I know a few guys that read the board are working on or have finished the HOF rookie card registry set. Now that Psa is grading oversized cards like the 1939 and 1940 OPC, how will this affect your set and do you even care? There are a few cards in these sets that are not currently part of the registry set and there are some cards like Schmidt, Lach and Abel that may be replaced on the registry. Maybe Tom P, Albie, Ray M and anyone else working on this set, either on the registry or on their own can chime in here. Jim.
If they (39-40 and 40-41 'OPC's') are being graded then they should replace the listed cards I think - I believe Tom Papa already has copies of the relevant 29s and 40s just waiting to be graded. I don't but would count those cards as 'regular issue rookies.
I believe Bobby's book is going to state that they are not OPC issues.
For me the answer is it doesn't do a damn thing because I deleted my set from the registry. I don't care to get into why I deleted it.
But when it was listed I tried to get PSA to delete the other options for those cards once they started to grade these and they said no. They said it would upset the other collectors because the other options were acceptable for so long. It's bull****. The rookie is the rookie.
That said, mine are already in PSA holders. Here are some of them. Not all scans here are HOF rookies.
You'll notice it's the T3 holder with an insert. Notice a couple of these cards have no insert because of the size variation. They are oversized a bit top to bottom.
This message has been edited by GoSoxBoSox on Oct 6, 2006 11:19 PM
I was collecting the "true" rookies before the PSA registry so to me it does not really matter.
If they are grading them and they are considered true rookies than they should be in the set. I do not think most people would object to the rookies being changed as the more mainstream cards of these players are still great cards.
When my grandfather passed away quite a few years back I found about 30 of these cards in a trunk in his basement.
Half of them were movie stars and the other half were hockey (with many duplicates in hockey). Dead mint were most of them, like the trunk had never been opened for 60 years, boy two mint Sid Abels I had!
My question is Are these even OPC!?
I know that I have always wondered if they were or not but I am still to this day not convinced they are and here is why!
Why such a dramatic change from the previous years OPC did cards.
These never have gum stains, OPC was a gum company.
Why no series printed on these.
Why is there no display box found.....understandable....
Why were the movie star cards duplicated in the USA, same size etc...remember this was before Topps and OPC had ever got together!
This leads me to believe that a USA and Canadian company that were somewhat one in the same may have produced these...like Hamilton Chewing Gum Canada / Shelby Chewing Gum USA... as they both did Hollywood Picture Star cards earlier.
Shelby Gum was out of USA and the owners son came to Canada and started Hamilton Chewing Gum!
Or maybe it was World Wide Gum, as we know the Goudey company was the American counter part...Here is a picture of a 1939 baseball World Wide Gum Card!
Any opinions are always welcome.
This message has been edited by hockey_jim on Oct 8, 2006 10:33 PM
Also the 1939 WWG Backs also have "Lithographed in Canada" label in lower right. Funny how the hockey cards have the same on the fronts...
I would give this issue more to World Wide Gum than OPC, really!
Or just maybe I have had too much turkey...
WWG/Goudey does make sense on these. I think the stock is quite different than the WWG/Goudey baseball premiums though. If they were doing baseball, hockey and hollywood stars, would the paper not be the same? Jim.
The movie star cards said Acquatoned in the USA , Canadian ones said Lithographed in Canada.
The stock of the Goudey baseball are a completely differnt issue.
I would love to see a WWG/Goudey premium of Howie Morenz!!
I don't know the card stock for the WWG/Goudey baseball premiums, do you have one? 1939 is a subjective year...Baseball could have been done in the spring and the others could have been done in, lets say, January of 1940 (1939-40), so that could almost put a year between the issues.
I don't have any of the baseball ones right now but I am pretty sure they were on thinner stock. The timeline theory does sound reasonable and they do have alot more in common with Goudey/WWG than OPC. Are the Hollywood ones catalogued as WWG or OPC? Jim