Friday, May 1, 2009

Shenanigans?

The other night I was looking for Robin Yount stuff on eBay, and I came across these two items being offered for sale by the same seller. The first is a 2002 Fleer Fall Classic Rival Factions dual patch of Yount and Cal Ripken.

Very cool stuff. I haven't even acquired the non-jersey variation of this card, and I'm not really in the market to pick this one up either. As you can see from the listing, this beauty went for $77.00.

Looking at items up for bid from the same seller, I noticed another Yount patch card, this time with Ozzie Smith.

Like the Ripken/Yount, which ended one minute earlier, this card is numbered to 50. But check out the numbering.
Yount/Ripken-------------------->

Yount/Smith----------------->
What the heck is up with that broke-ass serial numbering? Why is one card neatly and legibly stamped, while the other looks like a Husky pencil was used to do the job? You know what I'm talking about. Every class had that one kid who was too old to be using a pencil that had roughly the same diameter as a stick of butter, but the teacher let him because it was thankfully too large to go up his nose, which was where most of his regular-size pencils ended up.

But I digress. I'm pointing this out because this weird stamping/writing kept me from putting any bids on either of these cards. My collection still lacks any sort of true Yount patch card, and the Yount/Smith fit in better with my budget, but that ass-ugly 49 prevented me from pulling the trigger. With the amount of fakes I've seen out there, this irregularity caused a huge red flag to go up. I am curious as to whether or not this was common for this particular subset of cards. I have no basis of comparison, however, as the Yount/Smith jersey card I do have (which includes standard jersey fabric, no patches) lacks serial numeration. Any thoughts on this? I'm confused further by the seller's 5,000+, 100% positive feedback rating. What's going on here?

6 comments:

madding said...

Ugh, that's terrible looking. I'd love to get a Yount/Smith card someday.

beardy said...

I'm not familiar with this set, but at first glance, I would say that at least one, if not both of these are fakes. My reasoning is basically the same as yours, why would one card be stamped, and the other hand-written if they're from the same set, and both #'d to 50?

night owl said...

This has nothing to do with the eBay swindler and everything to do with pencils.

When I was in 8th grade I had totally run out of pencils to bring to class. The only thing I had left was this giant 2-foot pencil that I had bought in the Baseball Hall of Fame gift shop that summer. I had to use it because we had a math test that day. So I brought it to class, and when they handed out the papers, I whipped out that giant blue pencil (I didn't have sense enough to break it in half so it would look halfway normal).

The nun teaching the class had a fit.

Matt F. said...

I've seen a couple of cards [not this card in particular] before that are " /50" with the first number missing. I assume those cards were extra replacement cards that when the card company shipped them off they forgot/didn't stamp them. The 49/50 might be that sort of thing with the owner filling in the missing number.

William said...

I pulled a 2002 Fleer Greats of the Game Reggie Jackson/Jim Rice dual game-used bat card #'d to 25 a few years ago, but both numbers were handwritten. Not sure what's going on here. You should email this to Beckett and see if they can find out.

Ryan Cracknell said...

If I remember correctly, it was one company's policy to send serial numbered card replacements hand-numbered seeing as how it would be tough to run them through the machine again. I'm not 100% sure, but this would explain the numbering. The crazy patches - I don't know but the Yount/Smith appears to be a replacement of some sort

---OR--- (donning conspiracy hat)

it could have been Fleer leftovers that weren't numbered then but added afterwards.