First Copeland Collection Pedigree Emerges from the Hobby Shadows

[clamendo]

Originally Posted by clamendo

I will post my ‘59 Kahn’s Jim Brown PSA-5 and I compared it to the ‘59 Kahn’s Jim Brown PSA-7 that Memory Lane just sold. It looks superior. When you tilt the card there is a very slight scratch barely noticeable. According to PSA standards it should have probably been a PSA-6. I may have it reviewed. Everyone is trying to be the toughest graders. I’ll concur with many of the comments, it does seem like they are being much tougher.

Also, Greg Rice made a good point to me. The Kahn’s cards are large cards with a lot of surface area. So, they are very susceptible to a scratch or slight indentation. Corners, creasing, centering notwithstanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by clamendo

Also, Greg Rice made a good point to me. The Kahn’s cards are large cards with a lot of surface area. So, they are very susceptible to a scratch or slight indentation. Corners, creasing, centering notwithstanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are hammering anything and everything these days.

[oldjudge]

Carl--Not sure what the big deal is. I have the 1916 Boston team postcard that was Copelands. It is easy to identify from the message on the back, but I also have the auctual auction tag and bought it from the lot winner in the original auction. I also know the collector who has the Copeland Anson in uniform. Again, easy to identify.

[clamendo]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Carl--Not sure what the big deal is. I have the 1916 Boston team postcard that was Copelands. It is easy to identify from the message on the back, but I also have the auctual auction tag and bought it from the lot winner in the original auction. I also know the collector who has the Copeland Anson in uniform. Again, easy to identify.

Jay - Then it should be easy to get the pedigree? If that interests you. Did they show the back in the catalog or description.

Also, you must have thought it was a big deal or you never would have bought the auction tag, right? You were wise to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldjudge]

I believe they did show the back. I didn't pay extra for the tag--it came with the piece. I just don't think that the fact that it came from Copeland is that big a deal.

[mrreality68]

Great effort and interesting stuff and yes amazing collection it was

Love the football stuff

[clamendo]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I believe they did show the back. I didn't pay extra for the tag--it came with the piece. I just don't think that the fact that it came from Copeland is that big a deal.

Can you post a picture of the tag? I actually have one from the Topps Guernsey auction.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clamendo]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I believe they did show the back. I didn't pay extra for the tag--it came with the piece. I just don't think that the fact that it came from Copeland is that big a deal.

I went and looked at the catalog. I assume your talking about the Lot 732. Wow. The one with Babe Ruth. That postcard is outstanding, but you should have bought the 604 different Old Judge cards….lol



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldjudge]

Here it is:

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I believe they did show the back. I didn't pay extra for the tag--it came with the piece. I just don't think that the fact that it came from Copeland is that big a deal.

Yes, I don’t understand that either.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jcmtiger

Yes, I don’t understand that either.

I think it's really a question of what deserves to be annotated as being part of a particular collection. If this historically significant collection doesn't deserve to be listed, then does any collection? And the historical significance stems both from the breadth and depth of the items, as well as the significance of the auction to the market in which the collection was ultimately sold.

Admittedly, having a piece that I believe was part of the Copeland collection probably makes me biased towards thinking it's cooler than the average collection that is denoted on a flip.

And maybe for some people, the right answer is that annotating the provenance of any given collection on a flip is not particularly meaningful, and the TPGs should not bother doing it at all.

[clamendo]

Originally Posted by jcmtiger

Yes, I don’t understand that either.

I agree it’s not a big deal, I think Jay should sell me his Copeland auction tag.

Seriously, Jay if you want the name of the vp at Sotheby’s who helped me dig the original invoice out of the archives so you can match the bidder to the auction tag you have send me a message. I think your postcard would look great in a holder with Copeland Collection on the flip, but that’s up to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk