W520 and W522 strip cards a 1921 issue, not 1920

[brianp-beme]

Not a title that will excite the masses, but I just discovered that both the W520 and W522 strip cards are almost positively not a 1920 issue, but instead likely a 1921 production.

The key card that points to a later issue date for these two sets, which I discovered while posting a W522 card on ebay, is Goldie Rapp. Both the W520 and W522 have exactly identical artwork for each 20 set, just different numbering...1 through 20 for W520, and 31 through 50 in the W522 set. Goldie Rapp (like every other player) is in both sets. Zack Wheat and Mike Gonzalez both have 2 cards in each set.

Goldie Rapp was acquired before the 1921 season by the New York Giants from the minors. Before 1921 he had not played in the major leagues.
Also, Goldie was traded to the Phillies on July 1st of 1921. I believe, however, that he is depicted as a New York Giant, as probably 11 other players in each set were either New York Giants during the 1921 season, or had just finished their Giants and MLB careers (Larry Doyle and Benny Kauff) in 1920. Christy Mathewson was included in this set, even though his career was over by 1916. Overall there wasn't a lot of players from different teams included in these sets if you choose 1921 as the issue date, as the only other clubs represented were Brooklyn at 3 cards, Cleveland 3, Yankees 1, and the Pirates 1. Dave Bancroft was a Philadelphia Phillies player until June 7, 1920, when he was traded to the Giants, making his inclusion likely the result of the fact that he was then a Giants player.

So being that Rapp was not a major leaguer until the 1921 season makes 1921 almost undoubtedly the issue date for both of these sets.

Brian

[Leon]

Nice work., If there was some kind of rookie card in the sets this discovery would probably get more notice and publicity. Here are some strips from the past collection for some eye candy.

http://luckeycards.com/pwaccx7.jpg

[h2oya311]

Nice work.

This evidence most certainly does impact the "rookie" card collecting community. Collectors often grab the W520 or W522 for George Kelly's rookie card. I guess this leaves the horribly ugly 1920 W516-1 as his only "true" rookie now. And the creators were kind enough to completely butcher his name (and position). And doesn’t the image look more like Ross Youngs (who also played for the Giants and who is noticeably absent from the set):

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofrookies1/websize/1920%20Kelly%20W516-1.jpg

[h2oya311]

Also, most consider Stan Coveleski's rookie issue to be the W520 and/or W522 because there are no earlier cards of him in a major league uniform. That said, there are no other 1920 issues of Coveleski anyway (with the exception of a 1920 Cleveland Team PC), but it does open the door for calling his 1921-23 E220 National Caramel and 1921 Exhibits cards as rookies now. Nothing like having your "rookie" card image taken when you are 31 years old and a Pennant winner!

Exciting stuff!

For me, I prefer this minor league postcard from 1909, which includes Mr. Coveleski while with the Lancaster Red Roses:

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/derekgrangerfirstalbum/websize/1909%20Coveleski.jpghttps://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/derekgrangerfirstalbum/websize/1909%20Coveleski%20_back_.jpg

[judsonhamlin]

Nice work.

This evidence most certainly does impact the "rookie" card collecting community. Collectors often grab the W520 or W522 for George Kelly's rookie card. I guess this leaves the horribly ugly 1920 W516-1 as his only "true" rookie now. And the creators were kind enough to completely butcher his name (and position). And doesn’t the image look more like Ross Youngs (who also played for the Giants and who is noticeably absent from the set):

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofrookies1/websize/1920%20Kelly%20W516-1.jpg

I always thought the photo was Hal Chase...

[h2oya311]

I always thought the photo was Hal Chase...

I could see that too...

[rhettyeakley]

E220 is a 1922 set, despite the 1921-23 date usually given.

[h2oya311]

E220 is a 1922 set, despite the 1921-23 date usually given.

Hi Rhett, I 100% believe you, but do you have a thread and/or evidence that can support that dating? The date of issuance for that set is important for dumb-asses like me.

[rhettyeakley]

There was this thread from a couple years back...
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125883

[brianp-beme]

Looking at the E220 thread that Rhett provided a link for and the listings of players that have been verified in each of the 3 different back styles shown, it appears that Rhett's theory that the E220 set is likely a 1922 issue is accurate, as one of the cards that he references as started in 1922 with the team identified on his card (George Burns - Cincinnati) is seen with all three back types.

For example it is possible that the Type 1 back, which all 120 cards have been identified as existing, was partially issued in 1921 and then in 1922 (which might account for the multiple poses seen in the set of some players, like Pete Kilduff bending and Pete Kilduff leaping, etc.). I think 1923 is not a likely date, but with the handful of cards that Rhett identified as having ended their careers in 1920 with the team identified on their cards, that we can't rule out a multi-year issue of this set (1921 +1922).

Brian

[Leon]

My Faux Paux. I have forgotten a lot of what I knew in the rookie HOF card niche since I don't do it any longer. There are uglier strips than W516-1 :).

Nice work.

This evidence most certainly does impact the "rookie" card collecting community. Collectors often grab the W520 or W522 for George Kelly's rookie card. I guess this leaves the horribly ugly 1920 W516-1 as his only "true" rookie now. And the creators were kind enough to completely butcher his name (and position). And doesn’t the image look more like Ross Youngs (who also played for the Giants and who is noticeably absent from the set):

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofrookies1/websize/1920%20Kelly%20W516-1.jpg

[Exhibitman]

Nice work.

This evidence most certainly does impact the "rookie" card collecting community. Collectors often grab the W520 or W522 for George Kelly's rookie card. I guess this leaves the horribly ugly 1920 W516-1 as his only "true" rookie now. And the creators were kind enough to completely butcher his name (and position). And doesn’t the image look more like Ross Youngs (who also played for the Giants and who is noticeably absent from the set):

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofrookies1/websize/1920%20Kelly%20W516-1.jpg

I like the W516 set. At least it is photo-based.

I also wonder about the date on the Universal Surprise Box card:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/notanexhibitcard/websize/Universal%20Toy%204%20on%201%20baseball.jpg

It has Ruth, Johnson, Sisler and Coveleskie and shows Ruth with the Red Sox. Even though it wouldn't add to the value given who else is on the card, perhaps it too is a Coveleskie RC?

Just for fun, the Ruth photo-match:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/notanexhibitcard/websize/Universal%20Surprise%20Photomatch%20Ruth.jpg

[ullmandds]

I like the W516 set. At least it is photo-based.

I also wonder about the date on the Universal Surprise Box card:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/notanexhibitcard/websize/Universal%20Toy%204%20on%201%20baseball.jpg

It has Ruth, Johnson, Sisler and Coveleskie and shows Ruth with the Red Sox. Even though it wouldn't add to the value given who else is on the card, perhaps it too is a Coveleskie RC?

Just for fun, the Ruth photo-match:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/notanexhibitcard/websize/Universal%20Surprise%20Photomatch%20Ruth.jpg

Or this universal toys issue...I can't find another issue that shares this ruth pose?