PDA

View Full Version : Neilson's Chocolate Cards (V61)


Archive
04-02-2002, 09:10 AM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator&nbsp; </b><p><BR>In the "big book", these are listed as being issued in 1922 - which makes sense because they look just like the 1922 American Caramel E120 cards from 1922.<BR><BR>BUT ... everywhere else I look (including the PSA and SGC Pop reports) have these cards listed as being from 1921.<BR><BR>Which should it be?? <BR><BR>PS - This is important to me because I try to collect "rookie cards", and the Frank Frisch and Burleigh Grimes cards appear in the 1921 Oxford Confectionary set. Thus, the Oxfords would be their first cards IF the Neilson's really did come out a year later in 1922.

Archive
04-02-2002, 10:09 AM
Posted By: <b>Rich Jacobs</b><p>Hal: I recently purchased a Neilson's Chocolate Eddies Roush, PSA 4. The holder lists it as a "1922 Neilson's Chocolate."

Archive
04-02-2002, 10:14 AM
Posted By: <b>Plastic Dog</b><p>The E121 Series of 80 was issued in 1921, and has a rookie of Frisch (but not Grimes). Additionally, the 1921 Exhibits also have cards of both Frisch and Grimes. Lipset pinpointed the Neilson's at 1922, but I don't know if that was ever revised.<BR><BR>Anyway, there seems to be plenty of alternatives to the Oxfords.

Archive
04-02-2002, 10:16 AM
Posted By: <b>Plastic dog</b><p>p.s. I would ignore the years on the PSA cards, as the company doesn't appear to do any type of exhaustive research to pinpoint years of issue. (They shouldn't be used as an authoritative source).

Archive
04-02-2002, 10:46 AM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p><BR>I guess I should have said that I do NOT want to buy a Neilson's card of GRIMES or FRISCH ... only to find out later that it is NOT their first card because it came out in 1922 and NOT in 1921.<BR><BR>THIS is why I am concerned:<BR><BR><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1817519447" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1817519447</a><BR><BR>Is it ... or is it NOT ... one of his 1921 "rookie" cards???<BR><BR>

Archive
04-02-2002, 02:15 PM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p><BR>Mr. Lemke, if you are out there, can you tell me what confirmed for you that these cards are from 1922 and NOT from 1921 ???<BR>

Archive
04-02-2002, 03:12 PM
Posted By: <b>Rich Jacobs</b><p>Hal: Here's the URL for another site that lists them as being from 1921, rather than 22:<BR><BR><a href="http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/hofers.html" target=_new>http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/hofers.html</a>

Archive
04-02-2002, 03:50 PM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p><BR>Isn't that the BEST site out there! You put me on to that one a long time ago, and it has been my "bread and butter" in trying to collect rookie cards.<BR><BR>The conflict between that great website and Mr. Lemke's "big book" is precisely why I am asking everyone on this site for their knowledge.<BR><BR>There is obviously SOME reason why this particular set is listed both ways in different places, whereas other sets are more definitive ... but I don't know what that reason is.

Archive
04-02-2002, 06:01 PM
Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>Considering that the V61 set matches the W573 and E120 sets, both of which came out in 1922, the 1921 issue date doesn't make sense.<BR><BR>Concerning issue dates: I would trust Lipset's book or the SCD book over what a grading company says any day.<BR><BR>I think the "METSBWD/hofers" web site which is obviously well done and a terrific resource just lists it wrong. <BR><BR>

Archive
04-02-2002, 06:58 PM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p><BR>Caramel Card Pete has spoken ... and since chocolate goes with caramel like white goes with rice ... then I will rely on Pete for saying that the Neilson's Chocolate card is NOT a 1921 issue after all! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR>Nice website, Pete. I like how you tell which caramel cards are harder to find than others. Great advice for us who are still learning!

Archive
04-02-2002, 07:08 PM
Posted By: <b>Plastic Dog</b><p>Go to pages 30-31 of Lipset's encyclopedia for E cards. Anyway, according to Lipset Vic Aldridge played in 1917-18, but didn't play again until 1922 (but has a card in the set). Gabby Harnett played sparingly as a rookie in 1922, and has a card as well. This dates at least some of the set to 1922; doesn't mean that some of it couldn't have been issued in 1921 as well, but if you absolutely positively have to have a card issued in the first year, I would go with one of the other sets listed above.<BR><BR>But what is a rookie anyway for a vintage player? First national card? First card? First paper product? First picture? First individual paper product? First paper product small enough to be graded by SGC or PSA? First card of a recognized set? First card of a recognized set that more than one person can acquire? First card distributed as part of an incentive to buy a product but not as the product itself? First card better than a crude drawing? What about generic pictures? Do pins count? Do premiums count if the same company had a regularly-issued card? What about premiums without regularly issued cards? What about strips, exhibits, premiums too large to be graded? What about foreign cards? Do Canadian cards count as foreign? <BR><BR>Suffice as to say that noone has a complete rookie card collection, as the 1894 Alpha Photo and Engraving cards are the rookies of McGraw, Jennings, Joe Kelley, etc. and they all reside in Baltimore.

Archive
04-03-2002, 04:32 AM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p><BR>Actually ... one such 1894 Baltimore cabinet may reside in Tallahassee if I can get my way on Mastro...<BR><BR>And I am glad to hear that you agree that the 1894 card is indeed a "rookie" card of those HOF'ers. I will agree with you until I LOSE the auction ... then I will claim that cabinet team cards don't count! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
04-03-2002, 09:07 AM
Posted By: <b>Plastic Dog</b><p>I don't believe that team photos qualify as rookie cards. I think that the 1894 Champions photo cabinet in Mastro's auction is a great piece, but I don't think that it is the rookie card of any of those players. Actually, I don't believe that individual photo cabinets qualify as rookies either unless they were issued as part of a set (e.g. N173s). Sorry, but the only true rookies of McGraw, Jennings, and Kelley are the 1894 Alpha Photo cards. These are individual cards that would qualify under anyone's definition of Rookie.<BR><BR>

Archive
04-03-2002, 11:14 AM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p><BR>... since I can't find any mention of the Alpha Photo cards in the 2002 SCD Big Book.<BR><BR>Can you enlighten me about these cards, or show me a link to where I can see a photo of one, etc. Thanks!

Archive
04-03-2002, 11:30 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I know Dan pretty well and am sure he will not mind me using his "about me" ebay site.....take care and regards<BR>ps...here are some pics<BR><BR><a href="http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/brunners" target=_new>http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/brunners</a>/<BR><BR>

Archive
04-03-2002, 11:41 AM
Posted By: <b>David</b><p>I'm not a trading card collector, so I don't lose sleep over the definition of rookie card ('It's not a RC, it's a Pre-RC!'). Considering the scarcity of trading cards from the 1890s, it is resonable to make allowances for this period. If you applied the strict definition as applied to Topps cards, the Alpha Photo cards would probably not count as 'Rookie Cards.' Remeber that the definition of rookie card is made up my normal people, and not word sent from God.<BR><BR>As Paul Molitor, Cal Ripken, Nolan Ryan and Pete Rose appeared on multiple-player rookie cards, I don't find it objectionable to call a team card a rookie card. For me, the only real question is whether or not the 1894 Baltimore Cabinet counts as a trading card. For me, a trading card has to have a commercial and/or advertising component. Any card that has advertising on it and/or was made to be sold commercially is a trading card. If the 1894 Cabinet was a photograph commisioned for the private use of the players only (to be placed in Willie Weeler's cabinet or photo album), then in my book the cabinet is not a trading card. However, my guess (guess) is that the cabinet card, along with others, was made 'in bulk' to be sold to the general public. If this guess is correct, then it counts as a trading card.<BR><BR>In short, I don't object to it being called a rookie card. However, as with the pink Old Judge King Kelly discussed in another thread, the player images on this card are awfully light to justify the ultimately final high price-- though, as the price will show, that's just my opinion.

Archive
04-03-2002, 11:46 AM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p><BR>And like I joked earlier ... I will agree with you 100% in the event I win the 1894 Cabinet!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR>And thanks also to Leon for showing me photos of the COOL 1894 Alpha Engraving cards. <BR><BR>Any idea why these are NOT listed in the SCD Big Book? Or maybe they are, but I can't find them??

Archive
04-03-2002, 11:59 AM
Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>For example, Brian Wentz points out in an article on their website that "Remember, Nolan Ryan's Rookie is a Topps issue -- but not 1968". <BR><BR>Going on to say that the rookie is in fact the 1967 Topps Mets Team card. Whether or not it is Ryan's first appearance on a major-issue baseball card, I have yet to meet a Ryan collector who thinks of anything but his 1968 Topps card as his true rookie card.

Archive
04-03-2002, 12:23 PM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p><BR>And since I do NOT want to lose the significant money I have tied up in my PSA 9 1968 Topps Nolan Ryan card ... I agree 100% that the 1967 team card is NOT his rookie card! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR>I am getting dizzy with all of this flipping and flopping I am having to do here. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
04-03-2002, 12:49 PM
Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>My 2 cents:<BR><BR>I think we have a tendency to apply 21st century thinking to the 19th century and in doing so say things like - Cabinet cards aren't really cards. That is how they were produced and distributed - so be it.<BR><BR>Cabinet cards should certainly be considered as long, as was previously mentioned, the cabinets weren't intended for personal use. If the intention was to distribute to the public as premiums or for promotion of a product or company - they were menat to be saved(read: collected) and that makes them cards indeed.<BR><BR>Nolan Ryans' rookie - Please, it's the 1968 Topps card. Team cards feature the whole TEAM, not any one player so it really isn't any players card. Before anyone asks - I feel the same goes for T200 cards. Calling a team card anyone's rookie is as silly as the guy selling the 1915 Cleveland ticket stub as a "Joe Jackson Ticket" just because he played for that team that year. It's a sad attempt to hype the price. <BR><BR>I do consider multi-player cards acceptable as rookies as they specifically feature and identify by name a certain player. Why should the fact that another player is featured equally change that.

Archive
04-03-2002, 01:55 PM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Try the exhibit set from 1921. Both are in it.

Archive
04-03-2002, 02:24 PM
Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>Hal,<BR><BR>The Alpha Photo cards will be in the 2003 SCD Big Book. All of the known cards currently exist in one collection. I'd kill for the McGraw card!! Interestingly enough, no Alph card of Willie Keeler has ever been discovered. I believe that it was originally part of the set, as he was a star player on the team, and the images on the known cards are the same as those on the 1894 cabinet. It is possible that the Keeler card did not survive along with the rest of the set. It's too bad (and hard to believe)that most of the HOFers on the 1894 Baltimore Team did not make it into the Mayo Cut Plug set. Can you imagine Mayo cards of McGraw, Keeler, Jennings, & Kelley, as well as Cy Young and Jesse Burkett? The Mayo set could have been ever more historically significant than it already is. I know that all of these cards would be at the top of my wantlist if they existed.

Archive
04-04-2002, 03:55 AM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p>Andy: There is only ONE known set of Alpha Photo cards? Wow, that is pretty rare ... but it would also seem to "exclude" them as "cards" by those who consider cards as only those that were distributed in bulk to the public.<BR><BR>Warshaw: Yes, I would be interested in nice 1921 exhibits of those guys. That is why I clarified myself earlier in this post to say that I was not just looking for the Oxfords. I was simply trying to confirm that I should NOT buy the 1922 Neilson card. Thanks!

Archive
04-04-2002, 12:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>Halley,<BR><BR>I'm not sure how you can say that they Alpha Cards are not cards, just because they are rare. Truth is, noone knows if or how they were distributed. I consider the Alpha Mcgraw, Jennings, & Kelley to be Rookie cards, along with Just So cards of Cy Young and Jesse Burkett, and Alleghany cards of Mordecai Brown and Roger Breshnahan.

Archive
04-04-2002, 05:44 PM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p><BR>Note that I did not say they are not rookie cards ... I said that there are "those" who would say such a thing.<BR><BR>In fact, in the "rookie card" thread ... some of "those people" say exactly that.

Archive
04-06-2002, 10:18 AM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>But I'd be darned careful about saying when they were made or for what purpose. I REALLY distrust any printed item that is suddenly discovered and is one of a kind, unless it is obviously intended for personal use (like many of the anonymous cabinet photos of early HOFers that surface now and then and were obviously taken as photographic remembrances, or the unique postcard that surfaces every once in a while that was probably made by a tourist or individual to memorialize an event rather than distribute).

Archive
04-06-2002, 06:17 PM
Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>I couldn't see one in the two cards Leon [provided pictures of. Also, they sure do look alot like National Game Cards (the backs, 1913), and I guess Tom Barker from the same year. Of course, the players pictured look like players from 1894...<BR><BR>Does anyone know anything about them? A game? A proof set ( a la Allegheny)? A company? What they were distributed with?