whats up with this card? been collecting since 1970 and never saw the card once.even asked beckett's al muir to proove that this card exists.he replied-dealer told him it does exist,i said- send me a photo.he never replied back. does any one in this forum know the story behind this card or have a photo to put this card to rest for me.please help as i think this card should be removed from all price guides.

I believe I just tracked down two for you, I emailed the seller for scans and will post them if he sends them. He has the prices as $15.20VGEX and $10VG.

Andrew

i hope you know which version i am talking about.i am refering to the version without the number on the back "so they say".hopefully you do not send me a photo of the regular card with the number on the back i've seen that one about a few thousand times.

Hi, I'm also looking for that 1968-69 Keith McCreary's card with NNO.
Please send me your contact address if that person still got one for sale.

Thanks in advance,

Syl

Hi, I'm also looking for that 1968-69 Keith McCreary's card with NNO.
Please send me your contact address if that person still got one for sale.

Thanks in advance,

Syl

maybe it's just a printing error ???

something like this Vachon .........

I've found out the existence of that card on the Hockey Archive Database website.

You can check it out on this link:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/cards/setdetail.php3?set_id=47

I sent an e-mail to Gerry Chartrand. Here is his response concerning the McCreary card:

I've seen one in my 22 years dealing cards.
I'm convinced it was a salesmen sample.

Hey everyone,

As a set completist, it really bugs me that Beckett lists the McCreary error at all, let alone for $40. Here's an e-mail I just wrote to Beckett. I think more people should question this listing, which certainly implies that Beckett has tracked this cards sale recently.



Hi,



As a vintage collector, I've been very appreciative of Bobby Burrell's recent articles which have clarified some vintage hockey misconceptions. In light of Mr. Burrell's opc crest inserts article, I expect Beckett will amend its labelling of the 1972-73 team crest set to reflect its initial issue date of 1971-72.



In addition, I hope Beckett can clarify longstanding questions surrounding the 1968-69 opc 193A Keith McCreary NNO card, which is currently listed at $20-40. This card was first listed in Beckett #2 in Nov./Dec. 1990 at $3, and steadily climbed in the 1990's to $6, then $7, then $12, and plateauing at $40 by the late 1990's where it has stayed for the last 9 years.



Based on the understanding that your price guide reflects market activity, I assume you have tracked this card and its confirmed sales over the years. This is hard to believe, considering many of us who collect vintage OPC question this cards existance, let alone accepting that there has been enough market activity on this card to justify its listing and periodic price increase in Beckett.



All other OPC variations listed in Beckett are, however rare, accepted to exist by the general vintage OPC collecting public. With the McCreary, even major vintage hockey dealers either dispute this cards existance or, at the most, believe it was a salesman sample and therefore never distributed in the regular 1968-69 release.



Please shed some light on this card, especially your justification for listing it, considering the leading vintage collectors and dealers in Canada have never seen it. If a verified copy was listed at auction in near mint condition, it certainly would attract much larger bids than the $40 price in your guide. At the very least, please consider de-listing the card or relabel it as "not priced due to scarcity", as either option would seem more appropriate.



Thank you.

Nathanael,

That was a GREAT letter!! I hope Beckett responds to it and when they do I am hoping that you put the response here to show everyone.

I also agree that the 193a does not exist and Beckett should remove it from the price guide.

Paul

after many years of research between i and bobby burrell. i have come to a conclusion that there is no varation of this card that exists.the hearsay that there is a salesmens copy does not even have verification.

conclusion is beckett or any other guide must remove this card from there guides.it is a shame that particular guides and people just list something from rumour or hearsay,they have to have solid evidence of a cards existince before putting it a guide!!!

i have told many people to remove this card from there want list because it just does not exist.

p.s.-nathenal,i am glad you brought this subject up again so people can hear the truth about this card from another source.

This is one proof card in existence of the McCreary rookie. It has no number on the back of course, because the entire back is blank. Last I heard, a Canadian collector owned it. Never saw a back that was missing only the number, and have been collecting for over 40 years.

yada yada yada,all hearsay. thats the first time ive ever heard of a blank back plus blank backs are just proofs from the factory.

I certainly will post the response from Beckett (presumably Al Muir) if I receive one. I used to keep a space for the McCreary variation in my 68-69 set binder, as I'm sure many other people kept this phantom card on their wantlist for decades thinking we were one turn of good luck from a rare opc variation just like we continue to hunt for a Brit Selby that doesn't run us $850 like the psa 8 sold by AJ a while back.

I bought my first Beckett (baseball) in 1985, and enjoyed the openness and sincerity Dr. Beckett had for everyone in the hobby and for all aspects of the hobby. This sort of inclusive and professional attitute seems to have been replaced by cockiness and brashfulness that is better suited for high school jocks, and I do miss that sense of trust that Beckett fostered in the mid-eighties.

Thanks, everyone, for taking the time to discuss this!

<yada yada yada,all hearsay. thats the first time ive ever <heard of a blank back

there are still a bunch of proofs that exist for some of the 68-69 opc cards. A collector in Edmonton owns a bunch of them and he might even have the Mccreary card too

<plus blank backs are just proofs from the factory.

that's right and I'd definitely rather have the unique proof than his regular rookie card. After reading what you typed, you're going to have to prooove that you're actually a veteran collector and not some retarded little girl

Nice work Larry, I'm sure you've made even more friends with a comment like that.

But Nathaniel, I was going to post a response to this earlier but decided not to as wasn't sure it was on topic; but you have summed it up nicely with this statement:

"I bought my first Beckett (baseball) in 1985, and enjoyed the openness and sincerity Dr. Beckett had for everyone in the hobby and for all aspects of the hobby. This sort of inclusive and professional attitute seems to have been replaced by cockiness and brashfulness that is better suited for high school jocks, and I do miss that sense of trust that Beckett fostered in the mid-eighties."

I am not familiar with the professional attitude to which you allude but will second your assessment of the latter and current regime. Which is what I was going to refer to in my post, namely that any response you are likely to receive will no doubt be patronizing and otherwise rude. I have not purchased that publication in years (was once a subscriber) and am convinced that it would not exist at all if it were not for the fact that younger, current collectors of UD products from, say, the last ten years, believe that whatever they find therein is the gospel, that they have some mystical power that allows them to determine prices; which, in my opinion, allows them to do pretty much that i.e. set the market for that product.

From my time at the Beckett boards I'm convinced that it is pretty much Al Muir doing it himself; the last time I checked those boards they had actually set up threads to allow posters to report card values to help out.

Wow, all this over a McCreary...

Many errors have been documented and many still need to be but its good to see some banter on the board.

I would think to confirm a card a picture must be produced, no pic, no truth.

Knowing Donald, he is probably one of the most knowledgable collectors on O-Pee-Chee and Topps cards out there. And I think his vintage collection would make most of us prance around wearing a little girls dress.

Bobby

veteran collector-ok jackass you asked for it Larry.here are my credentials

senoir editor of the "vintage hockey collector price guide"
contributor of the yearly beckett for over 15 years.

i never give information to any of these fine books unless i have proof and back up to all my information.Larry it is people like you that ruin a forum like this.if you are right about something,back it up with a photo!!! i always do.it seems that some people on this forum just cant handle the truth behind my comments,too bad.

100% the 193a does not exist. Post a scan before I will believe it.

Larry. You're on strike 2. Jim.

Nice to see a some emotion from our little group! You know, far from me to go about taking sides, but I for one am cutting Larry some slack. If you go back to his post, yeah his tone was curt, but he was defending comments made by George that Donald jumped all over. Then when Larry responded to Donald's comment (albeit in a rude tone), Donald got all defensive and then went on the offensive knowing he has a lot of friends here to back him up. A little bit of the pot calling the kettle black, IMO. Can't we all get along, after all, it is Valentine's Day this week.

You make some good points Ray. And I agree, it does get a bit staid around here. But aside from insulting just about anyone who has children who are (a) little girls or (b) handicapped, Larry didn't make a good impression on a prior thread when he gave notice of his eBay seller jihad. But Donald was indeed a little over the top with George, I mean, who knows what his credentials are ? Could be Senior Editor of Canadian Sportscard Collector. But regardless, his response was rather terse, maybe not as insulting as Larry's was to everyone, but certainly to George I would think. And while the "Vintage Hockey Collector Price Guide" is an excellent publication (have one on the desk in front of me) he does cite Beckett on his resume; I think I have made my opinion of that particular rag known; hopefully in a polite way. Happy Valentine's Day !

guys,i am just trying to get real solid information on this card that is why i started the thread in the first place.

(yada yada yada) is no insult to george or anyone else,i just felt talking about blank back proofs (which are known to exist for every year of o-pee-chee produced) was taking this thread off course.

i am just trying to get some real concrete info on this card not trying to make friends. god knows i can speak for myself. if larry was speaking for george thats fine we are all intitled to our opinions but making childish remarks is low.plus george could probably speak for himself anyways.

hey Al even though i contribute info to the yearly beckett it does not mean they always listen so i have to agree with you on there faults as they do have a lot of room to improve on.i am not going to name anyone there but some of the beckett guys are real stuborn on changing info in there guide even though they know there wrong but it will eventually happen where they will put correct info in there yearly guide.

in conclusion,for me it is all about the correct information in this hobby and if i am wrong about something at least i will admit it!

This is my first post so hopefully it's not a lame one. I just finished completing the 68-69 OPC set and wanted to add any variations or errors to it. I've seen the 193 error mentioned for years in guides but never seen one for sale or in person. Is it a coincidence that the 68-69 and the 69-70 OPC sets both have a 193 and NO number variation? Is it possible when these early guides came out that they we're confused about the two years? Hockey always did take a back seat to baseball and football and maybe they didn't put the effort into checking any mistakes.

Rob

"Is it a coincidence that the 68-69 and the 69-70 OPC sets both have a 193 and NO number variation? Is it possible when these early guides came out that they we're confused about the two years?"

good point rob,maybe they did confuse the two years? there is a thread on the forum about the 69 esposito card varations.go to search and maybe you will find that old thread.

also welcome to the forum!

This forum is obviously made up of a number of different people, with different personalities. Many of us have different levels of experience in collecting, and have different areas of expertise when it comes to hockey cards and the hobby in general.

It's normal to expect disagreements among members, and this doesn't necessarily need to be avoided. The only problem that I see is that some people don't know how to disagree without utilizing insults, and others don't know how to tolerate a different opinion without getting their ego bruised. I really can't imagine why anyone would call someone "retarded" because they disagreed with them regarding the existence of a rare card, or any other reason actually.

I won't mention anyone by name, but obviously, some people need to lighten up a little. I'm pretty sure that all of us are adults, and many of us are over 30, 40, or 50! We don't have to all behave like teenagers when someone doesn't give us the full respect that we feel that we deserve! Let's stop taking ourselves so seriously.

This Forum is supposed to be fun, and most of the time, it is! Let's keep it that way!

Well said Earl. I agree with you 100%. For the most part the people on this board are all adults who have a passion for hockey cards and the hobby. I guess we should try to keep the reason why we collect in perspective. Personally, I do it for the enjoyment and the challenge of finding pre war hockey cards for my sets. When it stops being fun, I will stop collecting.