1934-36 Diamond Stars identification help

[talkin2rob]

Hi all, and happy new year!

I have a question regarding the 1936 Diamond Stars and was told to ask here as you all might be more knowledgeable on the topic.

The card in question is a 1936 Diamond Stars #87 Steve O'Neil. From my understanding, 1934 was printed with a green back. 1935 was printed with green, then blue. And 1936 was printed with blue. The card I have is a green back. I have tried to look this up before with no luck. I have tried asking on a couple other forums, again, with not much luck. It does not look to be faded. I thought maybe it was a rare card, or a misprint that no one has noticed. Now, I'm not sure what to think.

Here are a couple pictures of the card:
<a href="http://s642.photobucket.com/user/talkin2rob/media/20161231_135438.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i642.photobucket.com/albums/uu141/talkin2rob/20161231_135438.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 20161231_135438.jpg"/></a>
<a href="http://s642.photobucket.com/user/talkin2rob/media/100_5503.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i642.photobucket.com/albums/uu141/talkin2rob/100_5503.jpg" border="0" alt="1936 Diamond Stars No. 87 Steve O'neil photo 100_5503.jpg"/></a>

What are your thoughts or opinions?

Any help would be appreciated.

[hangman62]

I happen to have that complete set..

just looked..every card I have # 85 and higher are blue backs....so that is odd about that card

[brianp-beme]

Interesting question/card. According to this checklist on the Old Cardboard website:

http://www.oldcardboard.com/r/r327/r327list.asp

card #'s 85 through 108 should only be seen with blue print on the backs and have a 1936 copyright date. It seems like in the past I have seen one of the high numbers with a green back, but my memory bank may have taken an early withdrawal. Would be interested in what others have to chime in about this subject.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

I think I partially re-deposited what had been withdrawn from my memory bank. The card is a 103 Bill Dickey, or it could be the #11 Dickey, as the card has back damage in the area where the number is located. I remember that, according to the list in the link I posted previously, the card fit the supposed specifications of neither number #11 or 103. This is where my memory is still fuzzy, as I don't recall whether it had a blue back and a 1935 copyright date, or a Green back with either a 1935 or 1936 copyright.

It will be some time before I can get back with more details, so until then sit tight, card collecting community, but make sure you move around occasionally to prevent maladies related to inactivity.

Brian

[Bocabirdman]

make sure you move around occasionally to prevent maladies related to inactivity.

Brian

Too late for that...We are card collectors after all...........:D

[talkin2rob]

Thanks for the responses. I'm sure someone will be able to diagnose this. If not, the card will be tossed back into the depths of the closet collection.

[SAllen2556]

I think there's only one way you could have Steve O'neil in green ink, and that would be if it's a reprint. There's one pretty high quality reprint set out there and they often pop up on eBay. If you post a scan of the front it might be easier to tell.

[talkin2rob]

I wasn't aware there were reprints of this set. Here's a picture of the front. It's the best I can get from taking a picture on my phone. I can scan it if that would be better.

<a href="http://s642.photobucket.com/user/talkin2rob/media/20170101_154846.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i642.photobucket.com/albums/uu141/talkin2rob/20170101_154846.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 20170101_154846.jpg"/></a>

[SAllen2556]

Yep. Reprint. Look at a real one on eBay and you'll probably be able to tell.
The borders on yours are too white. Looks too glossy too.

[talkin2rob]

Thank you for that. I've never gotten into this set and did not know anything about them. Looks like this will be filed in trash. lol

[conor912]

Good call, Scott. I agree, way too much gloss to be legit.

[brianp-beme]

I agree with the analysis of the front. I better check that Dickey for bogusness. You have to admit the back is pretty authentic looking.

Brian

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I agree with the analysis of the front. I better check that Dickey for bogusness. You have to admit the back is pretty authentic looking.

Brian

Just catching up in this thread but I was going to say the back paper didn't look like it had enough texture leading to incredibly crisp print. I love these cards and their Deco feel, the backs just aren't that pretty from a print quality and paper quality standpoint.

[brianp-beme]

I refuse to have anyone criticize me for dragging my feet. Half a year later and here is my follow-up on the Diamond Star Dickey I mentioned previously in this thread. First off, it appears authentic. As you can see in the scan the back damage has obliterated the number. The batting stats are for 1935, and the copyright is 1934, and the print is blue.

What I have determined is that this is card #103 (not #11) issued in 1936. I found images of 3 #103 Dickey backs online, and they all have the same 1935 stats, 1934 copyright and blue print.

What caused my confusion in the first place is actually the Old Cardboard listing for the Diamond Stars set (which, by the way, is the best I have come across) which indicates that the copyright should be 1936 for the Dickey card #103. In fact, it indicates that all the high # cards (97 through 108) should have a copyright date of 1936. I believe this info is inaccurate on their site. I have the following high # cards, and I have listed the copyright dates seen on them:

97 Lopez 1935
98 Rowe 1935
99 Traynor 1935 (thanks Epro-9)
100 Averill 1935
101 Bartell 1934 (thanks Epro-9)
102 Mungo 1934 (thanks John)
103 Dickey 1934
104 Rolfe 1935 (thanks Epro-9)
105 Lombardi 1935
106 Lucas 1935 (thanks beme)
107 Hack 1935
108 Berger 1935

Can anyone else chime in on the copyright date shown on the other cards (99 Traynor, 101 Bartell, 104 Rolfe, 106 Lucas)? I assume the Old Cardboard site has the copyright dates of this whole high # grouping incorrect. If it appears so after responses, I will contact them so they can update.

I wonder why the Dickey and Mungo cards have a 1934 copyright? I would assume it was just an oversight by the producers.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

97 (28) "Al" Lopez - - B6
98 (33) "Schoolboy" Rowe - - B6
99 (27) "Pie" Traynor - - B6
100 (35) Earle Averill - - B6
101 (15) Dick Bartell - - B6
102 (19) Van Mungo - - B6
103 (11) Bill Dickey - - - B6
104 (29) Robert Rolfe - - B6
105 (36) "Ernie" Lombardi - - B6
106 (46) "Red" Lucas - - B6
107 (34) Stanley Hack - - B6
108 (25) Walter Berger - - B6

Above is a copy/paste of Old Cardboard's #97 through 108 section of the Diamond Stars set. The 'B6' in their listing designates blue print and a 1936 copyright, and the 3rd column that it is seen in is for cards with 1935 stats (the dashes are supposed to line up for cards with 1933 stats and then 1934 stats, and indicate that the card does not exist with this year's stats on the back).

Brian

[swarmee]

http://www.oldcardboard.com/r/r327/r327list.asp
Are you saying he's reading it wrong? Looks right to me based on the original formatting on the webpage.

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1934-36/National-Chicle-Diamond-Stars---R327/102/Van-Mungo.jpg?id=47393974-0e0c-4414-9635-93d847473533&size=zoom&side=back
#102 Mungo has a 1934 copyright date and 1935 stats.

[brianp-beme]

Hi John, thanks for confirming the back info on the Van Mungo card. According to their system, your card should properly be identified in the third column (cards with 1935 stats) with a 'B4' designation (B stands for blue print, and the 4 standing for 1934 copyright date). Their listing has this card in the 3rd column erroneously as 'B6', indicating that it would have instead a 1936 copyright date.

Brian

[BobC]

Hi John, thanks for confirming the back info on the Van Mungo card. According to their system, your card should properly be identified in the third column (cards with 1935 stats) with a 'B4' designation (B stands for blue print, and the 4 standing for 1934 copyright date). Their listing has this card in the 3rd column erroneously as 'B6', indicating that it would have instead a 1936 copyright date.

Brian

I have not looked at the OBC site to see exactly how they listed this but, is it possible that their B6 reference is not to a blue back with a 1936 "copyright" date and is instead a reference to a blue back with a 1936 "issue" date? In that case the inclusion of an earlier year copyright date may just be an oversight (laziness) on the part of the part of the card manufacturer.

[brianp-beme]

Hi Bob and all,

Here is a link to the Old Cardboard Diamond Stars listing.

http://www.oldcardboard.com/r/r327/r327list.asp

They do not specifically refer to a card's issue date, but the year of issue can be inferred with the columns that designate the year of the stats shown on the back (1933, 1934, and 1935).

Definitely worth a look at this set that is more intriguing than it appears at first glance.

Brian

[pro9]

Old Cardboard is wrong. The dates match up as posted above. The missing ones are
99-1935
101- 1934
104- 1935

I believe the green backed cards on cards that should only come in blue are sunfaded. I used to have a Dickey that had a green back, but in my opinion it was faded on both sides from the sun.

[brianp-beme]

Old Cardboard is wrong. The dates match up as posted above. The missing ones are
99-1935
101- 1934
104- 1935


Thanks Mr. E-9 for the confirmation of the copyright dates on those 3 cards. With the 106 Lucas (1935) that I looked up online, we have the following list of copyright dates for the high numbers:

97 Lopez 1935
98 Rowe 1935
99 Traynor 1935 (thanks Epro-9)
100 Averill 1935
101 Bartell 1934 (thanks Epro-9)
102 Mungo 1934 (thanks John)
103 Dickey 1934
104 Rolfe 1935 (thanks Epro-9)
105 Lombardi 1935
106 Lucas 1935 (thanks beme)
107 Hack 1935
108 Berger 1935

I will consider it an honor and my duty to notify Old Cardboard of this thread and what has been hashed out, and hopefully make a great checklist of this set even more accurate.

The satisfaction of making a small difference in this world what we call vintage baseball card collecting will be reward enough, unless of course there is a substantial reward attached to updating info in this manner. Accolades be damned, unless they involve the bestowment of honorary titles, such as "All Knowing Being" or "Kind Benefactor to the Collecting Masses". But I digress.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

Quick update...I contacted Lyman at Old Cardboard and he has already made the changes to his checklist. Thanks to Lyman and all who helped me work through this Diamond in the rough.

Brian

[Spike]

Great detail work and thanks for the updated checklist!

[vrechek]

Mungo, Bartell and Dickey were in earlier series and info was used again except for the updated stats. They previously published those three so it makes sense that they repeated the original copyright dates.
You'll notice that on any of the many back variations using the same card numbers, none of them are the result of different copyright dates. They were consistent as to the original year of copyright even when they re-issued cards with updates stats or different numbers.
Bartell is a little different in that the "P" on his jersey got rubbed out on a second version of card #15 and his bio picks up that he went from the Phillies to the Giants.
Fun to look at this stuff again after they've been out for 80 plus years.