Why does PSA still not recognize H.D. Smith & Co. cards

[darkhorse9]

It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there's never been anything called Scrapps Tobacco. All those cards were made by H.D. Smith & Co. Every publication, including the first one to call them Scrapps, has admitted such. Even an email I got from PSA acknowledges that they are wrong, but they won't do anything to fix it and still label them as Scrapps Tobacco.

This is important because H.D. Smith & Co. cards were issued with gum. That makes them the first to do so. Ignoring that milestone and mislabeling thfrm as a non-existent tobacco is wrong.

[JustinD]

I've always thought the scrapps designation was just a descriptor and not an existent product. As in the common items of the 1880's through early 1900s of diecut sets sold for scrapbooking purposes, a huge hobby at the times. Those often embossed diecuts are called scraps or scrapps for the hobby use. Perhaps it became a mystery amalgamation of words at one point due to confusion..."These could be scrap, they could be tobacco".

That said I think you have a good point and they become one of the very early true cards if they were candy packaged. I imagine it's one of those common decisions they make on the regular that they "don't want to rock the boat" or frustrate collectors or registries by changing the name.

[90feetaway]

Would it cause confusion in the market or with the set registry?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by 90feetaway

Would it cause confusion in the market or with the set registry?

I think it's safe to say both. Any future listings for auctions or sales would likely list both designations for at least a decade if it was to happen as well as the TPGs would need to provide reslabbing to help the new classification. That doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea, if they are candy cards it's historically important. You could take it to the next step and ask if they should have an e-card catalog number? There is no current number due to the thought they are scraps. Without the e-number, I don't see acceptance outside an inner circle they are candy cards, but that would be a long shot.

My remarks were in what I believe to be the common excuses, I do not think it's insurmountable. The grading industry has numerous misidentified cards, this is simply just one of many they are ignoring. The entire industry is loathe to change and tend to hide their heads in the sand on these issues regularly.

[G1911]

PSA (and the others) routinely ignore research and proven facts. They will almost always just stamp whatever hobbyists made up long ago instead of things that are true.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by G1911

PSA (and the others) routinely ignore research and proven facts. They will almost always just stamp whatever hobbyists made up long ago instead of things that are true.

Sadly, 100% accurate.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there's never been anything called Scrapps Tobacco. All those cards were made by H.D. Smith & Co. Every publication, including the first one to call them Scrapps, has admitted such. Even an email I got from PSA acknowledges that they are wrong, but they won't do anything to fix it and still label them as Scrapps Tobacco.

This is important because H.D. Smith & Co. cards were issued with gum. That makes them the first to do so. Ignoring that milestone and mislabeling thfrm as a non-existent tobacco is wrong.

The E223 G & B Chewing Gum cards were also issued in 1888: