Star Jordan Schonco Collection

[MrSnyder]

Bought this card in a lot. Have done some research and think I have some background info on the Schonco Sports Collection, but my question is - Does having that on the BGS label add any premium to the card?

[ThoseBackPages]

i would hope not lol

[theleica]

You should read the threads on BO as part of your research, if you haven’t already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[6celtics33]

Even if it did at one time

At this point I would say no

[Willikn]

Schonco stuff by and large consists of cards that Levin kept stashed until 1990. Never released and in some (most?) cases they were in sheets until 1990. BGS will slab up 1986 Best of the Best cards that were never released by Star Co, but only if it belonged to Schonco. Schonco on the back can mean sheet cut, but not the OP's card. That thing is cut exactly like the real ones.

Want a good laugh? Look at the BGS slabs of that card on Ebay. They all have nearly identical centering but BGS is all over the map with the centering grade.

[JMANIA]

Originally Posted by Willikn

Schonco stuff by and large consists of cards that Levin kept stashed until 1990. Never released and in some (most?) cases they were in sheets until 1990. BGS will slab up 1986 Best of the Best cards that were never released by Star Co, but only if it belonged to Schonco. Schonco on the back can mean sheet cut, but not the OP's card. That thing is cut exactly like the real ones.

Want a good laugh? Look at the BGS slabs of that card on Ebay. They all have nearly identical centering but BGS is all over the map with the centering grade.

Really most in sheets? Sure there were some sheets left over, but most of the sheets were Magic Johnson/Best Best cards that had never been released to the public. Yet you take that information and confuse it. Like if you claim the #195's are off-center for the most part, then how did those come from left over sheets? Makes no sense, they would be cut centered. Obviously there were some sheets left over and you could identify likely sheet cut cards, the red bleed BGS 9 #101 or the first BGS 9 #195.

The original poster can look up Schonco here in the glossary to understand what it is:

https://www.basketballgold.com/glossary.php

[Willikn]

Originally Posted by JMANIA

Really most in sheets? Sure there were some sheets left over, but most of the sheets were Magic Johnson/Best Best cards that had never been released to the public. Yet you take that information and confuse it. Like if you claim the #195's are off-center for the most part, then how did those come from left over sheets?

Not what I said/typed. I apologize for communicating poorly. What I should have said, what I thought I said, was that the card was not sheet cut.

Originally Posted by JMANIA

Obviously there were some sheets left over and you could identify likely sheet cut cards, the red bleed BGS 9 #101 or the first BGS 9 #195.

"Some" sheets? How many? Who knows and in my view, who cares. Those cards should have all been destroyed. Instead the manufacturer, who still had them, sold them at auction. In the 90's after values had been established based upon the current circulation.

How many "Best of the New" Jordans exist now that were never in bags? We know for a fact more of them than were actually put in bags and distributed. If those were in sheets for cutting, or just lying around already cut, it doesn't matter to me. If you bought that card in 1989 how you lookin' right now?

If that card was perverted, we can't know what else but I'm forced to assume all of it. We know BGS slabbed the Best of the Best and Magic sets for Schonco. How many saps got bilked there?

I bought the sets new, or near release, from 83-85. I loved those sets. Levin pooped in my living room and I'm not one who got stuck holding a Best of the New because I couldn't afford one. Not in 1988-89. Can buy them up now for nothing.

Sorry for the rant.

[JWBlue]

CliffsNotes please

[JMANIA]

Originally Posted by Willikn

Not what I said/typed. I apologize for communicating poorly. What I should have said, what I thought I said, was that the card was not sheet cut.




"Some" sheets? How many? Who knows and in my view, who cares. Those cards should have all been destroyed. Instead the manufacturer, who still had them, sold them at auction. In the 90's after values had been established based upon the current circulation.

How many "Best of the New" Jordans exist now that were never in bags? We know for a fact more of them than were actually put in bags and distributed. If those were in sheets for cutting, or just lying around already cut, it doesn't matter to me. If you bought that card in 1989 how you lookin' right now?

If that card was perverted, we can't know what else but I'm forced to assume all of it. We know BGS slabbed the Best of the Best and Magic sets for Schonco. How many saps got bilked there?

I bought the sets new, or near release, from 83-85. I loved those sets. Levin pooped in my living room and I'm not one who got stuck holding a Best of the New because I couldn't afford one. Not in 1988-89. Can buy them up now for nothing.

Sorry for the rant.

Well do some reading if you want. I respectfully think you are a little unorganized in what you are saying and will confuse people. I provide two links below from the web site I created to try and help people learn.

https://www.basketballgold.com/commo...onceptions.php

False: The 1986 Best New (not to be confused with Best Old) subset was limited to 440 of each card produced.
Correct: The notion that only 440 cards of each Best New card were issued is erroneous. Approximately 440 of each card were released via an original order option related to the sale of bags (dealers were given the bags for every five complete sets of 1985-86 purchased). However, not all Best New cards were released via this distribution method and were subsequently released unbagged. Because the 4 card Best New subset was printed on the same 100 card sheet as #95-172 1985-86 and the 10 card Jordan set, the quantity produced should be consistent with those issues. It is impossible to say exactly how many were produced but likely between 3,000-5,000.

False: Star Co. cards from the 1986 Best Best and Magic Johnson subsets came out before the 1986-87 Fleer set, including the #57 Michael Jordan.
Correct: Cards from these sets were not released to the public until the early 1990's after the original Star Co. auction in 1990.

False: An original 1986 Best New bag has Michael Jordan on top.
Correct: The Best New bags were not issued in any variations in terms of the top card and all original bags have Patrick Ewing on top. If you see a bag with Jordan on top, it was not an original sealed bag from the Star Co. However, that does not mean the cards in the bag are not authentic.

There are some that yes criticism that Levin could sell his leftovers to three legitimate purcharers. This is also discussed. But the Topps Vault has not sold leftovers? Were there leftovers because basketball cards were not popular at the time?
https://www.basketballgold.com/faqs.php

FAQ: Are there any legitimate criticisms of the Star Co.? Are the false rumors really untrue?
Answer: Yes, the false rumors are untrue. As with any product, nothing is perfect and people make legitimate criticisms. Some people do not like the type of card stock, the quality of the product where centering may be an issue, surface issues persist, and coloring may vary on the same exact card due to imperfect quality control at the printers. However, some people like those characteristics that should make high grades on many key cards elusive. Some do not like that they were issued in team bags where one knew what they were getting while others feel that that was innovative in trying to bring attention to basketball cards that were not popular at the time.

One criticism that surfaces or disappointment to some people is that the owner was able to sell many cards to three individuals including Schonco in 1990 and as late as 1996, long after Star's contract with the NBA expired in 1986. While those that purchased from the auction claim that they confirmed that the purchase quantity was in line with that of other dealers, certain cards were also released in a significant quantity that they were no longer perceived to be scarce. For example, many people assumed that the Gatorade Barkley's that were pulled from the set had been destroyed or believed they should not have been allowed to be released to the market through the auction if they had been pulled from the set. This caused the price of the Gatorade Barkley to fall significantly, although BGS grading may revive the value. Similarly, it was previously estimated that 440 of each Best New card had been released via bags because an original order option gave dealers a Best New Bag for every five complete sets of 1985-86 purchased. However, through the auction a significant number of Best New cards were released unbagged which should be in line with the quantity produced overall from the same 100 card sheet that contained #95-172 of the 1985-86 set and the 10 card Jordan set. The auction also appears to be where a limited number of uncut sheets were sold.

The auction did not necessarily stop those with quantity of Gatorade Barkley's or Best New cards from trying to promote them for sale and trying to hide the true quantity. Nevertheless, the remaining inventory Levin sold at the auction, with rights to purchase thereafter, appears to be the original Star Co. inventory that he never sold out of in the first instance due to low demand and his desire to hold back a certain amount of cards. In relation to the auction, one criticism that surfaces is that the quantity sold to the three individuals has not been released, although certain key individuals with knowledge can estimate it. In addition, some cards were sold unbagged which would not subject them to the same condition sensitivity (i.e. from the cellophane type wrap of the 1983 NBA All-Star Game subset).

Another criticism is that the 1986 Best of the Best and Magic Johnson subsets were not released to the market until after the Star Co. auction in 1990 and there is no proof when the cards from those subsets were printed. But Star veterans and purists often do not collect those two subsets and find it easier to ignore them.

One key point that is forgotten because of Levin's legal problems is that Levin was not found to have reprinted any original Star Co. cards that were released from 1983-86. He was not involved with the Type II's and the Shop at Home Scandal, which directly involved Levin, did not relate to original Star Co. cards released from 1983-86.

[JMANIA]

https://www.basketballgold.com/unanswered-questions.php

Question: When were the 1986 Star Best Best and Magic Johnson subsets printed?
Answer: No one to this day has been able to prove when the Best Best and Magic Johnson subsets were printed. However, they were not released to the public until the early 1990's after the original Star Co. auction in 1990. Schonco won the right to purchase these cards which were released primarily on the same sheet of cards (a small number may have been sold by Levin already cut). While prior photos were sometimes used by the Star Co., Best Best was the first time an entire set used prior photos. GAI and SCD did not grade the Best Best and Magic Johnson subsets. Beckett only grades the cards from the Schonco Collection which were likely all sheet cut by Schonco. The players included in the Best Best set exemplify those popular players that likely would have been included if the set was printed in 1986. However, there has been no explanation as to why the Best Best and Magic Johnson subsets were not released until after the 1990 auction. Star purists tend to avoid these sets because of the lack of proof as to when they may have been printed and because most cards were not cut by the Star Co. There remain numerous uncut sheets that contain these two subsets.

[JMANIA]

Odd in light of the trimming scandal to rant about Star Company basketball cards which suggests deferring to a decision made by PSA not to grade them.

https://www.basketballgold.com/glossary.php

"PSA Effect" - the decision by PSA to stop grading Star Co. basketball cards and now to refuse to grade them (or learn how to grade them), arguably without a justifiable basis, which causes many people to incorrectly infer that original cards cannot be distinguished from counterfeit cards. PSA made this decision when grading was in its infancy and PSA was trying to build a grading company. Its early advertisements used the now infamous PSA 8 Honus Wagner card and alleged it could detect trimmed cards and did not grade sheet cut cards. Rather than learn to properly authenticate Star Co. basketball cards, it appears to have wanted no part of them. This lead to the incorrect interpretation that grading companies cannot learn to tell the difference between real Star Co. basketball cards and counterfeit cards. While ungraded cards encompass a significant portion of the sports card market, the fact that the Star Co. cards are able to be authenticated and graded by those willing to learn should put a positive light on them. Ironically, PSA grades Star Co. baseball cards, which include cards printed on the same sheets as the basketball cards, yet refuses to learn to grade Star Co. basketball cards.

https://www.basketballgold.com/unanswered-questions.php

Question: Why does PSA not grade Star Co. basketball cards?
Answer: This is a question that should be directed to PSA. Those that have asked PSA's President, Joe Orlando, have been told that he cannot deny the importance of the cards, that the door is always open, and that he will never say never. However, he has been making similar statements for years and has not taken any action. Arguably if PSA were an elite and full-service grading company, it should grade the cards. Whether or not it will gain enough financially should not be the determining factor due to the importance of the cards. The reasons PSA uses why it cannot grade the cards are false excuses and people have come to realize that Orlando's comments are merely patronizing to repeatedly avoid an issue. Generally, people are interested in protecting their interests during the time of their employment or position of power to protect their financial interests and do not always make the appropriate decision.

Grading companies typically do not grade cards when it cannot distinguish originals from counterfeits, which is no longer the issue here due to the training that Steve Taft has created. PSA has not taken the time or initiative to be trained to distinguish originals from counterfeits. It merely shut down when "Type II's" were submitted for grading when PSA was a young grading company and the very concept of grading was in its infancy. However, at the time, there was not information available for PSA to learn to tell the difference between the originals and "Type II's" as there is today. At the time that PSA stopped grading Star Co. basketball cards, its President was Stephen Rocchi, who later founded GAI, which subsequently graded Star Co. cards during its existence.

The administration at PSA that allegedly knowingly decided to grade the infamous Wagner card, despite it being both sheet cut and trimmed, was the same one that decided to stop grading Star Co. basketball cards. PSA then drew up advertisements showing the PSA 8 Wagner card, claiming it could detect trimmed cards, did not grade sheet cut cards, and would not grade Star Co. basketball cards. Notably, the current owner of the Wagner card, who owns many valuable PSA cards, provides an endorsement of the company on its web site: http://www.psacard.com/About/Testimonials/

PSA's site also has endorsements from collectors that have opened high end material, but were unable to grade a valuable card in high grade. They see no potential problem with the contradiction that they have only been able to buy an expensive card already graded.

Despite an FBI investigation, a court case and Mastro’s confession of altering the card (which somehow remains in a PSA 8 holder), a list of additional cards which Mastro altered or for which he received preferential grades has never been produced. With PSA offering a buyback policy, it seems at risk financially if such information were ever revealed. Perhaps because Collectors Universe is a public company with many invested in the stock or its cards, it received a free pass. Similarly, it seems continually at risk with prices having increased on many key cards if other dealers confessed publicly about having trimmed and altered valuable graded cards. While dealers have confessed confidentially to other dealers, they have not done so publicly or to PSA. In essence, if we had full disclosure from all card submitters, PSA would unlikely be able to keep up with its buyback policy because the humans it employs to grade cards simply cannot detect all professionally trimmed cards. We would hate to see the buyback policy be an excuse not to properly learn to grade legitimate Star Co. cards.

The current administration at PSA does not seem to be willing to admit recent lapses in judgment. It concluded on July 9, 2013, without any proper support, that the George Bush cards that a former employee sold, and may have allegedly printed without authorization, were original. It is of the opinion of the author of this site that for a card to be authentic, whether or not it was stolen by an employee, it must be of the same characteristics as an original or have been from a printing authorized by the card company. There is no proof that the George Bush non-White House version cards were authorized by Topps, only that a former employee sold them after he left the company. All evidence leads to the suggestion that they were an unauthorized reprint with characteristics that do not match the originals that were authorized to be printed for the White House.

There does not appear to be anything complicated with the George Bush cards as Orlando alleges in one article. It sounds like there are two different versions and there is in fact a question of authenticity. The articles alleged both versions are real. It appears that the version that does not match did not go to the White House because it was reprinted by a former Topps employee and sold after he left the company.

psa-confirms-two-types-1990-topps-george-bush-baseball-cards

hobby-update-by-george-its-complicated-1990-topps-bush-baseball-card

Orlando's opinion is certainly a different viewpoint than the unbiased one written in a July 9, 2013 Associated Press article entitled "Fake George Bush baseball cards could cost some collectors":

http://www.pressherald.com/2013/07/0...rs_2013-07-10/

There are many PSA supporters that back PSA's decision not to grade Star that often lack proper facts about Star Co. cards and confuse what the role of PSA is. PSA was the first major grading company that was a business created to make money on grading sports cards and other collectibles. PSA is not necessarily a neutral third party such as a court of law, but is a business that protects its own interests. The creation of its registry was a key innovation which increased the popularity of its cards and lead to people competing for cards.

PSA and the Wagner PSA 8 inevitably took the sports card market to another level. Where money is to be made and cards are graded by humans, PSA alleged it could detect trimmed cards, yet its very existence lead to more counterfeiting and more trimming of sports cards. Prior to PSA, the only main counterfeits in the marketplace were the 1963 Topps Pete Rose #537 rookie and the 1984 Donruss Don Mattingly #248 rookie, neither of which were difficult to detect. Post-PSA more improved and a greater number of counterfeits hit the marketplace, in essence justifying PSA's existence. Before PSA, trimming of cards for their improved appearance was not widespread. Post-PSA, dealers have made a living doing it in order to chase high dollar key cards or low population cards that would not otherwise exist. For example, individuals on public forums have alleged that an individual who ironically advertises on PSA's web site has trimmed cards. However, they made this allegation after they claimed he purchased and altered modern cards which they recognized because they were numbered. Logic dictates that if he was doing it to numbered cards, he was doing it to unnumbered cards as well that they could not track and the problem was more widespread.

Supporting PSA's decision not to grade Star Co. cards suggests deferring to and giving importance to a decision made by a company that was attempting to become relevant by, allegedly grading a Wagner card that was knowingly trimmed and sheet cut and has shown a history of responding slowly to issues that relate to customer concerns. For example, after the WIWAG scandal, PSA was put on notice that its cases were being compromised. For links to information about WIWAG, one can see:

http://www.net54baseball.com/archive...p?t-63402.html or

http://www.network54.com/Forum/15365...h+Real+Legends

Despite some PSA backers claiming that the problem was limited to fake PSA cases and slabs coming from China, its own cases were being popped open with fake cards or lower quality cards inserted into its slabs. There are also unconfirmed rumors that some PSA employees stole slabs and labels. PSA's response is generally to suggest buying from the auction houses or those that pay to advertise with it. However, even some of those sellers have had to take items down due to compromised PSA cases. Most of the auction houses that sell cards endorse them endlessly with extra descriptions of graded cards that sometimes do not fit.

If one purchases a card worth over $10,000 and is unsure if the PSA flip is real or the case has been compromised, one can elect to pay PSA a whopping $700 to review it. This allows the company to become unjustly enriched and take advantage of customers contrary to established consumer protection law by making more money for making inferior cases. Does PSA expect us to believe that it charges some of the auction houses it has a close relationship with $700 for the possibility of a card crossing or bumping in grade? Or does it only charge those auction houses if a cross or bump is successful? In essence, when buying an expensive PSA card, one needs to learn to authenticate the card, the validity of the PSA case and the PSA insert label, which is what the grading company was supposed to do.

Although its President's slogan is to "Never get cheated", it did not announce until November 12, 2013 that it would make a stronger case in terms of sonic weld, but the case can still be compromised. This has not prevented some sellers from falsely listing a card claiming it was recased in a new tamper proof case which does not exist. In April 2015, PSA subsequently added a new embedded hologram logo on its insert label which also does not prevent a case from being compromised. While both the stronger weld and hologram will allow PSA to make money on recasing cards and reviewing cards to confirm the slabs are authentic and unaltered, it still does not provide a case that cannot be compromised and these purported security measures came about a decade after the WIWAG scandal.

As an apparent admission that the weld and hologram were not solving the problem, in December 2015, PSA then added a barcode and certification number on the reverse of its inserts as a third step. Perhaps one step from the start - making a tamper proof case - would have been the proper step rather than taking these inferior purported security measures which will continue to lead to fraud, but allow PSA to produce cheaper cases and collect money for recasing. Its web site inexplicably states in the fifth paragraph of its Security section that it cannot make a case that cannot be compromised even though Beckett does so:

For a number of reasons, it is important that the holder is not actually tamper-proof. For example, if the outside of the PSA holder is scratched or damaged in some way, it must be possible to safely remove the contents so a re-holder service can be performed without harming the collectible inside. http://www.psacard.com/Services/PSAS...yABuyersGuide/

Despite making a case that can be compromised and fully aware of all the incidents that have occurred for over a decade, on June 14, 2015, PSA had the audacity to send out solicitations for people to pay a membership fee to sign up for its Collectors Club with a subject line entitled "Card Security that Soars Above the Rest":

Just Like His Airness, PSA Holders Come in Clutch

As a leader in the collectibles world, we're devoted to
the steadfast pursuit of the most secure collectibles technology.
Our sonically-sealed, ultra-secure holders are the result of that pursuit.

Get the Highest Form of Protection for Your Cards

There are other cardholders on the market, but none as secure
and trusted as ours - because securing your collectibles is our
first priority.

Join our Collectors Club that secure your cards.

Even though it does not grade his first 24 NBA licensed cards, PSA used Michael Jordan's name, and sought credit for making a stronger holder and jazzing up its insert label over ten years after it knew its cases were being compromised while misrepresenting that a Beckett holder is not as secure and trusted as its holder. What PSA's purported improvements do for the compromised cases that continue to float around with counterfeit cards or lower quality cards already inserted is known only to PSA.

Collectors have been cheated of PSA cases that have been compromised by the repeated refusal to make a tamper proof case. Arguably making a case that one cannot trust, in part, defeats the purpose of third-party grading. Collectors are also being cheated of PSA properly educating people about the earliest cards of Michael Jordan (arguably the greatest player of all-time), Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon, John Stockton, Patrick Ewing, James Worthy, Isiah Thomas, Dominique Wilkins, Clyde Drexler, and others, by its repeated refusal to address the issue. In fact, it was these very players, primarily Michael Jordan, that made basketball cards popular in the early 1990's wherein previously baseball cards had dominated the sports card market. Despite the popularity today of rookie cards such as George Mikan, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or the key rookies from the 1961 Fleer set, it was primarily these players headed by Michael Jordan that made basketball cards popular and helped change the sports card industry from focusing predominantly on baseball cards. PSA, in turn, has made a lot of money grading less valuable cards due to these players and the interest Star initially brought to basketball cards. While the company receives a lot of submissions, its public financial statements and cards for sale on ebay reveal that several high volume graders provide significant financial support in submitting cards of far less historical significance.

It is arguably time that PSA either grades the Star Co. cards or provides a reason why it cannot. While the FBI concluded its investigation years ago that no Star Co. cards were reprinted from the original plates, PSA has not addressed this issue in over two decades. Is PSA implying that it is smarter than the FBI? Is PSA ignoring the FBI's investigation and the NBA's investigation and lawsuit? Are Beckett graders smarter and more capable than PSA graders? There are too many people that interpret PSA's decision not to grade the cards as meaning that one cannot learn to tell the difference between real and counterfeit cards or that original Star Co. cards were reprinted from the original plates (the "PSA Effect"). However, this is merely due to that fact that PSA refuses to do its job and learn to authenticate the cards. Because of all the false information spread about these cards, PSA appears to get away with it. Also because the cards were limited in production and distributed to a limited number of dealers, there does not appear to be anyone standing up to PSA. There are individuals who wonder whether PSA would grade Star Co. cards if there were more Star Co. basketball cards to grade and more financial incentive to do so, or if the cards were in the hands of its high volume submitters.

People sometimes lack courage to stand up to PSA for fear of being banned from using the company's services. Collectors Universe forums are notorious for having statements deleted or modified and if Collectors Universe does not like statements of individuals, it will often ban those people.

After the growth in collecting sports photographs, PSA announced it would authenticate photographs in January 2006. In order to do so, it hired as consultants two of the hobby's most respected experts, Marshall Fogel and Henry Yee, who had previously co-authored the book entitled A Portrait of Baseball Photography (2005).

After PSA saw that GAI was building a popular division in grading unopened packs, it announced in September 2006 that it would grade unopened packs and hired Steve Hart, then one of the nation's highly respected card specialists as a consultant. Hart is now considered the foremost authority and expert on pack grading.

PSA was also slow to respond to consumer requests with respect to its grading system and did not add .5's until February 1, 2008. However, when it did so, no 9.5 grade was added which allowed the Gem Mint 10 grade to remain of paramount importance and have a competitive advantage in the registry and appeal to buyers. Despite sellers sometimes making such a representation, a PSA 10 is not considered a pristine card. The new system allowed PSA to make a significant amount of money on reviewing cards for the .5 level. The PSA grading system inherently subjects itself to less criticism by not having sub grades. In other words, even with the addition of .5 grading levels, it gives a number but no reason for the grade. Numerous people have experimented with cracking out PSA 10's that came back PSA 9's or did not receive any numerical grade.

PSA was also slow to respond to consumer requests to grade a card and autograph. On December 28, 2015, likely in an attempt to compete with Beckett's popular and superior service of offering card grading by offering dual grades of the card and autograph at a reasonable cost which is popular on modern cards, PSA announced that it would offer a dual service to grade a card and autograph at a significant cost per card.

However, despite the importance and increasing popularity of Star Co. cards, PSA has refused to retain Steve Taft, the person who is already considered the foremost authority on them.

PSA has also failed to take other innovative measures over time. Despite offering a service of authenticating unopened packs, it has not developed a system to grade and designate "pack pulled" cards. Even if such a system were costly, cards could be graded directly out of packs or the means of their original distribution, which would preserve the integrity of the unaltered state of the cards. Conversely, the very creation of PSA has indirectly lead to cards being altered prior to being submitted for grading for financial gain.

[JMANIA]

There are legitimate criticisms. Since you state you can buy Best New Jordan's for nothing, please give me a dozen for nothing. I think you mean the value was negatively impacted as more came out and you are correct. But the value has also increased through BGS grading and proper education about the cards. You can say the same about the Gatorade Barkley. You seem to use the word perversion a few times. The main criticism and known and written before slabgate is what the owner of the Schonco Collection did to cards after he purchased the collection and is inferred here:

https://www.basketballgold.com/faqs.php

FAQ: Are there other areas of deception to look out for other than Shop at Home cards or Type II's?
Answer: As with all sports cards, in particular in the era post-PSA, when money is to be made, there will be people trying to cash in. In essence, even though PSA does not grade Star Co. basketball cards, its creation has lead to more deception in the sports card industry. The answer to this question may be listed in other areas of this site and may not necessarily relate to the Star Co. or the Star Co. cards themselves.

These days many listings for sale seem to be exaggerated and label too many cards “high end”, “flawless” (with noticeable defects), “best ever saw” (even if person has only seen a few), "undergraded", "better than another card", "centered" (even if not), "looks gem", etc. Use your own judgment and common sense. While the proper order of sub grades for Beckett is Centering/Corners/Edges/Surface, sellers will list off-center cards and improperly change the order of the subs to endorse the card. Some sellers will list every Star Co. Jordan, Barkley, Stockton, etc. as a rookie wherein they are not. If one wants to consider the Star Co. cards rookies, with limited exception (i.e. Terry Porter), the Star Co. could have issued only one rookie card for each player which was part of a regular base set: 1983-84 Star #25 Worthy; 1983-84 Star #96 Thomas; 1983-84 Star #100 Drexler; 1983-84 Star #263 Wilkins; 1984-85 Jordan #101 Jordan; 1984-85 Star #202 Barkley; 1984-85 Star #235 Stockton; 1984-85 Star #237 Olajuwon; and 1985-86 Star #166 Ewing. That is not to say that the non-Star Co. rookies are unimportant (arguably any card of a key player that predates his 1986-87 Fleer rookie should be significant, or with respect to Stockton, his 1988-89 Fleer rookie), but the cards should be described properly.

There have even been cards listed as rookie cards of players that had cards issued prior to the Star Co. cards. People also often misrepresent that a grade on a GAI bag means the cards were graded or that a sealed bag means that the cards inside are mint. People have listed raw cards as mint that cannot possibly grade at the mint level. People list cards as SP that are not considered Short Print. People have listed blank back cards as proof cards wherein the blank backs merely mean the backs were not completed during the printing process and in fact some of the blank backs were hand cut. Sellers will list a card and claim highest subs where a higher sub version has been listed before and is in the Beckett Population Report. People have also improperly listed cards that are poorly cut or miscut as error cards despite Beckett's Population Report properly maintaining a database of error cards.

Other misleading listings have included a key top card that will not grade well and falsely claim that all bags have been opened. Whether or not bags have been opened, there is a difference in opening Star Co. bags one knows the contents of, than a mystery pack where one does not know. Star veterans know that a sealed bag where one can see issues with the main card will not make the bag or key card worth more.

After Beckett started grading Star Co. cards and collections were being graded, some collectors became frustrated with how the population report would be represented by a certain seller who would inevitably grade more. For example, emphasizing population one on a James Worthy XRC in BGS 9.5 and selling it for $1,600 when that same person fully knew he would grade numerous more in gem mint condition upset certain collectors and caused them to drop out of the collector database early in the BGS grading process when the amount of collectors should have been growing. This deceptive population report manipulation might make that dealer more money but lead to lack of trust and confusion when people thought a collection had already been graded. Some people did not appreciate seeing their hard earned money spent on cards that were listed cheaper within months after more were graded by the same individual in the same grade. People will often try to market the items they own. For example, there was a time early on that the Team Supers Jordan was being listed by the same seller noted above as a rookie card that was rarer than the #101, which presented a listing with two misrepresentations. When Star Co. cards could be RCR'd, a dealer could RCR cards to know the grades and sell the ones encapsulated before having the RCR'd cards entered into the population report. Similarly, claiming a low population on a card that is not difficult to grade but is infrequently submitted for grading because it is not in demand is viewed by some as further deception.

In addition, some Star collectors became frustrated by the same individual wanting to claim he bought a collection years after he was assisting in selling it on consignment and suddenly had cards, often which were top cards of bags, that never existed or were cut in the form he claimed he now had. Star purists were insulted that the quality of that collection was suddenly improving years later as opposed to dwindling in quality on certain key Star Co. cards. Even the individual's attempts to pass off hard to grade commons as legitimate bag pulled cards has raised red flags. While Star Co. veterans will not buy those cards and avoid them, less experienced individuals often do not know the difference. This is an example of why the "UT" concept from SCD was quite innovative.

Star Co. cards are no different than other cards in that dealers will take actions for their financial gain or for bragging rights to try and show their cards are better than they in fact are. This problem, however, is not limited to Star Co. cards as it is a product of the value that grading brings to cards. The same unscrupulous people, however, have trouble with cards that are notorious for surface issues as opposed to centering. It is generally considered unfair to expect a legitimate seller to match prices of those individuals who have not played by the rules.

The beneficial part of Star Co. cards is that Star veterans and purists have come to recognize the original characteristics of untouched and bag pulled cards. The original cutting from the Star Co. printers is easier to recognize than many other types of sports cards. Top cards on bags that are always notoriously difficult to find centered over the years include, but are not limited to: 1984-85 Star #172 Magic Johnson; 1984-85 #195 Jordan; 1984-85 #237 Olajuwon; 1985-86 #95 Bird (Green and White); and 1985-86 #166 Ewing (which also sometimes has a surface bubble in the top border 1/3 of the way indented from the left of the card). Other cards that are not top cards that are notoriously off-center include, but are not limited to: 1984-85 #288 Jordan (which can also suffer from chipping of corners and edges, and can have white on the bottom of the card from the way it was cut from the sheet); and 1986 Star Jordan #8 and #9 from the 10 card subset. Use your judgment and common sense if notoriously difficult cards continue to appear from the same source or are sent out to auction by that source who will likely falsely claim that new cards came out over time or that he purchased more cards or a collection.

Using a 1985-86 #166 Patrick Ewing as an example, which was a top card on a bag, bag pulled Ewing's should show blue bleed on the back top edge and back right edge, at least under magnification. If someone, who previously claimed centered Ewing's do not exist, wants to cut the wider left edge to make it appear that centered Ewing's suddenly surfaced, the blue bleed on the back right edge would not exist and the cutting would not resemble the cut unique to Star Co. cards. It defies common sense that someone selling a collection on consignment could only grade Ewing 9.5's that were not centered and then has centered Ewing's lacking the proper blue bleed and original Star Co. cutting characteristics after purchasing the collection. The same person could do this to other cards that are notoriously off-center or cards that are not necessarily notoriously off-center but were cut with a wider left edge by using cards that were cut wider than 2.5 inches and cut them down to 2.5 inches. Often this is done by taking cards that would otherwise grade low in the centering subgrade and improving it. If the person does this to one card he simply has no integrity for the product and will do to other cards including commons. For example, the same person routinely graded many #195's in the BGS 5.5-7.5/BCCG 8 range while selling on consignment and then graded predominantly BGS 8 and BGS 8.5's after purchasing the collection he had been selling on consignment. However, if an individual did this, he would likely have many grades of 0/0/0/0 for cards that are kicked as evidence of altered or evidence of trimmed in between cards that were actually graded.

[6celtics33]

Thank you for taking the time to educate us all. I hope people understand the amount of time and effort and research you’ve put into this and this product and this site and appreciate it and will absorb it instead of arguing because they hear______

I do. Thanks

[gregggyf]

Yes,... thank you very much JMANIA for your website, it is very informative.

[Willikn]

Originally Posted by JMANIA

There are legitimate criticisms. Since you state you can buy Best New Jordan's for nothing, please give me a dozen for nothing. I think you mean the value was negatively impacted as more came out and you are correct. But the value has also increased through BGS grading and proper education about the cards.

That card rivaled the 52 Mantle circa 1989. Now it is arguably the cheapest Star Jordan one can purchase outside of the MJ set. BGS slabbing a card that was "re-released" in the 90's, as if it were one of the originals, is garbage IMO. BGS slabbing sheet cut versions of all of them as if they were originals is more garbage.

It has become clear to me that this is your stock and trade. I don't want to belittle. I'm not smart enough to do it if I wanted. Even with the "re-release" they remain extremely rare for the era.

Similar to Morgan Dollars, it now is what it is. Buying today won't be impacted by what happened in the past. If buying, it sure seems that JMania is a valuable seller.

My venom comes from the perspective of a buyer in the 80's and early 90's. Probably should be disregarded as the ramblings of an old fart.

[Lancia Stratos]

Absolutely shocked a guy heavily invested in Star cards is heavily defending Star cards

[imbluestreak23]

I have that card in BGS 6 as well.

It is fantastic. Bought raw and graded myself

[6celtics33]

Originally Posted by Lancia Stratos

Absolutely shocked a guy heavily invested in Star cards is heavily defending Star cards

If you’re in the grocery business you probably wouldn’t want anyone to erroneously belittle groceries. Oil, insurance whatever. Why is it different with cards?

He knows more about it than the rest of us combined. He isn’t some newbie idiot making one off statements and blanket generalizations.

That’s you.

If you want to refute something he said throw down some evidence

[6celtics33]

I actually read what Jmania posted. He posts facts. I didn’t get the feeling he was trying to promote or sell me something.

There are a lot of shady people in this so called hobby. He is not one of them.

For years there was so much misinformation floating around about this product. People hammering his and Taft’s inbox asking questions after question.

He put this together as a tool for people to use and help themselves make educated decisions.

It’s unfortunate people are so jaded by the state of things they can’t see that.

Does he sell star cards? Yes

It would be weird if he knew all of this and didn’t have any of the cards.

I don’t go to a construction site and ask for a mortgage because those “bankers” are too invested in their mortgages. I go to a bank. I want to talk to a doctor when I’m sick and not someone who is a teacher. I want the person that knows what is going on.

So yeah he’s invested. But he’s not hacking them to pieces and he’s not charging anyone for this information.

Just say thanks

[JMANIA]

Originally Posted by Lancia Stratos

Absolutely shocked a guy heavily invested in Star cards is heavily defending Star cards

I provide facts, information and education. Obviously you did not spend time reading anything as I noted valid criticisms. People can believe what they want. I can choose to buy what I want just like anyone else. Why do you not respond to information and challenge any of it? If you are inferring that I endorse what I own, that is not correct (i.e. proper information about the Gatorade Barkley). The Schonco Collection was trying to market and pump up what it had in quantity (i.e. used to list Team Supers Jordan as his real rookie which made no sense) or market graded Best Best and Magic Johnson sets because it had a monopoly on those.

[JMANIA]

Originally Posted by Willikn

That card rivaled the 52 Mantle circa 1989. Now it is arguably the cheapest Star Jordan one can purchase outside of the MJ set. BGS slabbing a card that was "re-released" in the 90's, as if it were one of the originals, is garbage IMO. BGS slabbing sheet cut versions of all of them as if they were originals is more garbage.

It has become clear to me that this is your stock and trade. I don't want to belittle. I'm not smart enough to do it if I wanted. Even with the "re-release" they remain extremely rare for the era.

Similar to Morgan Dollars, it now is what it is. Buying today won't be impacted by what happened in the past. If buying, it sure seems that JMania is a valuable seller.

My venom comes from the perspective of a buyer in the 80's and early 90's. Probably should be disregarded as the ramblings of an old fart.

I explained the Best New real population versus bags. I do not disagree with that. So do not buy Best New if you do not want to. There is some legitimate criticism of stuff being sold in auction in 1990, but there were reasons those were left over (Levin liked to hold back some and basketball cards did not sell well when released which caused the leftovers). I too thought that if not sold prior to 1986, should not be able to be released, but the market said otherwise and other companies have done the same (i.e. Topps Vault). The main card that bothered me there is if the Gatorade Barkley's were pulled from the Gatorade set (after some were released), Levin should not be legitimately able to sell those later. Those should have been destroyed. Best New still pre-dates 1986 Fleer and is much less in production.

Best Best and Magic Johnson many experienced people abstain from. There is legitimate criticism. And legitimate arguments why Best Best and Magic Johnson cards should not have been graded.

But overall on the product, you have many key true rookie cards, deference given to PSA for not grading them from a company that should not get any credit, and no cards from 1983-86 were reprinted form the original plate (Type II's are not reprints).

If some layman were reading your posts, then they would think the market became saturated with a lot of key Jordan cards (i.e. #101) which was not the case. Some stuff could have been left over for a reason (i.e. 101 sheets with red bleed that were not cut originally b/c of the red bleed; and yes ironically when cut years later and graded became more valuable).

The problem with the Schonco Collection was that some people thought it was all graded when sold and instead it was population report manipulation. Then when the collection was sold to the person who had been selling on consignment, he cut cards to create cards that resembled cutting that never existed in the first place. If people were properly educated and knew what were rumors and facts, this person would likely be in the legitimate dark side of the popularity of the product. There is no defense to what he did.