Archive for February, 2009

Hello everybody, I know it’s been some months since I posted last, but I have a ton of information and updates regarding the 2010 edition of the SCBC. I have material for probably 100 posts–I bet I won’t get to them all–based on the hunting and pecking and Googling and emailing I did following up more than 100 questions from readers since the 2009 edition went to bed.

In fact, that is my lame excuse for not posting, I’ve gotten so many great questions/facts to run down since I put out an APB for new finds and pricing help on Forum 54 in Nov. that I haven’t really stopped to take a breath and do a broadcast here for the hobby.

But yesterday, I ran down a question that is perfect for here.

Chuck Lumb writes:

I find it a bit odd that the Topps product name in the Standard Catalog does not always match the name on the actual product wax pack.
Here are a few examples:

  • Catalog says 1968 Action All-Star Stickers; wax pack says Action Stickers.
  • Catalog says 1969 4-On-1 Mini Stickers; wax pack says Mini-Stickers.
  • Catalog says 1970 Story Booklets; wax pack says Booklets.
  • Catalog says 1973 Candy Lids; tub says Bubble Gum.
  • Catalog says 1974 Deckle Edge; wax pack says Photos
  • Catalog says 1984 Rub Downs; wax pack says Photo Rub-Downs.

Let me know what you think.

This is a great question that sent me scrambling for an appropriate response. I don’t consider myself a newbie anymore, but if we were to consider Bob Lemke and Rich Klein the Mantle and Maris of annual price guides, I’m the Trot Nixon if you get my drift.

1968 Topps Action All-Star Stickers

So I decided to consult Bob on this question. In these instances, I like to make an educated guess in my query to check my progress in learning “catalog logic,” which seems to be part art, part science, and part voodoo.

Left to my own devices, I would side with the pack labels because in this reference book I try to take the most anal-retentive, accurate way of doing things. But “catalog logic” seemed to be making a big statement to me, showing evidence that so many of these sets–relatively big names, at least compared to 1976 Kroger Reds photos and the thousand other little sets like it in the Catalog–did not match the packs.

Judging from this, I deduced, in my email to Bob, that we call the sets names other than what’s on the pack labels because they are the name collectors actually call them when discussing the sets. In this way, informal hobby parlance, over the years, becomes de facto formal names of the sets? Is that right? Does that explain the discrepancy? Bob replies:

You are exactly correct. As with any jargon, the names by which we know these products are those that caught collectors’ fancy and attained their status through common usage. The grading companies, by and large, took their cue from the SCBC.

So there you have it.


Read Full Post »