Non-Sport Update's Card Talk
The 2019 Beckett Non-Sport Almanac 5th Edition

This topic can be found at:
http://nonsportupdate.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/656602453/m/8277064196

September 10, 2019, 05:45 PM
Raven
The 2019 Beckett Non-Sport Almanac 5th Edition
quote:
Originally posted by webjon:
I'm pretty sure they aren't stickers -- what is your source?


I clicked your link, the design appeared to be a sticker. If not, my error. It is a 4/5. The second link is a different card with 5/5. Both say 2006 Bench Warmer Classic Pinups, so they may be from the same 5 card auto series.

I can't find Classic Pinups in the Almanac Bench Warmer section, by name or date. The only mention I see is 2006 Bench Warmer Series Two Bettie Page and there are no autos stated. Can't find Series One either. So maybe this is something that needs to be looked up and someone can find the various versions or the autos are so limited they weren't priced in.

I know next to nothing about the contents of Bench Warmers because I have never looked for a single auto in any one of their sets and I am an auto collector too. So I guess those models, wrestlers and reality TV personalities aren't anybody I've been looking for, which is what I said. I don't know these people. Wink
September 12, 2019, 03:15 PM
Raven
Been trying to look up these Bettie Page Bench Warmer autographs out of curiosity and the pieces don't come together between what's on ebay, what's in the Almanac and what's on Allender's. So someone should take a better look than me, but here goes . . .

I can't see any Bettie Page Bench Warmer autographs listed for 2006 Bench Warmers in the new Almanac. There is a subset listing for 2006 Bench Warmer Series Two Bettie Page that has common card, gold and red, but nothing about autographs. I don't see Page autos anywhere else either.

Allender's does have the Page autographs in 2006 Bench Warmers, but does not call them Classic Pin-Ups at all. They are listed as red # to 50, blue # to 25 and blue & white # to 15.

The eBay sold links show a red card #5/5, a blue card #4/5 and they are called 2006 Bench Warmer Classic Pinups. There is also a current listing for a gold foil #10/15 2006 Bench Warmer autograph. All of these autograph cards are posted from the same consigner seller account.

So make of it what you will, but the numbering and subset title are not matching up to Allender's list and the Almanac doesn't seem to be pricing any of them at all. Of course the years or titles could be wrong or these could be unrecorded parallels of the red, blue and blue/white autos that were not listed and maybe someone could find them listed elsewhere. Don't know. Confused
September 14, 2019, 03:41 AM
catskilleagle
I think it was Piko who said he hung onto an old NSU price guide from around 2010 for situations like this - holes in the coverage. I like having back issues for that and other reasons (favorite articles, Bill DeFranzo's promo column, etc.). In the December 2007/January 2008 issue the guide lists Benchwarmer 2006 Series 2 as having "Bettie Page Autos (1/3)(1:3000) with the price as "n/a," which means Bill didn't have a record of one selling. I assume that's the listing though the number of autos is said to be three which might have been what was reported at the time but turned out to be five.

The entry also lists "Super Rare Autographs (6)(1:2400) with no names and priced "n/a."

Jess
September 14, 2019, 09:37 AM
Raven
quote:
Originally posted by catskilleagle:
I think it was Piko who said he hung onto an old NSU price guide from around 2010 for situations like this - holes in the coverage. I like having back issues for that and other reasons (favorite articles, Bill DeFranzo's promo column, etc.). In the December 2007/January 2008 issue the guide lists Benchwarmer 2006 Series 2 as having "Bettie Page Autos (1/3)(1:3000) with the price as "n/a," which means Bill didn't have a record of one selling. I assume that's the listing though the number of autos is said to be three which might have been what was reported at the time but turned out to be five.

The entry also lists "Super Rare Autographs (6)(1:2400) with no names and priced "n/a."

Jess


Thanks Jess. Based on what Allender. carrying I think that (1/3, 1:3000) might be the red, blue and blue/white versions, which would combine for about 90 autograph cards. Those Celebrity Pin Up 1/5 cards and the Gold Foil might be might be part of the Super Rare and no one identified them in the Guides. The Almanac is likely using a lot of the original NSU.

Funny how there are still older cards out there not priced out and not known unless you are an expert. I would say that there should be enough of the Page Bench Warmer autos trading to include a listing and a price. A few appear to have been sold lately. Maybe next time.
September 14, 2019, 04:52 PM
webjon
There are a number of completed eBay sales for Bettie Bench Warmer autographs available on various completed eBay sales sites too.
November 11, 2019, 05:10 AM
catskilleagle
Hi Matt,

Since my last post in this thread, I did buy a copy of the latest Almanac. I've started marking it up and will start sending you some information at some point. I assume you have a deadline sometime around early next summer for the next edition. I'll try to email you some notes by the end of the month and then see how far I can get through it and send more notes periodically.

Regarding the Benchwarmer section, I think you should keep it because it has been popular enough to sell at least 20 years worth of sets and NSU has covered the releases over the years. I think you could condense a lot of the listings especially when a lot of autographs are quoted in the $3-8 or $5-12 range. You would note the outliers but just have a line for "most autographs." Another reason to keep it is what other guide is going to list it? It's non-sports and it has a following so it makes sense to keep it.

I do have a question as to where the line is for pin-up in general as far as what Beckett wants to cover. I see you still don't have Star Pics' Playboy and Sports Time's Playboy Cover Cards sets listed. I can understand not including the other Playboy sets because they show nudity but the Star Pics and Sports Time sets are quite tame in comparison. Playboy magazine covers could be suggestive but they had to be inoffensive enough for Waldenbooks shelves. To provide another example, I see you don't list the 90's sets and promos by Felix, the German artist known for his pin-up work some of which does show some illustrated nudity. Is that because NSU didn't list it before or you didn't know about them or you thought it was a little too adult? Todd did list his promos in PCE.

Todd Jordan had a rule about what promo cards he would list in PCE leaning toward having it appropriate for "family viewing." Sets or singles that showed photographic nudity were not included but he did allow illustrated nudity, I think in part to account for a lot of the "art" sets that were popular and wouldn't be documented elsewhere. That doesn't mean he showed those cards. He just had them as listings. Of course, there's an argument that illustrated nudity can be just as graphic and maybe some of the cards he listed did cross into the "adult content" realm but it appears few people were offended. Overall, he did a great job finding a level of comprehensiveness while also remaining PG-13 rated.

I would stop noting unnumbered cards as NNO1 and NNO2 when there are two different unnumbered cards in a set. I would just have NNO for each one.

I do think you should note the manufacturer with the date and set title. NSU did it in the past. I think it's important especially for properties that were licensed by more than one company over years and sometimes decades. A collector would wonder when Inkworks left off and when Rittenhouse picked it up. It would also be a way to honor all those small, shorter-lived companies that put out one to just a few sets.

Jess


quote:
Originally posted by BeckettBible24:
Even after all these years, it's still a work in progress. I'm always looking for ways to improve the price guides I work on, which now stands at NSU, Non-Sport Almanac, Gaming Almanac, Star Wars Almanac, and our newest addition, the Wrestling Almanac.

I have been toying with omitting Bench Warmer from the almanac for quite a while now. My plan would be to replace it with a Non-Sport in Sports section that highlights all the non-sport personalities and figures who appear in sports card sets. We have them all tagged in the database so I'll easily be able to include them in a publication. I floated that idea a while back and it was met with mostly positive feedback.

I'm not against creating a chronological sort order for the magazine. In fact, I would actually prefer it. However, the Beckett template for our annual publications is usually an alphabetical sort order. My predecessor actually had the almanac in chronological order and, on the advice of several in the industry, I changed it to more reflect NSU's sort order (which was our main competitor at the time). Perhaps it's time to seriously look at that and make some changes. I know it would make my life easier if all my publications were in chronological order.

May 11, 2020, 04:22 AM
Heroes For Hire
quote:
Originally posted by BeckettBible24:
I'm not against creating a chronological sort order for the magazine. In fact, I would actually prefer it. However, the Beckett template for our annual publications is usually an alphabetical sort order. My predecessor actually had the almanac in chronological order and, on the advice of several in the industry, I changed it to more reflect NSU's sort order (which was our main competitor at the time). Perhaps it's time to seriously look at that and make some changes. I know it would make my life easier if all my publications were in chronological order.


I think the chronology listing would be fine change. I would like to see some reading content like the Wrestling Almanac’s Top 10 and Top 20 lists. My first thought was having a year’s worth of the NSU lists transposed into the Almanac would be good enough, but now I think Almanac exclusive Top 10-20 lists would be better. There needs to be content in the Almanac that’s not found in the OPG and magazines. For example, have some Top Lists of Star Wars and Marvel of different categories like: autos, memorabilia, inserts, and/or sketch cards artists. If Benchwarmers is still in the Almanac then there could be a Top 10 for their autograph signers.
May 11, 2020, 12:31 PM
Raven
[QUOTE]Originally posted by catskilleagle:
I do have a question as to where the line is for pin-up in general as far as what Beckett wants to cover. I see you still don't have Star Pics' Playboy and Sports Time's Playboy Cover Cards sets listed. I can understand not including the other Playboy sets because they show nudity but the Star Pics and Sports Time sets are quite tame in comparison. Playboy magazine covers could be suggestive but they had to be inoffensive enough for Waldenbooks shelves. To provide another example, I see you don't list the 90's sets and promos by Felix, the German artist known for his pin-up work some of which does show some illustrated nudity. Is that because NSU didn't list it before or you didn't know about them or you thought it was a little too adult?

Jess

Yeah, I'm not sure why the Non-Sport Almanac draws certain lines, especially when it comes to adult themed sets. Most non-sport products are consumed by adults, if only because a child couldn't afford them. Big Grin

The sets are listed without photos, so what is really the harm of acknowledging a set that contains nudity in an almanac. You don't even have to go into card by card naming, just record some basic info that might help card collectors to know what was made. Many of the fantasy cards fall into the pin-up or centerfold category with some semi-nudity. Stuff by Boris Vallejo, Julie Bell, Olivia De Berardinis made it into cards, as did non-art titles like Scream Queens and Playboy. I'm sure there are a bunch of titles that people have seen over the years that are legitimate products, rather than quickie garbage. We do know the difference, so why not count the licensed stuff in?

The thing I object to with giving so many pages to Benchwarmers isn't because I have any issue with the images, it's that there is so little of interest in it to take up so much space. It's all the same mostly unknown ladies and many of the same signers are just being recycled for years. I read awhile ago that there were complaints from long time Benchwarmer collectors about what's going on over there, so I don't know how much demand it even has anymore. Why not reduce its space and put in more data on other products, adult in nature or not. There is little need to censor that data in my opinion as long as we are covering licensed non-sport cards. Bloody gore is more unacceptable to me than half dressed people. Wink

And I agree that the card manufacturer's name should be included also. I have said before that all like titles should have a chronological listing so that you can keep the sequence straight.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,
May 12, 2020, 07:10 PM
catskilleagle
Hi Heroes for Hire,

The content you won't find elsewhere are the listings for the new stuff and price updates for the old stuff (as well as adding what's missing of the old and recent stuff). Believe me, it's a lot of work doing just that. I've gone line-by-line in the Modern section and have already sent Matt some listing/pricing information based on what I've seen. I know a little about the older stuff and had some updates for that as well. It's very time-consuming doing just that (confirming what exists, what's already listed, and what it's selling for now).

I do like the idea of extra Top 10 lists for different categories. Matt might need some help with that.

I like the chronological order idea too.

Jess


quote:
Originally posted by Heroes For Hire:
quote:
Originally posted by BeckettBible24:
I'm not against creating a chronological sort order for the magazine. In fact, I would actually prefer it. However, the Beckett template for our annual publications is usually an alphabetical sort order. My predecessor actually had the almanac in chronological order and, on the advice of several in the industry, I changed it to more reflect NSU's sort order (which was our main competitor at the time). Perhaps it's time to seriously look at that and make some changes. I know it would make my life easier if all my publications were in chronological order.


I think the chronology listing would be fine change. I would like to see some reading content like the Wrestling Almanac’s Top 10 and Top 20 lists. My first thought was having a year’s worth of the NSU lists transposed into the Almanac would be good enough, but now I think Almanac exclusive Top 10-20 lists would be better. There needs to be content in the Almanac that’s not found in the OPG and magazines. For example, have some Top Lists of Star Wars and Marvel of different categories like: autos, memorabilia, inserts, and/or sketch cards artists. If Benchwarmers is still in the Almanac then there could be a Top 10 for their autograph signers.

May 12, 2020, 08:07 PM
catskilleagle
Hi Raven,

Yeah, every price guide makes decisions about what goes and what doesn't go in. The old NSU guide did list all the Playboy sets but not Penthouse which was more explicit and that seemed to be the dividing line.

I've seen people complain about Benchwarmer as well but there also seem to be a lot of people who still have their sets and still look for chase and promo singles. I think the listings could be condensed like the rest of them but should the listings simply get deleted?

Jess

quote:
Originally posted by Raven:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by catskilleagle:
I do have a question as to where the line is for pin-up in general as far as what Beckett wants to cover. I see you still don't have Star Pics' Playboy and Sports Time's Playboy Cover Cards sets listed. I can understand not including the other Playboy sets because they show nudity but the Star Pics and Sports Time sets are quite tame in comparison. Playboy magazine covers could be suggestive but they had to be inoffensive enough for Waldenbooks shelves. To provide another example, I see you don't list the 90's sets and promos by Felix, the German artist known for his pin-up work some of which does show some illustrated nudity. Is that because NSU didn't list it before or you didn't know about them or you thought it was a little too adult?

Jess

Yeah, I'm not sure why the Non-Sport Almanac draws certain lines, especially when it comes to adult themed sets. Most non-sport products are consumed by adults, if only because a child couldn't afford them. Big Grin

The sets are listed without photos, so what is really the harm of acknowledging a set that contains nudity in an almanac. You don't even have to go into card by card naming, just record some basic info that might help card collectors to know what was made. Many of the fantasy cards fall into the pin-up or centerfold category with some semi-nudity. Stuff by Boris Vallejo, Julie Bell, Olivia De Berardinis made it into cards, as did non-art titles like Scream Queens and Playboy. I'm sure there are a bunch of titles that people have seen over the years that are legitimate products, rather than quickie garbage. We do know the difference, so why not count the licensed stuff in?

The thing I object to with giving so many pages to Benchwarmers isn't because I have any issue with the images, it's that there is so little of interest in it to take up so much space. It's all the same mostly unknown ladies and many of the same signers are just being recycled for years. I read awhile ago that there were complaints from long time Benchwarmer collectors about what's going on over there, so I don't know how much demand it even has anymore. Why not reduce its space and put in more data on other products, adult in nature or not. There is little need to censor that data in my opinion as long as we are covering licensed non-sport cards. Bloody gore is more unacceptable to me than half dressed people. Wink

And I agree that the card manufacturer's name should be included also. I have said before that all like titles should have a chronological listing so that you can keep the sequence straight.

May 12, 2020, 11:22 PM
Raven
[QUOTE]Originally posted by catskilleagle:
I've seen people complain about Benchwarmer as well but there also seem to be a lot of people who still have their sets and still look for chase and promo singles. I think the listings could be condensed like the rest of them but should the listings simply get deleted?

Jess

No, I wouldn't delete them. I just wouldn't give them their own section and 20 pages in the Almanac. The common autograph range in each set should be increased enough to include all the signers except those that truly deserve a separate line for the price range.

If you examine the last Beckett Non-Sport Almanac, a whole slew of the Benchwarmer signers are separately listed for extremely low price ranges like $2.50 - $6.00, $6.00 - $15.00, $3.00 - $8.00, $4.00 - $10.00. That's silly, those are dead commons. If you want to save space and cover the most titles possible, than an autograph that doesn't average a low of at least $15 - $? has no business getting a special mention in my opinion.

I would say that for Benchwarmers certainly, but it also wouldn't be a bad standard to apply to all of the sets. If the price guide analysis doesn't see an autograph averaging a minimum of $15.00, it is a common card that requires no extra space. Obviously I would be flexible on the minimum chosen, but you get the idea. Wink
May 27, 2020, 01:04 AM
catskilleagle
"Dead Commons?" Now there's a card collecting term for Ed.



quote:
Originally posted by Raven:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by catskilleagle:
I've seen people complain about Benchwarmer as well but there also seem to be a lot of people who still have their sets and still look for chase and promo singles. I think the listings could be condensed like the rest of them but should the listings simply get deleted?

Jess

No, I wouldn't delete them. I just wouldn't give them their own section and 20 pages in the Almanac. The common autograph range in each set should be increased enough to include all the signers except those that truly deserve a separate line for the price range.

If you examine the last Beckett Non-Sport Almanac, a whole slew of the Benchwarmer signers are separately listed for extremely low price ranges like $2.50 - $6.00, $6.00 - $15.00, $3.00 - $8.00, $4.00 - $10.00. That's silly, those are dead commons. If you want to save space and cover the most titles possible, than an autograph that doesn't average a low of at least $15 - $? has no business getting a special mention in my opinion.

I would say that for Benchwarmers certainly, but it also wouldn't be a bad standard to apply to all of the sets. If the price guide analysis doesn't see an autograph averaging a minimum of $15.00, it is a common card that requires no extra space. Obviously I would be flexible on the minimum chosen, but you get the idea. Wink