Why "National Chicle"?

[S_GERACE]

Anyone else out there feel that the 1935 National Chicle set should really be called the "1935 Football Stars" set? As everyone knows, National Chicle issued the set but the title is on the wrapper and the backs of the cards. The baseball set is referred to as "Diamond Stars" and the "Sky Birds" & "Dare Devils" have their own titles. The wrapper states that you can receive a premium photo for "only 20 Football Stars wrappers". So why just "National Chicle"? Because Jefferson Burdick called them that in 1939 in the first American Card Catalog? Doesn't make sense to me but I'd like your thoughts.

[KrenBats]

Great point. Would be interested to hear what others think.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Yep, I agree - not calling the football set what National Chicle named it is inconsistent - I noticed that too.

Not to take the thread on a tangent, but I wondered about the ACC before. Scott, by some chance, could you post an image of the first reference to the National Chicle set in the ACC? I find that really interesting - I asked a collector who wrote about Burdick for SCD about the National Chicle football set, and he replied to my email, but I don't recall there was anything specific like your 1939 reference.

[S_GERACE]

Hi John,
I only had a paperback reprinted copy (about 15-20 years ago). Most of the sets in it had an ACC designation, title, # of subjects and price for each. T206 was really the only one the had any additional info and it just stated Wagner $50.00 and Plank $10.00. I'll see if i can find a copy of one of it's pages but it looked something like this (for T206):

206....White Border....(520).....10 cents....Wagner..$50....Plank...$10.00...

Actually, here is a link to the exact reprint of the ACC I had (for sale $35)

http://www.boxingtreasures.com/amcaca19edby.html

There was really very little information in it, which is why I tossed my copy years ago. Below is a copy of one of it's pages (not mine).

[TanksAndSpartans]

Thanks Scott. Sounds like no price distinction was made for high v. low numbers. You wouldn't happen to remember what the Chicle prices were would you? Maybe 5 cents? :)

[jefferyepayne]

Good question, Scott. I think Mr. Burdick did an incredible job of documenting / cataloging sets, based upon the information he was able to find, in an era where information didn't flow around like it does today.

My sense is that on this set, he probably had never seen a wrapper. I can think of many other sets that we now know aren't properly categorized / named by him due to incomplete information. Star Player Candy comes to mind as it was called Anonymous Candy for decades before the discovery of a full box that revealed the manufacturer and the name used to advertise the set.

jeff

[S_GERACE]

Hi Dez,
Sorry, I don't. I was more of a Baseball Collector at the time (when I had the copy of the ACC) which is why I remember the T-206 specifically and no he did not make a distinction between high #'s & low #'s (Not even for Nagurski) for National Chicle's. The only other card that I remember him specifically singling out was the 1933(4) Goudey Lajoie. I think that that was like $5.00.

For some reason I vaguely recall the 1935 National Chicle's being listed as just something like this:

311...Football....(36)................Price (Which I don't specifically recall but I think it was a few cents)
311-2.....Football Photos....6"x8"...(17).........Price

Jeff,
You're probably right. He may not have seen the wrapper.

I give J. Burdick a ton of respect, as he's the father of our hobby (along w/ Sy Berger, Woody Gelman & Lionel Carter). He organized & cataloged a ton of cards without a whole lot to go on. I guess I may have been in error in attributing the title we now use to him specifically. I just thought that going forward maybe we should recognize the set for what is supposed to have been called (as issued).