View Full Version : Defining pre-war rookie cards! Ahhh.....
I know the last topic many of you want to re-hash is the RC definition. Feel free to skip this thread if your tired of the discussion.
As I sit here watching the History Channel tell us why the world is going to end in 2012 it's hard to believe my focus is on baseball cards. However, while watching TV I decided to do some research into the N54 archives about rookie cards (even back to the Hal Lewis days).
Before we get into the detail, here's how I define rookie cards (feel free to define them however you wish, no argument here):
For both Pre-war and Post-war:
1. they have to be cards (no pins, photographs, newspaper pic's etc.)
2. No minor league, pre-rookie, etc.
3. No team cards (other multi-player cards OK)
Post-war; very simple, the first mainstream cards issued
Pre-war; the earliest card issued; If there's a date range for the issue any card issue within the date range is OK (for example: 1907-1909 any cards from any issue within that period is their RC, unless it can be proven a specific player's card within an issue issue was actually from 1907)
Oh, and one last note: If there's only one card (i.e. Just So ..) then I'm OK with the next issue being their RC (I have to be).
This rant is all in fun. One thing I love about RC collecting is that you need to learn about many different card issues. You need to do some research, there's more of a challenge than just "checking off a checklist".
OK, now to the point:
I just noticed the thread from last winter (I was busy in 2010 and didn't do much with N54 or collecting) from Kevin regarding his research about why the 1907-09 Novelty Cutlery were really issued in 1910 or 1911. What??? Just a few days ago I just missed out on Speaker's NC at $2k!! I would have been in even more shock if I just realized that I spent $2k on a card that maxed out at $763 in the ebay auction (seller had a reserve) was not a better RC than what I already have!!
To complicate things even more, the next card in line for Speaker's RC is the E91's (08-10). I hate the fact that these cards do not even attempt to illustrate the player and the same character is used for multiple players. Can these E91's really be a players RC when they don't even depict the player? I may cross E91's off of my RC list!
End result, I'm back to calling the T206 or Turkey Red acceptable RC's for Speaker and I saved $2,000 not making a larger offer last week.
This time it worked out for me.
Dan
familytoad
02-27-2011, 04:27 PM
Hi Dan...
I cant dispute your rationale of the Speaker Novelty Cutlery example you wrote about...in fact while I am a HOF collector by nature, even more so than all of the sets I have worked on, I don't usually factor in rookie status at all in my purchasing decisions.
That being said, if you consider Spoke's RC to be T206...who else in that classic set would you say has his HOF RC?
Just curious:D
(oh and since my favorite set is T 205 are there any in there?...I cant think of any that wouldnt have already been in 06)
That being said, if you consider Spoke's RC to be T206...who else in that classic set would you say has his HOF RC?
Hey Brian,
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question...
If you're asking who else could have their RC in the T206 set? I think you could argue the Walter Johnson's T206 is his RC (although I'm shooting for his Ramly). Cobb & Evers are in the Dietsche Postcards, most other early players were in the E107, Fan Craze, E91-A. I don't know of any HOF'ers with a RC in the T205 set.
Dan
Robextend
02-27-2011, 04:56 PM
I believe Zack Wheat's RC is in the T206 series.
jimivintage
02-27-2011, 05:07 PM
Isn't Marquard's RC technically in the T206 set, too, since his 1908 Indianapolis PC could be considered a pre-rookie according to your standards for HOF RCs?
I believe Zack Wheat's RC is in the T206 series.
Yes! I forgot about him. Thanks, Dan
Isn't Marquard's RC technically in the T206 set, too, since his 1908 Indianapolis PC could be considered a pre-rookie according to your standards for HOF RCs?
Jim:
If we rule out the E91B's (1908 - 1910) because they are not displaying the players that are named on the card, then Marquard's RC is his T206.
Dan
jimivintage
02-27-2011, 05:16 PM
Jim:
If we rule out the E91B's (1908 - 1910) because they are not displaying the players that are named on the card, then Marquard's RC is his T206.
Dan
Yeah, sorry, Dan, I meant to mention the e91 in my last post. I would feel comfortable with his T206 as my represented RC, but that's just me. :)
Robextend
02-27-2011, 05:24 PM
The E91B series came out in 1909, so I guess a few different cards can be used for Marquard including the E90-1.
terjung
02-27-2011, 05:31 PM
How are you classifying W600s?
How are you classifying W600s?
Hmmm.... good question. I'm not sure. I've never owned one. Here are my thoughts/concerns:
1. Are these really cards? Or are they paper inserts that were issued with the Sporting Life newspaper? I don't know. I'm sure the experts here know these answer.
2. They were issued from 1902-11. Assuming they are cards, for any that can be proven to have been produced before all other issues (i.e. E107, Fan Craze, T206, etc.) I would consider the W600 their RC. If it can't be proven they were produced earlier, I'll assume the E107, Fan Craze, T206 etc. as an acceptable RC.
I guess I'll have to do more research.
Thanks,
Dan
I saved this from an auction a few years ago. I like his definition, but probably can't afford to use it (and it's a lot of work)!!:eek:
Wow, did he put a lot of work into this! Sorry the image came across so small. It shows Grover C Alexander. He had 1913 WG5,6 with a 95 score and the 14CJ with a 92. So the WG5 or WG6 were his best RC.
THE SERGIO DELGADO CARD COLLECTION
The "Best Rookie Card" System
Here are the results of a truly incredible, once-in-a-lifetime undertaking: the construction of a gallery of rare, high-quality rookie cards, one for each member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. The quest applied not only to players, but also to managers, umpires, executives, pioneers, Negro Leaguers, Cuban Leaguers -- any person who has achieved enshrinement, and some who might in the future. The following pages reveal the fruits of this almost impossibly ambitious collecting goal, a project conceived and advanced by noted hobbyist Sergio Delgado of Miami, Florida. Upon rediscovering his childhood passion for cards just a few years ago, Delgado applied a combination of sound business methodology, a relentless, driven focus, and unbridled collecting enthusiasm to the furtherance of the project.
When he began a serious, preliminary investigation of this exciting mission, Delgado -- an extremely successful real estate professional -- soon encountered some unforeseen obstacles in identifying true "rookie" collectibles. In general, for players who debuted in the years following World War II, the "rookie" designation is well-defined and widely accepted. Traditionally, too, post-war athletes' rookie cards are also their most important and desirable portrayals. Ballplayers who took the field prior to the 1940s, however, aren't necessarily subject to the same, common-sense axioms.
Pre-war "rookie" cards simply don't fit neatly into the customary post-war framework of definition. Conventionally recognized post-war cards, typically, are nationally distributed, and uniformly made in terms of physical size, shape, and set configuration. Pre-war keepsakes were, in many instances, regionally or locally distributed. They came in widely different shapes and sizes, and the manner by which they reached the consumer varied immensely.
With typical determination, Delgado still intended to forge ahead, but he felt the need to establish specific criteria for inclusion in the "rookie" pantheon. He enlisted the aid of an associate and specialty dealer, his friend Jorge Marce, to collaborate in answering the "rookie" question, and to provide guidance.
Marce embraced the challenge, and, after much research and deliberation, created the "Best Rookie Card" system. He observed numerous instances in which rookie card collectors disagreed, with respect to what is and what isn't a pre-war rookie card, and he thought, "why not use a rating system? Perhaps, Collector A doesn't think that an oversized card should be a rookie card. Collector B doesn't have a problem with size, but feels hand-cut cards -- separated by the consumer -- cannot be rookies. Collector C thinks the first card, even if its a Minor League piece, should be a rookie, but most collectors don't. There seem to be no two collectors who can agree on the same rules regarding pre-war rookie cards." Marce addressed the dilemma by evaluating pre-war rookie cards in ten pertinent categories, such as size, material, origin, and image. He devised a 100-point scoring structure, and subtracted points when a card did not meet collectors' expectations of importance for a particular category. The results, in terms of "rookie" significance, enabled identification of an individual's "Best Rookie." With a framework for organization thus established, Delgado proceeded to build one of the finest collections of "rookie" cards known to the industry.
Here, then, is a fabulous array of "Best Rookies," gathered together through the diligence of a dedicated collector who acted upon a uniquely crafted rationale that guided his pursuit. This is very likely the only assembly of its kind and scope ever presented at auction, and Mastro Auctions is proud to offer such a fascinating and important line-up of vintage pieces which, in singular fashion, pay tribute to the game's greatest figures.
The special System, created and employed by Sergio Delgado and Jorge Marce to facilitate the process of assembling Mr. Delgado's fabulous collection, applied a unique set of criteria to each collectible considered in the search for the one that holds "Best Rookie Card" status. In the System's computations, points are subtracted from each prospective rookie card's ranking -- on the basis of a predetermined scale -- with the highest-scoring piece earning consideration as "Best Rookie Card." The following worksheet example illuminates the process employed to evaluate material relevant to a particular pre-war Hall of Famer -- the great Grover Cleveland Alexander -- with conclusions cited in terms of the numbers used to rank various items. (A legend explaining the ten category titles is presented at the conclusion of the worksheet.)
"Best Rookie Card" Sample Worksheet
"Best Rookie Card" Categories/Scoring
Note: Points subtracted for each liability consideration are shown below in parentheses ( ).
Material - Made of cardboard (0), made of paper (5), cardboard matchbox w/striker (11), other material (20).
Size - 6-1/2" x 10" or larger (20), 4" x 6" or larger (11), 3" x 4" or larger (5), less than 3" x 4" (0), more than 1-1/4" x 2-1/4" (0), 1-1/4" x 2-1/4" or smaller (5), 1" x 1-3/4" or smaller (11), 3/4" x 1" or smaller (20). Only one side of a card needs to exceed the size example to trigger the higher subtraction: a card measuring 3" x 11" would suffer a deduction of 20.
Role (as Depicted) - player is shown during one of his first 5 years in the majors (0), active player 6 years or more after his major league debut (5), manager/umpire/executive during active years (5), pioneer (5), non-active major leaguer on post-retirement commemorative (11), player shown in minor leagues, active or non-active, or manager (11), or in another sport or profession outside of baseball (20). Cards of Negro Leaguers or players from foreign leagues are treated as major leaguers unless the same player has at least one card from the major leagues; in that case, other items are regarded as minor league cards.
Featured - one person featured on card (0), two-five subjects on card (5), six or more subjects on card (11). "Featured" is defined as a person named on the card, or a person who is an object of focus in the card's intended theme.
Image - photo or artwork has a close resemblance to person(s) featured (0), photo or artwork has some resemblance to person(s) featured, as in certain "action" photos or cartoonish caricatures (5), photo or artwork does not resemble person(s) featured, such as, for example, a distant team photograph where individuals are not identifiable, or in generic art (11).
Identity - name of featured person appears on the front and/or back of card (0), name is not present on card (11), name does not match picture, an error (11).
Type of Dist(ribution) - distributed as a bonus or premium along with purchased goods (0), sold directly for money, individually or in a set (5), purchased with coupons or tabs (5), distributed for advertising or promotional purposes (11), personal cards w/markings, such as some photo postcards, some cabinets, and certain unattributed cdv's (20).
Origin - distributed in the continental U.S. (0), distributed in Canada (5), distributed in Cuba, Puerto Rico, or another country (11).
Set - set has 10 or more cards and 3 or more baseball teams are represented in its content (0), set has 10 or more cards or 3 or more baseball teams are represented in its content (5), set has less than 10 cards and less than 3 baseball teams are represented in its content (11).
Shape/Cut - square or rectangular-shaped card cut by the manufacturer, may have oval corners (0), round, die-cut or "card" of another shape cut by manufacturer (5), a card of any shape, cut by the consumer (11).
Deductions - the sum total of liability points ( ) as compiled through the guidance of the foregoing list.
Sub-Total– resultant figure derived when Total Deductions are subtracted from 100.
Penalty – any cards appearing later (chronologically) than the first card to achieve a Sub-Total score of 90 or more points is penalized: for appearing ˝ a year later (5) and for one year or more (8).
Grand Total – an item’s “final score,” obtained by subtracting Penalty (if applicable) from Sub-Total.
Chart Arrangement Note: Cards are presented in chronological order from the earliest (at the top) to the latest. A card that appears below another must have an equivalent or higher Sub-Total score to be eligible for final ranking. (Items fitting this scenario may have the same Sub-Total score, brought about by dissimilar combinations of deductions. For instance, if a 1914 card and a 1915 card have the same Sub-Total of 95, the 1915 card is only eligible for ranking if its Deduction comes from a different category than the ‘14’s; in other words, they can’t share a Size Deduction as a liability, in common, with the later-issued item remaining eligible.) Only cards that are eligible for final ranking will be seen in the Grand Total column – as shown in the Alexander example, above.
"Best Rookie Card" Hierarchy
Best Rookie Card - a term used to separate the card that scores six points or more higher than the second-highest card: the standout piece. Not every Hall of Famer will have a Best Rookie card. Note: If an individual has a card that reaches the 100-point threshold as a Grand Total (that is, no Deductions or Penalties apply), no later cards are eligible for Best Rookie status.
Rookie Cards - These are the highest-scoring cards that are separated my margins of 5 points or less. In the case of Alexander, there are three Rookie Cards: the 1913 WG5 (95 points), WG6 (95) and 1914 Cracker Jack (92).
Notables - These items score between 6-10 points less than the highest-scoring card. Or, in a case where the Best Rookie Card is extremely rare, the Notable ranking can become more subjective to afford inclusion of cards that rate next-best consideration (even though their evaluations may be more than ten points shy of Best Rookie Card status).
terjung
02-27-2011, 06:11 PM
Hmmm.... good question. I'm not sure. I've never owned one. Here are my thoughts/concerns:
1. Are these really cards? Or are they paper inserts that were issued with the Sporting Life newspaper? I don't know. I'm sure the experts here know these answer.
2. They were issued from 1902-11. Assuming they are cards, for any that can be proven to have been produced before all other issues (i.e. E107, Fan Craze, T206, etc.) I would consider the W600 their RC. If it can't be proven they were produced earlier, I'll assume the E107, Fan Craze, T206 etc. as an acceptable RC.
I guess I'll have to do more research.
Thanks,
Dan
They were premiums that were issued on four different cardboard mounts, so their dates of availability / distribution can be narrowed a bit based on that. You'll still be stuck with ranges, but proving that any was actually issued before say the 1903 E107 set may be difficult. There were certainly some that were available before E107 based on advertising in the magazine for which player's redemptions were available as early as December 1902 (and perhaps earlier), but you had to send away for them and they were available for a number of years. There again, the mounts did change over time, so particular issues can be conclusive to predate Fan Craze and T206, for example, but it is up to the individual collector how they classify the availability vs. the distribution. Of course, you could certainly just make it easier and conclude that they aren't cards, but that'd be a shame, imo.
I'm certainly no expert with regard to W600s, though. Perhaps some of the folks who are more knowledgable about them will weigh in.
If there's a date range for the issue any card issue within the date range is OK (for example: 1907-1909 any cards from any issue within that period is their RC, unless it can be proven a specific player's card within an issue issue was actually from 1907)
One thing to note (you can decide if it makes a difference for your collecting rules) is that cataloged date ranges are the result of one of two scenarios. Either the cards were issued over a spread of several years (like the W600s) or we're not sure the date the cards were issued (e.g. the Novelty Cutlery PCs).
bcbgcbrcb
02-27-2011, 06:43 PM
Regarding the Marquard Rookie, the 2010 SCBC lists the Hall's Studio NY Giants Cabinet Cards as a 1908 issue which would make it the undisputed Marquard Rookie (assuming you accept cabinet cards as Rookies). However, a look at Marquard's 1908 season indicates that he pitched exactly one Major League game during the last week of the season. Is it realistic to believe that Hall's Studio would have produced a Marquard cabinet in 1908 or would a 1909 date make more sense?
bcbgcbrcb
02-27-2011, 06:49 PM
Thanks to extensive research done primarily by Kevin Struss, the OldCardboard website pretty well documents the W600's that might qualify as Rookie Cards for Hall of Famers as the earlist possible issue date is provided rather than just the standard 1902-11 range.
Regarding the Marquard Rookie, the 2010 SCBC lists the Hall's Studio NY Giants Cabinet Cards as a 1908 issue which would make it the undisputed Marquard Rookie (assuming you accept cabinet cards as Rookies). However, a look at Marquard's 1908 season indicates that he pitched exactly one Major League game during the last week of the season. Is it realistic to believe that Hall's Studio would have produced a Marquard cabinet in 1908 or would a 1909 date make more sense?
I knew it would just be a matter of time before we heard from you! First, if I could buy his Hall's Cabinet card for a reasonable price I probably would buy it (and consider it his RC). Because I'll probably never buy one I'd have to say that unless someone could prove that it actually was produced prior to his 1909 season I think I'll stick with his T206 as his RC. Isn't it funny how I manipulate the rules to accommodate my ability to purchase some of these cards??! LOL. Thanks Phil.
Dan
Thanks to extensive research done primarily by Kevin Struss, the OldCardboard website pretty well documents the W600's that might qualify as Rookie Cards for Hall of Famers as the earlist possible issue date is provided rather than just the standard 1902-11 range.
Phil, thanks for the info. I guess this is the link for the documentation you are talking about:
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w600/w600list.asp
So if I'm reading this correctly, Willie Keeler's RC is:
(348) 237a William Keeler 1902 1 Outfielder Brooklyn N. L. 1899-02 Suit
(349) 237b William Keeler 1903 New York A. L. 1903-09 Suit
It would pre-date his E107. Correct?
Thanks again.
Dan
Some W600s say "1902" right on them in the caption. I think those have to be considered a 1902 issue.
rman444
02-27-2011, 09:26 PM
I just noticed the thread from last winter (I was busy in 2010 and didn't do much with N54 or collecting) from Kevin regarding his research about why the 1907-09 Novelty Cutlery were really issued in 1910 or 1911. What??? Just a few days ago I just missed out on Speaker's NC at $2k!! I would have been in even more shock if I just realized that I spent $2k on a card that maxed out at $763 in the ebay auction (seller had a reserve) was not a better RC than what I already have!!
Dan
Actually, I don't think Kevin's research proved that the set was not produced from 1907-1909. I think what he showed was that 6 of the 26 cards in the set could not have been produced before 1909.
Since that actually falls within the historically accepted production dates of 1907-09, I'm not sure how that changes anything.
familytoad
02-27-2011, 10:31 PM
Guys,
Although Dan thought otherwise, I does appear that we don't mind talking about RC designations every now and then.
I may have written cryptically in my earlier post...I guess I simply meant, which HOF players would you consider as having RC's in T206.
So I think we have nominations for Wheat, Speaker, W. Johnson and Marquard...interesting group.
I also find it interesting that no HOFer debuted in T205.
Now, back to telling us more about the W600's.........
terjung
02-27-2011, 10:42 PM
Phil, thanks for the info. I guess this is the link for the documentation you are talking about:
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w600/w600list.asp
So if I'm reading this correctly, Willie Keeler's RC is:
(348) 237a William Keeler 1902 1 Outfielder Brooklyn N. L. 1899-02 Suit
(349) 237b William Keeler 1903 New York A. L. 1903-09 Suit
It would pre-date his E107. Correct?
Thanks again.
Dan
Keeler's first W600 was listed in an ad in October 1902, so it was available prior to the issuance of the E107. Feel free to send all the E107 Keelers this way and I will happily file them for you. Nobody really likes those little cards anyway.
terjung
02-27-2011, 10:59 PM
The Old Cardboard list is certainly valuable, but I don't know that I would trust it for being complete or 100% accurate. It may be close, but I have seen at least one listing that I disagree with.
John McGraw had at least 3 versions issued, but only 2 are listed.
(431) 295a John J. McGraw 1902 1 Infielder New York N. L. 1902-06 Suit
(432) 295b John J. McGraw 1902 4 Manager New York N. L. 1902-06 Suit
The first listing is fine. The second one should read 1903? 3 Manager, IMO (since it also shows his more youthful portrait and is on a Type 1 mount). A third one was released with an older looking McGraw portrait on a Type 4 mount. I don't think that one would be a 1902 issue, though. Kevin Struss may be able to provide more insight on the date ranges for each of the mount types. Perhaps he or Scott B. will weigh in with some of their knowledge of the set.
This is not meant to pick on the very valuable resource in O.C., but just to highlight that I suspect the dates vs. mounts on its listing may not quite be 100% accurate.
Baseball Rarities
02-27-2011, 11:48 PM
From my research, these are the approximate dates for the four different mounts:
1 - August 1902 to late 1902
2 - late 1902 to mid 1903
3 - mid 1903 to early 1904
4 - early 1904 to end
I would like to know Scott Brockelman's or Jerry Spillman's thoughts on W600s as they are the two of the most knowledgeable guys on this issue.
Actually, I don't think Kevin's research proved that the set was not produced from 1907-1909. I think what he showed was that 6 of the 26 cards in the set could not have been produced before 1909.
Since that actually falls within the historically accepted production dates of 1907-09, I'm not sure how that changes anything.
When dating sets, we always assume they were produced at 1 time, unless we have proof to the contrary. The original 1907-1909 designation for the NC PCs was due to previous folks not being able to narrow the date; Kevin showed that 1907 or 1908 were not possible. Otherwise, you could claim a wide time frame for any issue - e.g. prove to me the E102 issue wasn't produced over many years from 1908-1912?
Baseball Rarities
02-28-2011, 09:35 AM
When dating sets, we always assume they were produced at 1 time, unless we have proof to the contrary. The original 1907-1909 designation for the NC PCs was due to previous folks not being able to narrow the date; Kevin showed that 1907 or 1908 were not possible. Otherwise, you could claim a wide time frame for any issue - e.g. prove to me the E102 issue wasn't produced over many years from 1908-1912?
I have received requests by a couple of collectors for my thoughts on the dating of the Novelty Cutlery postcards (which I feel is 1910) so I decided to post them here.
The 1982 Sport Americana Baseball Memorabilia and Autograph Price Guide by Jim Beckett and Denny Eckes list both the PC796 Sepia Postcard set and the Novelty Cutlery Postcard set as being from 1910. The PC796 checklist shows 25 players, including Sam Frock. The description of the 1910 Novelty Cutlery set notes that the pictures and subjects of the set are the exact same as the PC796 set except that the images were cropped smaller to fit within the more ornate borders of the Novelty Cutlery cards. For some reason, Beckett did not include these issues in their normal yearly Price Guides and many, if not most, baseball card collectors are not even aware that they were checklisted in this book.
The 1975 edition of The Sports Collectors Bible by Bert Sugar lists the PC796 Sepia Postcard as being from c. 1910. It does not include a checklist. It did not have an entry for the Novelty Cutlery set. Same thing for the 1977 edition. It was not until the 1979 edition that the Novelty Cutlery set was included. The Sports Collectors Bible gave the Novelty Cutlery set the designation PC805 and dated it as being from 1907. They make no comment as the set being related (or in this case identical) to the PC796 Sepia set. This is ironic because the book cross-referenced many other sets, such as the M101-5 and M101-4 sets with the different sets that shared their images.
It should also be noted that the Bible listed the checklist for the Novelty Cutlery set (they did not for the PC796 set) and misspelled the name of "Frock" as "Flock." Obviously, this is where all of the different checklists came up with the name "Flick" which they felt was just "Flock" misspelled.
Over the years, the 1907 date and the name "Flock" has been used by different price guides. Obviously, these price guides cannot do extensive research on every set that they include and instead use whatever public information that they can get their hands on. Unfortunately, when a mistake is made (1907 dating and "Flick") is it copied as well.
Even today, the 2011 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards by Bob Lemke has 26 subjects in the Novelty Cutlery set with both Flick and Frock included, but only 25 subjects in the PC796 set, with only Frock. They use the correct 1910 date for the PC796 set, but still use the 1907 date for the Novelty Cutlery set, though they now call it "1907-1909" so that the players who could not possibly have had a card in 1907 or 1908 can be explained.
My feeling is that the Bible erroneously came up with the 1907 date and was not even aware that the set mirrored the existing 1910 PC796 set. I think that both sets date from 1910. In addition to the info that I originally posted here,
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=128350
there are other clues that lead me to believe this:
Some are common sense - why would Speaker have been included in a 1907 or 1908 set? He was a full time minor league player at the time. He only played in 38 major league games during those two years and barely managed a .200 average. Would it not have made more sense for the set to have been produced in 1910 after his breakout rookie campaign of 1909?
Second, I have never seen a Novelty Cutlery Postcard with a postmark before 1911, let alone 1907, 1908 or 1909. I have seen two PC796 postcards with postmarks of 1910. Who knows, maybe Novelty Cutlery used the images in the PC796 set and did not produce the set until 1911.
Also, how can the card of Cobb and Wagner (not my card) be explained? I assume that the picture used was taken during the 1909 World Series. If so, then the earliest that this photo could have been taken was October 8, 1909. I doubt that they could not have produced a postcard with this image until 1910 as these were not Real Photo Postcards.
Any other thoughts or viewpoints would be appreciated.
Kevin, tremendous research!! Thanks.
Now, can you solve the question regarding the 1916-20 W-UNC Strip Cards? I spent a few hours one night trying to prove they weren't from 1916. I'll have to look back through the N54 archives.
Thanks,
Dan
Would we all agree that if a player's first card was in both the 48 Bowman and the 48 Leaf set that their 48 Bowman is their true RC since the 48 Leaf cards are now believed to have been issued in 1949?
Dan
ls7plus
02-28-2011, 10:27 AM
Unless its Spahn, Berra or Kiner, all of whom at least appeared in the 1947 Tip Top Bread set.
Larry
Unless its Spahn, Berra or Kiner, all of whom at least appeared in the 1947 Tip Top Bread set.
Larry
Correct, my statement only applied to players who has their first card in 1948.
Thanks,
Dan
barrysloate
02-28-2011, 11:35 AM
Dan- all the Leaf cards were issued in 1949. None were released in 1948. But from what I've been told they beat the 1949 Bowmans by a month or so.
Kevin, tremendous research!! Thanks.
Now, can you solve the question regarding the 1916-20 W-UNC Strip Cards? I spent a few hours one night trying to prove they weren't from 1916. I'll have to look back through the N54 archives.
Thanks,
Dan
Dan - you can check the archives, they're definitely not 1916 and almost certainly not 1917 either; most likely a 1919 issue, but 1918-1921 is the range of reasonable issue dates for the big heads.