Jack of All Trades

[Chrisyork33]

Originally Posted by seanbros55

Watched this yesterday.

Meh.

Also, the other dudes Tears For Fears hairdo annoyed the CRAP out of me...

Yussss!!!shout
Shout
Let it all out

[alias21]

I’ve watched the first hour but so far think it is incredibly awful. So far this documentary could’ve been 12 minutes if this person did any research or understood what overproduction is.

First 15 minutes: I have a bunch of cards at my moms house bet their worth a bunch
Next 15 minutes:why aren’t these cards worth anything (overproduction)
Next 15 minutes: why aren’t these cards worth anything (overproduction)
Next 15 minutes why aren’t these cards worth anything (overproduction)

And then I shut it off. It’s like every Craigslist ad you’ve ever seen turned into a two hour “documentary”. Riveting!!

[blaze]

Originally Posted by alias21

It’s like every Craigslist ad you’ve ever seen turned into a two hour “documentary”. Riveting!!

Funny.

Agreed. Card Sharks is a much better read than this was a watch. We just get so excited when our dumb hobby gets some coverage by anyone.

[notfast]

I forced myself to watch it.

Waste of time.

[ThoseBackPages]

you guys are rough lol

[CharlieHustle]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Burning the cards was dumb.

Didn’t really make any sense. Why burn them?

And no one who was that involved with cards at one Point has to know the stuff from when he was collecting is worthless

again not great but entertaining

Stu's dad said that the only way to make the junk era cards 'worth anything' was to get rid of them, just like mothers did with their son's cards in the 50's and 60's. So, Stu was doing his part, to try to make these cards have value, while also symbolically putting this era of his life behind him.

[awz50]

Originally Posted by CharlieHustle

Stu's dad said that the only way to make the junk era cards 'worth anything' was to get rid of them, just like mothers did with their son's cards in the 50's and 60's. So, Stu was doing his part, to try to make these cards have value, while also symbolically putting this era of his life behind him.

Deep.

[CharlieHustle]

Originally Posted by Bowman1951

Sssssooooo, did or did they not, make sheets of Griffey's in '89 Upper Deck? That's still the only outstanding question that I want real answers on.

According to the book Card Sharks, UD absolutely made sheets of Griffey (and other cards too). The explanation they give is that because Griffey was #1, his card was on the corner of the 100 ct sheet and because of handling, the card was damaged more frequently during the pack out process. Collectors mailed in so many Griffeys for replacement, that UD finally just printed up 100 ct sheets of the Griffey card, specifically for replacing damaged cards in the mail.
However, the book goes on to say that once the Griffey card exploded in value, UD realized that they could almost literally print money. They then printed full sheets of the Dale Murphy error in 1989 and the Ben McDonald error in 1990. Once a RC card became worth more than a couple bucks, they would print 100 ct sheets of that card. Supposedly, UD gave out 100 ct boxes of these 'valuable' cards as bonuses to employees, who would then go out and sell them, hundreds at a time, to dealers at shows. It's full circle, considering that UD started because a collector got scammed over some bogus mass printed Mattingly Rc's.

What I want to know, is that the Ex-UD employee who is interviewed said that the 100 ct Griffeys were printed on 1990 stock. Is there a way to tell the difference? Different holograms? Different white shade of paper?

[oplum29]

haven't seen it yet, plan to today. but the whole wax junk era is pretty funny.

those days of the 700+ baseball card sets from Topps and the 4 packs for $1 at the gas station, that was fun. The thrill for me to pull a Canseco card....that was epic.

[mouschi]

Originally Posted by CharlieHustle

What I want to know, is that the Ex-UD employee who is interviewed said that the 100 ct Griffeys were printed on 1990 stock. Is there a way to tell the difference? Different holograms? Different white shade of paper?

I don't recall this from the documentary, but I find this extremely interesting. How cool if one could differentiate?!

[glen87]

Originally Posted by mouschi

I don't recall this from the documentary, but I find this extremely interesting. How cool if one could differentiate?!

hey mouschi - i was thinking of you when canseco said there was one collector

[mouschi]

Originally Posted by glen87

hey mouschi - i was thinking of you when canseco said there was one collector

I would have loved to have been in it, but I didn't know Stu yet - heck when it was filmed initially, I don't even know if I met Jose yet!

[rcmb3220]

I watched for a little bit after he goes to the card show and pretends to be upset his cards aren’t worth anything. I did like the sister though.

[123precision]

Originally Posted by CharlieHustle

According to the book Card Sharks, UD absolutely made sheets of Griffey (and other cards too). The explanation they give is that because Griffey was #1, his card was on the corner of the 100 ct sheet and because of handling, the card was damaged more frequently during the pack out process. Collectors mailed in so many Griffeys for replacement, that UD finally just printed up 100 ct sheets of the Griffey card, specifically for replacing damaged cards in the mail.

However, the book goes on to say that once the Griffey card exploded in value, UD realized that they could almost literally print money. They then printed full sheets of the Dale Murphy error in 1989 and the Ben McDonald error in 1990. Once a RC card became worth more than a couple bucks, they would print 100 ct sheets of that card. Supposedly, UD gave out 100 ct boxes of these 'valuable' cards as bonuses to employees, who would then go out and sell them, hundreds at a time, to dealers at shows. It's full circle, considering that UD started because a collector got scammed over some bogus mass printed Mattingly Rc's.



What I want to know, is that the Ex-UD employee who is interviewed said that the 100 ct Griffeys were printed on 1990 stock. Is there a way to tell the difference? Different holograms? Different white shade of paper?

I remember as a kid in 1989 going to a card show in the Dallas area. There was a dealer with thousands (literally) of the 89 UD Griffey Jr. and N. Ryan. Those were the only two cards he was selling.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by mouschi

I don't recall this from the documentary, but I find this extremely interesting. How cool if one could differentiate?!

What I didn’t understand when they said this is what is the benefit for Upper deck to do this? They put the cards in the box, having more would mean less people buying boxes.

Unless they were selling them on the open market but that isn’t a great business strategy

[CharlieHustle]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

What I didn’t understand when they said this is what is the benefit for Upper deck to do this? They put the cards in the box, having more would mean less people buying boxes.

Unless they were selling them on the open market but that isn’t a great business strategy

UD printed the cards, put them in 100ct boxes, then gave them out as a form of monetary payment. They gave some to employees, in lieu of cash bonuses and I believe they also used them as a form of payment to certain vendors.
"Oh, we owe you $1000? Here, here's 200 Griffey cards, worth $3000".

The Griffeys / Murphy err / McDonald err were just the tip of the iceberg. The real money came with high number French hockey, that they were manipulating at $10,000 a case.

[DieMaus]

Originally Posted by dmarren349

Finally got to see it... its now on Netflix... For those that have watched it, thoughts on it?

Im heading over to Netflix now to watch it! I had no idea!

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scoat]

I wasn't a fan of this documentary. Maybe those who collected in the 80's felt the nostalgia they were going for. Stu didn't seem very knowledgable which led to some cringy interviews. I gave it a 1/5.