SGC and Heritage ????

[BobbyVCP]

Saw this on Heritage
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...50060-01262023

Problem is SGC screwed up because this is Tom and not Pat

[Leon]

Originally Posted by BobbyVCP

Saw this on Heritage
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...50060-01262023

Problem is SGC screwed up because this is Tom and not Pat

And now Heritage is spinning it as a Undocumented Team Variation

Bunch of crap and coming from these 2 companies this never should of happened and caught as a ID error....

There are humans that do these things. Not saying it should happen, but it does.

I could see going by what a TPG says and then making a mistake, myself. Though I have learned to double check stuff....as my (*as well as a lot of our members) experience probably exceeds a lot of graders.
.
.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by BobbyVCP

Saw this on Heritage
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...50060-01262023

Problem is SGC screwed up because this is Tom and not Pat

And now Heritage is spinning it as a Undocumented Team Variation

Bunch of crap and coming from these 2 companies this never should of happened and caught as a ID error....

Have you reached out to Heritage about this?

[BobbyVCP]

I know they are only human...

Just in my opinion this card was seen by to many people to not figure out the problem before they posted it for sale and as a TEAM Variation of all things.

I expect more maybe that is wrong of me

[nolemmings]

According to the Old Judge book, and Wikipedia as well, Thomas H. Deasley went by "Pat", in which case the name is not erroneous and the listing is correct, although confusing given there is a a Pat Dealy in the OJ set who also played for Washington, but in 1887, not 1888.

[oldjudge]

Todd is exactly right—no screw up on SGC’s part. Deasley has 14 poses, all 1888 cards are with Washington. At the time we wrote the book we had not seen a Washington variation of this pose but since then another has been found and I have it listed in my personal updates. So, according to our book, which was all HA had to go by, it was unlisted. Therefore, neither SGC nor HA screwed up. I would suggest to Bobby that he consult the book before calling people out.

[Fred]

OJ Bible shows pose 121-10 released with a NY team designation (not with Washington team designation). There are other Uniform looks like NY.

Deasley played with NY 1885-1887. Deasley played with Washington in 1888.

What might be interesting is that the authors of the OJ Bible:

1) Were not aware of Washington team variation for that pose
2) It wasn't known when the book was published but it is now (which could mean that it's a tough team variation)
3) They did know about it but forgot to type Washington in the team variations field in the OJ Bible.

The hard core OJ collectors may want that team variation if it wasn't known before. Awesome - now it's outed on the board!!! I'll be watching this one.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Todd is exactly right—no screw up on SGC’s part. Deasley has 14 poses, all 1888 cards are with Washington. At the time we wrote the book we had not seen a Washington variation of this pose but since then another has been found and I have it listed in my personal updates. So, according to our book, which was all HA had to go by, it was unlisted. Therefore, neither SGC nor HA screwed up. I would suggest to Bobby that he consult the book before calling people out.

Jay - is there anyway to get a list of the updates for the book?

I started writing my previous post before you posted your last post. I got pulled away and finished it up and then saw you posted, which is awesome because I figured you'd have some great insight to this.

So, should we all be bidding on this newly found team variation? Just kidding.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Fred

Jay - is there anyway to get a list of the updates for the book?

+1 - I'd love to see this also Jay if it's available to share.

[oldjudge]

Unfortunately, no. I’d suggest that people do what I do and write in additions to their book as they see them. The odds of there being a second edition are somewhere between slim and none, closer to the latter.

[BobbyVCP]

Apparently I am wrong in this case and sorry and apologize for calling out SGC and Heritage...

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by BobbyVCP

Apparently I am wrong in this case and sorry and apologize for calling out SGC and Heritage...

Bobby, just a suggestion, maybe revise the header and the content of your initial post. I have been wrong (many times) before, and I find that goes a long way. BTW- hope all is well

Ryan

[Fred]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Unfortunately, no. I’d suggest that people do what I do and write in additions to their book as they see them. The odds of there being a second edition are somewhere between slim and none, closer to the latter.

Jay (Joe and Richard) - If you ever decide to go through your books and document all the "additions" you've each written down, feel free to email them to me. Either that or start an OJ Bible thread that covers these new findings.

The thread may not be like the "What's your monster number" thread, but at least it would be dedicated to OJs and become a living thread that would be brought to the main forum page when new information can be added. Call it the OJ Bible - addendum thread. Throw some of us dogs a bone.

Edited to add - if you guys send me your notes, I'd be happy to organize them and put them into a thread in the forum.