Part 2. Can someone check my math.

I think BGS went to sleep and didn't really look at the cards.

No, not bashing BGS. Just saying someone went to sleep. After what I found, it is safe to say that the 2001 Fleer Genuine Phil Rizzuto Names of the Game Bat #'d /50 were never packed out.

After giving BGS a serial number, I was told this:

"There were several of the Rizzuto cards in that order but not enough to make me believe that they weren’t packed out. There were also graded several years after release and I think if they were all gotten from the manufacturer then we would have seen them much sooner than that."

Here are the facts:

Originally 48 of the 50 were graded until this was discovered:



2001 Fleer Genuine Phil Rizzuto Names of the Game autographed bat (no serial) that was graded and labeled as the regular game used bat card. So, that number went to 47 of 50.

Here is the graded breakdown:

(2) BGS 8.0
(16) BGS 8.5
(29) BGS 9.0

Ok, well, that's the 47 out of 50.

Ok, I personally own 3 of the cards that were never graded as shown below:







So, by my math, 47 + 3 = 50, correct? Since they are 50/50, tell me how can Burbank Sportscards, who sells through Beckett is selling an ungraded one which would make it 51/50.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140469069636&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

I know unnumbered extras may have surfaced after the bankruptcy, but shouldn't that been caught if majority were professionally graded? And how could they mistaken a non-numbered autographed card with the base game used card? I bet within that 47 graded card, there are more unnumbered autographed cards in there mislabeled.

I think BGS should take a page out of SGC's book and start putting the serial numbers on the labels such as below:

Totally agreed that they should include serial numbers, especially since it would help prevent the assumption you made below.

Just because it says 10 8's & 10 9's doesn't mean that the 8's weren't cracked and resubmitted to become an 8 again, or bumped to a 9.

Often there will be more BGS grades than cards availalbe due to regrading.

Keeping track of serial numbers would help with that.

Mudcatsfan said:

Totally agreed that they should include serial numbers, especially since it would help prevent the assumption you made below.

Just because it says 10 8's & 10 9's doesn't mean that the 8's weren't cracked and resubmitted to become an 8 again, or bumped to a 9.

Often there will be more BGS grades than cards availalbe due to regrading.

Keeping track of serial numbers would help with that.

Click to expand...

That is common with RCs and Chromes, but i doubt it is common for game used cards. Crack and resubmit usually apply to "hot" cards.

#'s would be nice but it puts pressure on BGS when really it's manufacturing issues

It may be too late in the game for them to start putting serial numbers on slabs. It's a great idea though, and I for one would love to see it happen. They could actually make money on this - let's say they run a special where for every card you submit to be graded, you can include a serial numbered card you own that is already slabbed, which will be reslabbed with the serial number for freeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Matthew Lesko approved.

Issue with slabs is that one can "unslab" a card and resubmit it... making it appear there were 2 copies there.

piggy1918 said:

Issue with slabs is that one can "unslab" a card and resubmit it... making it appear there were 2 copies there.

Click to expand...

That is true, but who would keep doing that to a non-hot game used card? I doubt anyone would get a premium bumping a Joe Morgan or Ralph Kiner game used bat from an 8 to an 8.5 or 9. I could see that happening to an autographed card of a star rookie or chrome ref. of a prospect.

When the 2001 Fleer Genuine press release came out, it stated that the 2001 Fleer Genuine Phil Rizzuto Names of the Game Autograph/Bat was pulled from production. Beckett said the submitter had multiple Rizzutos including the non-numbered autograph/bat that was mislabeled by BGS as the regular bat version. So, he had at least one unreleased card in that bunch, maybe more.

1995BBRefractorGuy said:

#'s would be nice but it puts pressure on BGS when really it's manufacturing issues

Click to expand...

Well, it wouldn't be so bad if it only applied to cards with the actual number on them. Some manufacturing issues can be discovered quicker this way also.

autocut said:

piggy1918 said:

Issue with slabs is that one can "unslab" a card and resubmit it... making it appear there were 2 copies there.

Click to expand...

That is true, but who would keep doing that to a non-hot game used card? I doubt anyone would get a premium bumping a Joe Morgan or Ralph Kiner game used bat from an 8 to an 8.5 or 9. I could see that happening to an autographed card of a star rookie or chrome ref. of a prospect.

When the 2001 Fleer Genuine press release came out, it stated that the 2001 Fleer Genuine Phil Rizzuto Names of the Game Autograph/Bat was pulled from production. Beckett said the submitter had multiple Rizzutos including the non-numbered autograph/bat that was mislabeled by BGS as the regular bat version. So, he had at least one unreleased card in that bunch, maybe more.

Click to expand...

Why fake a non star auto, or even worse a patch. If people think it would mean more $ they will do anything, even if it doesn't make sense.

Mudcatsfan said:

Totally agreed that they should include serial numbers, especially since it would help prevent the assumption you made below.

Just because it says 10 8's & 10 9's doesn't mean that the 8's weren't cracked and resubmitted to become an 8 again, or bumped to a 9.

Often there will be more BGS grades than cards availalbe due to regrading.

Keeping track of serial numbers would help with that.

Click to expand...

That would be like bumping multiple Fleer Jim Catfish Hunter Jersey card from an 8 to a 9. I can see that for star rookies and prospect, but not a regular game used card with low demand. Beckett said these cards were graded several years after release. I bought all of mine for less than $10 dlvd within the last couple of years, so i don't see anyone resubmitting to possibly getting more money.

Out of the entire set, graded were (2) Orlando Cepeda, (1) Carlton Fisk, (5) Jimmie Foxx, (1) Reggie Jackson, (47) Phil Rizzuto, (10) Preacher Roe, (3) Babe Ruth, (1) Bill Skowron, (1) Duke Snider, (1) Hack Wilson

and it was 48 until one was found to be an unreleased autographed/bat card. So, if it is an assumption, it is a very logical one.

Krom said:

autocut said:

piggy1918 said:

Issue with slabs is that one can "unslab" a card and resubmit it... making it appear there were 2 copies there.

Click to expand...

That is true, but who would keep doing that to a non-hot game used card? I doubt anyone would get a premium bumping a Joe Morgan or Ralph Kiner game used bat from an 8 to an 8.5 or 9. I could see that happening to an autographed card of a star rookie or chrome ref. of a prospect.

When the 2001 Fleer Genuine press release came out, it stated that the 2001 Fleer Genuine Phil Rizzuto Names of the Game Autograph/Bat was pulled from production. Beckett said the submitter had multiple Rizzutos including the non-numbered autograph/bat that was mislabeled by BGS as the regular bat version. So, he had at least one unreleased card in that bunch, maybe more.

Click to expand...

Why fake a non star auto, or even worse a patch. If people think it would mean more $ they will do anything, even if it doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

But this card is not an auto or patch. It's a regular bat card and the bat was not replaced with a cork or anything.

The graded one that you posted is the autograph version, but the last three are just the bat version. So wouldn't those not count towards that autographed count? The other cards in the set have 50 each of the game-used version and 100 each of the game-used autographed versions, so could there be 100 Rizzuto auto/GU versions that aren't numbered?

mrwhitesox30 said:

The graded one that you posted is the autograph version, but the last three are just the bat version. So wouldn't those not count towards that autographed count? The other cards in the set have 50 each of the game-used version and 100 each of the game-used autographed versions, so could there be 100 Rizzuto auto/GU versions that aren't numbered?

Click to expand...

The autographed version was pulled from production and not released to the public. It was listed as the standard bat. I emailed registry to have it corrected in their database and was told to send card back to have label corrected.

The person who submitted it had other Rizzutos that could have been unreleased autographed version and mislabeled and cataloged. Rizzuto didn't sign all 100. Here is one example:



Which was listed on eBay as an error. I found 2 autographed cards. One signed in blue, one signed in black. Both with no serial number.



I submitted the black variation to BGS as part of one of EricCT's group submissions.

Why have so many of the Rizzutos been graded? I mean, there have been 16x as many submitted as Ruths... just seems VERY odd.

Also, someone may have cracked an 8 and kept it raw. Then, sells it and the buyer subs it again becasue it looks decent. It doesn't have to be the same person trying to subbump.

piggy1918 said:

Why have so many of the Rizzutos been graded? I mean, there have been 16x as many submitted as Ruths... just seems VERY odd.

Also, someone may have cracked an 8 and kept it raw. Then, sells it and the buyer subs it again becasue it looks decent. It doesn't have to be the same person trying to subbump.

Click to expand...

I have yet to hear of anyone to have pulled one from a pack and I have been keeping up with this product since release and even exchanged emails and interviewed the product manager of this particular product.