N173 Old Judge Cabinet question

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

I'm more of the baseball image collector than card collector so I'm looking for the OJ expert's opinions. I've got the full group of Brooklyn N173's from the Corkhill estate (Corkhill apparently trimmed off the OJ ad on all of them and mounted them as they all have a strip of glue on the back). The group includes every player from the 1889 AA championship team including a two player card and one of the manager. The only player not identified on the negative is, obviously, of pitcher Tom Lovett. It has the standard "Goodwin & Co." notation in the negative but does not have Lovett's name. I don't have the more recent price guides but the one I have does not show an N173 of Lovett pitching. My question is this - does this mean this uncatologued card is more valuable or are there so many uncatalogued cards showing up all the time that they aren't considered particularly rare? Is this the same case for N172's?

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

I think it makes them more valuable, but the guys at SCD do not seem to think so. I have an N173 of Radbourn tagging Billy Nash. When it was bought it was uncatalogued, but because it came to the market and I had it, it was subsequently catalogued in the SCD 2004 big book. The price they listed in there was the same as other Radbourn's, with no premium. If it was still uncatalogued then I would think I could ask a premium, but now I tell people it is only catalogued because of the one I have, and they dont really care. You can bet that by posting it on this board, it will be catalogued in the 2006 edition for sure though. Regardless, it is a beautiful image.

Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Baxter

Hi Rob,
I can't speak for previous editions of the Standard Catalogue, but this pose of Lovett is NOT listed in the current 2005 edition. If you'd like to keep it uncatalogued, then I would see about deleting this thread as soon as possible.

Best,
Adam

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Several points

1-Cabinets were never very well cataloged so being unlisted does not imply rare. My guess is that in the SCD guide 25% of existing cabinets are "unlisted". If the cabinet represents a pose that is unknown on an N172 it should probably carry some value premium. However, in my opinion, a cabinet which was not previously listed in the catalog which contains a pose already known on an N172 has no value premium. Along with several veteran collectors I have been working to update the Old Judge lists and many cards which do not show up in the SCD guide are already cataloged. This N173 was not, but is now. BTW, Gypsy Queens are also poorly cataloged and "unlisted" does not equate with valuable.

2-Rhys-When you find someone who collects N173's by pose then I think you can start worrying about destroying value by listing an unlisted N173 pose. Let me save you some trouble--there ain't anyone.

3-Unlisted poses of N172s are interesting and carry a value premium since much work has been done cataloging N172 poses and a new pose is most probably a scarcer pose. An existing pose from a previously unknown year or with a variation in the name plate(name, team, position) should carry no value premium.


I posted this before reading Joe's post in Jay B. thread. Obviously Joe and I have been talking too much lately---we are starting to think alike.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Is this image of Lovett catalogued in the N172's?

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Yes, the image is cataloged as an N172

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

If I'm going to sell it I better do it soon while it's still uncatalogued just in case a couple of collectors feel it carries some small premium. I'll probably list it on eBay but I suppose just in the process of auctioning off an uncatalogued card you're going to end up causing it to be catalogued. Kind of a catch-22 I suppose.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

I wrote it down on a post-it and stuck it it to Cycleback refrigerator door. Halve the price.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

but if Henry jumps up and eats it, does it still count as being catalogued?

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

You didn't save me any trouble but thanks for the effort. I had this Radbourn sold last year to a collector and I told him it was an uncatalogued N173 pose of Radbourn tagging Nash. He looked in the guide and saw that it was catalogued as of 2004 (It was not in my 2003 book at the time)and backed out of the deal completely based on this information. There may not be people who collect N173's based on pose, but everybody knows there are people who pay money for things based on perceived rarity whether real or not.

So I guess there is at least one guy out there that cares even if you dont seem to.

Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

If there are only two of a card in the entire universe and you own both, don't sell them at the same time. If you do, people will assume the cards are commmon because two are available at the same time.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

DAvid, you are right on the money. I always used to snicker at dealers that had stack of some hot rookie on table asking more than book for the things. I had 50 Montana rookies in 1991 at one of the last shows I ever set up at. I only put one of them in my case. The rest sat in a box until I sold the one in the case. By the end of the day, I had sold almost all 50 for about double the current book while other dealers that had bunch in their show case at the start of show, still had most of them at the end and were bemoaning the fact the Montana's were selling so slow, lol.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.