are going as high as they are is BECAUSE they are uncatalogued. There is always a mystique associated with uncatalogued cards, at least for some, who gotta have what they believe is super scarce. Personally, I find the cards to be only moderately attractive, and largely no-name players who should be enticing only to type collectors and Baltimore area collectors like yourself. So why do they command such $$$?? Again, I believe it's because of the uncatalogued factor.

If you would have leaked these out a couple years ago, the catalogs would have no or very little pricing info, and they would be far more conservatively listed. Stumbling upon one at a mall show might have set you back a few hundred dollars from some part-time dealer who looked at a price guide. You wouldn't get to steal one from some poor bloke who had absolutely no clue what he had if they were listed, but by the same token, you wouldn't face what you're obviously looking at now---upcoming catalogs showing these to be priced at four figures each. Thus, from a collector-buyer's standpoint, I would think you would want these cards to appear as common (or at least not so scarce as to be uncatalogued) as possible.

[Rich Klein]

As I said; you've hit the rough edge of keeping hobby items a secret.

Now; most people will know how expensive those cards are AND you won't get the Grove reasonably to finish your set,

But let's be honest as well; aren't you also partially upset at yourself for YOU could have been the one to cash in big time:

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=16722

$30K without juice and counting. Not a bad day and as has been spoken; the consigner is thrilled.

Now go out and sell yours and cash in. You'll feel better and your wife will appreciate the nice holiday gift you give her!

Regards
Rich

P.S. And as for the rest of your secrets, as has been pointed out, better make sure you tell your children for otherwise when that day comes they might not even care about daddy's cards

[JK]

Todd - I think you've hit the nail on the head.

[fkw]

I personally like to show unlisted unknown cards as much as I can. But I dont report them anymore since the crazy low price listed for the last 7 years on the Holland Ice Cream Peckinpaugh unique example card I found on eBay in the early years. It sold years ago for $3K in G/VG and is STILL listed at $2500 NRMT

If no one comes back showing me more examples, especially on net54, I know I have something fairly unique.

example.... 1959 Esslinger Beer HR Derby Aaron (dont own anymore, another board member has it now), but now know it is most likely unique, since Ive flashed it about 20+ times, and even offered to cut my price at the time in 1/2 if someone shows me a scan of another example.

Couple more...

1933 R340? Sport Kings Ruth Premium (at worst this is a R309-1 prototype)
ca.1941 Kroger Bread
(email for scans if interested)

anyone have any of these???? Still asking

[Rich Klein]

Trust me, I will NEVER help nor catalog any of my uncatalog rare stuff until I am ready to sell. FK'M

Dan:

And I'm taking a step of two off; but when I was at Beckett; if you had told me about these cards and sent a scan here is what would have happenned.

1) You send me the scan and checklist

2) I list them and ask you, since you are the person holding them for an approximate retail value

3) You tell me, let's say $100 each and I say sounds good; put the Grove at $1000 because of when the card was issued relative to his major league debut. I'm assuming you are telling me the truth when you tell me the est price guide value.

4) Beckett lists the cards; they are catalogued with a price guide value (of what turns out to be 10 percent of the value); you get a chance to purchase these cards you need for your set at a reasonable price level and I get to add a fun set to the data base.

5) Get me enough checklists and I would have made sure you had a comp ad (which god knows, I made sure enough of those were given out for help and kept them going for years)

6) And then what Todd said

Not trying to bust your chain; but in this case; the leakage really would have helped you. Now go sell YOURS

Regards
Rich

[Exhibitman]

Very insightful post, Todd. The perceived uniqueness of the issue definitely contributes to the bidding. Had they been catalogued already I can see someone going after the Groves [sic] to get a pre-rookie but not the frenzy that is going on over these cards. Now that the price baseline is set the future sellers who emerge (and they always do) will demand extraordinary prices. In a few years when there are no takers the prices will start to drop and at some point will reach a rough equilibrium.

[barrysloate]

There really may not be all the frenzy the bidding suggests. Isn't it possible it is just two of the usual suspects, otherwise known as whales, bidding against each other? And everyone else is already out.