Colgan Proofs/Squares [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

08-06-2003, 12:36 PM

Posted By: Eric (goudeyhunter)Since they are uncateloged, I'm interested whether these cards are considered a proof card, that wasn't distributed to the public..or possibly, a separate issue distributed by Colgans with one of their products. The seller who I recently purchased one of these cards from (he's offering more on Ebay currently) raises a good point in his description. He states that his grouping of Colgan squares were found in a scrapbook put together by his relative. He goes on to add that it would seem highly improbable that his relative would have had access to "printers proof" style cards. I would have to agree with his assessment, and believe that these cards were issued by Colgans with one of their products. Are there any established ideas out there on what product they were packaged with, and what year that might have been? I'm also curious what the known extent of this set is at this point?

Archive

08-06-2003, 12:52 PM

Posted By: HankronI beleive that it is generally considered that the Colgan Proofs are a separate issue to the Colagan discs and are not actual proofs.

Archive

08-06-2003, 12:56 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldBut I did own two of them before. Both came in ASA containers from hagar's auction of the early 1990's. At that time, he was billing them as 1910's... but I don't really know anything about the issue other than the gentleman I sold them to was trying to put together a known "set"...

Archive

08-06-2003, 01:07 PM

Posted By: HankronI forgot to mention that before 1930 there were a number of cheap/small/primitive/obscure cards of similar design to these 'proofs' that were inserted (often times literally stuffed) into small boxes of candy. It would not be an unreasonable guess to say these Colgan's Proofs were sold inside boxes of candy, especially since Colgan sold candy.

Archive

08-06-2003, 01:26 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranAll I can tell you is that they were probably not produced before 1909, since that is the first year that Harry Hooper was in the majors, and he is represented in the set. However, it is possible that there were cards issued before 1909, and that the set was issued over several years, with new cards added.

Archive

08-06-2003, 03:32 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffI picked up the Waddell at the National. My guess is that they were maybe some kind of salesman's samples. That would explain why there are more than one, but still not generally introduced to the public. Also, the piece of black construction paper stuck to the back makes me think that maybe they were all stuck in the sample book this way. Just a theory. -Ryan

Archive

08-06-2003, 06:02 PM

Posted By: julieDo not consider these paper squares to be either Colgan's or proofs. On the other hand, we don't know WHAT they are, so feel free to call them whatever you like!

Archive

08-07-2003, 11:19 AM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldI do remember that the two I owned did not have any remains of being stuck into a book... The backs were actually quite nice - no paper loss - just white like the fronts. I'm not trying to say that they weren't in a book for sur - but mine defenately did not appear as though they were...

Archive

08-07-2003, 11:38 AM

Posted By: petecldI have always felt they were a seperate issue and definitely not proofs. It stands to reason the company had other products that weren't suited for the round tins so I just assumed they were issued with a different product in more traditional packaging. Just my opinion.

Archive

08-07-2003, 01:57 PM

Posted By: Eric Eichelkraut (goudeyhunter)One other theory I've concocted is, like many other vintage issues, the squares were possibly glued or stuck to a Colgans advertising board, that was placed near the candy in stores. This would explain the rough backside found on so many of the existing examples, and would have also allowed kids/collectors access to them. Whatever the real story may be, I don't believe that these are proof cards, there are too many of them in circulation. They may not even be Colgans related..as many have pointed out. Another question regarding the squares, are the pictures featured on them the same as those on the Colgan chips? I don't have any to compare, just wondering if anyone had compared the two? Thanks for the responses!

Archive

08-07-2003, 03:44 PM

Posted By: julieI often see pictures of the paper square Breshnehan, and I recently acquired a Colgan's Red Border Breshnehan--and I remember them being alike--in fact, I always assumed that that was the ONLY (though a pretty good) reason for thinking the two sets came from the same maker: the pictures are alike. But I think the Fan Craze Breshnehan is also the same photo..

Archive

08-07-2003, 04:29 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffI think the other reason, in addition to the pictures being the same, that people have assumed some connection to Colgan's is that while the cards are square, the images are cropped in a circular manner exactly like a Colgan's card. Has anyone taken a regular Colgan's card and laid it on top of the square card of the same player to see if the size of the cropping is the same size as the card? -Ryan

Archive

08-07-2003, 05:10 PM

Posted By: fkw<img src="http://members.aol.com/canofprimo/colgansx2.jpeg"> Very similar in size of the portrait and the circle cropping. My opinion/guess... I think they are not proofs but a separate issue that used the Colgans photos. I have only owned a few of the square cards and most had the small spot of black construction paper stuck/damage on back. Ive always heard they were stuck in some sort of notebook at one time. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Frank

Archive

08-07-2003, 08:38 PM

Posted By: RobertSThe only square cards I have ever seen have not had any black paper on the back -- nor any signs of scrapbook removal (paper loss, glue, etc.). Also, if they were another Colgan's issue why would they not have any other product reference on the reverse? Perhaps they were similar to the many mini-releases from Topps which were done as test issues in certain areas (Topps would run tests in Brooklyn and Philadelphia)? Here's an example of two of the same player. As you can see, the photos are exactly the same (only the Colgan's Chips card is off-center): <img src="http://www.vintageball.com/files/colgans_maddox.jpg">

Archive

08-08-2003, 06:22 AM

Posted By: Tom Boblittand since the chips were from Louisville..........I haven't seen a square 'proof' of ANY of the Louisville players. Anyone have one out there? I'd like to have one but just more curious if they DO exist......Terry Knouse had about 15-20 of them at the National and no Louisville players. I search 'Colgans' daily on ebay and have never seen a Louisville player while I have about 15 of the normal chips and 4-5 red border Louisvilles. Thanks for any info..........

Archive

08-08-2003, 07:59 PM

Posted By: Eric Eichelkraut (goudeyhunter)Thanks for the scans Frank and Robert, I especially think Robert's comparison scans of the same player is very interesting. I just received my Colgans square today, and was surprised to see that the stock was so thin (like the 1910 W-uncat). My example doesn't have any ruminants of black paper on the back either, but was obviously removed from another piece of paper of card board stock. So I'm still wondering about this issue. I've always been under the impression that the squares were a made as cards, until now. Now that I see mine, and hear from others, it seems like the majority of them have a flaky backside (like they've been removed from something). Now I can only assume that these squares weren't intended or issued as cards. A good argument for this theory is the shape that most are in, a sort of discombobulated square. This doesn't help me with the advertising piece theory either, as I would think an advertising piece would have been more polished and cut squarer. The notebook idea is a good one, but if they were part of a greater notebook cover at one time, why are all examples cut down to almost the same exact size? The "Colgan" squares really perplex me, as I can't think of one possible way that these were issued, without finding a side of impossibility. I do believe that these squares were some sort of issue produced by Colgans, and I do believe that they were not issued as a card, but as another piece. Although I was convinced to think that they couldn't be proofs, the thought does make some sense now, as I can't think of a product that these cards would come from, where they would all be nearly the exact same size, have rough backs, be cut abnormally (usually), and sometimes have black paper attached to the backside. If anyone has more information on them Colgans squares, I'd really like to hear their insight or theories (here or you can email me). Thanks for all the great posts so far..they've been extremely helpful!!

Archive

08-11-2003, 09:20 PM

Posted By: John RemingtonHankron, thanks for this nugget. One of the puzzling characteristics of my specimens, which are now all scanned and available for viewing at ebay (userid also scupperjohnnie) is the small brown spots many of them have, and are very noticeable on these: Lelivelt <img src="http://www.broadsidejohnnie.com/ebay/lelivelt/lelivelt_front.jpg"> Harry Davis <img src="http://www.broadsidejohnnie.com/ebay/davis/davis_front.jpg"> Jake Daubert <img src="http://www.broadsidejohnnie.com/ebay/daubert/daubert_front.jpg"> Yes, it's hard to image an early 20th century teenager coming up with printers proofs. It's much easier, and more pleasant, to imagine that teenager retrieving the square from the bottom of the box with his fingers sticky from stuffing caramels in his mouth. Though I suppose, if these things run in the family, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that same teen pulling the card from a pilfered pack of smokes with his nicotined stained fingers... But I wax romantic. As for the photos being the exclusive property of Colgan's, I made an interesting discovery the other day while re-paging through the scrapbook. I found a newspaper clipping that carried the same photo of Chief Bender that appears on the 1911 Philadelphia Athletics Notebook Cover, attributed to the Associated Press. Another clipping in the scrapbook carried the same photo of Stuffy McInnes (attributed to the great photographer Charles M. Conlon no less) that is used in my collection of miniature portraits clipped from an insert or magazine. I'd speculate that the photographers, or more likely, the news syndicates, were simply mining their inventory by licensing their photo inventories to whomever was willing to pay for the publishing rights. Cheers, John

Archive

08-11-2003, 10:08 PM

Posted By: John RemingtonDaubert (see above) was with Memphis of the Southern Association in 1909. RobertS' observation (see Test Issue below) addresses the small market angle. Major league players with national notoriety and big names from small markets like Memphis, Rochester, Milwaukee, etc. John Colgan started making chewing gum in Louisville in 1879, selling his drug store and devoting all his energy to building the brand - an American success story. But what does any savvy business owner do when market growth opens opportunties, or when competition (like marketing master Wrigley) starts eroding market share, or a raw material shortage looms, or economic pressures require retooling current capabilities rather than risky new investments. Diversify. But how can Colgan's enter the caramel market and compete against the brands that have been issuing cards on their candy boxes for a decade or more? Might Colgan's position itself by being the sole provider of local stars in the small markets? Might they promise a kid from Memphis not only the chance to obtain an Eddie Collins or a Johnny Evers, but also a Jake Daubert, who might be seen in person, at the ballpark, or even walking down the street?

Archive

08-13-2003, 06:19 PM

Posted By: John Remington<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2747240404&category=31719" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2747240404&category=31719</a>

Archive

08-14-2003, 07:50 AM

Posted By: AnonymousBased on the following observations, and Robert's Maddox example... - the "proof" photo is of poorer quality, as are most, if not all, of the "proof" images I have seen so far. - there is more photo on the bottom right of the actual Maddox Colgan card. I believe that the "proof" is a reproduction of a real Colgan that was cut a little differently from the real Colgan that Robert shows. I think that all of the Colgan proofs are cheap reproductions of real Colgans, and were created to fit in some sort of square box, probably caramels. It was common back then to "borrow" photos, so perhaps someone had access to most (or all)of the Colgans and decided they would be easy enough to create in a square version that would be more appropriate for including as an insert in their product. It's not odd that many of them had black paper on the back - these quite possibly were created in the late 1910's when black paper was commonly used in scrapbooks - I have had many old photos with black bits of paper attached. Square b&w photos of baseball players would have been great scrap-book material. Of course, the "salesman sample" and other theories are equally valid (maybe more so), since we don't have much to go on. "Re-creating history is both fun and easy." - principle of Liberal education

Archive

08-14-2003, 09:04 AM

Posted By: runscott<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Leon

03-09-2010, 12:48 PM

Since there is some talk about Colgan's "proofs" and what they actually are, I pulled this ancient thread up because it has some great info and makes sense. Generally we don't want to pull up old Archive threads (under threat of lawsuit of course....that had to be the funniest thread ever on this board) but this time I think it is warranted. There is great information here.... I do not believe these were proofs at all and think they were a seperate set. Here is the write up we gave them in our most recent auction:

"Amongst the caramel issues that still have some mystery surrounding them, the E254 Colgans square "proofs" are near the top of the list. While we don't believe they are proofs in the true sense of the word we don't believe it has ever been determined how these were issued, made or distributed. They do share the same photo's with the E254's and if we had to make a guess we would call them a seperate set, maybe E254-2. Whatever they are, they are seldom seen and the group listed in this auction is one of the bigger groups we have seen for sale in quite a while. Get one while you can!! "

http://luckeycards.com/pe254proofcollins.jpg

Frank A

03-09-2010, 01:47 PM

Here are 3 that I have. As you can see they have horizontal lines across them. The lines have bled through from the back. Looks like it may have been some kind of glue. No black paper on back. The Pfeister is not listed in the guide.

fkw

03-09-2010, 10:04 PM

Wish I still owned it :(

Here is the Cobb

http://centuryoldcards.com/images/colgansproofcobb.jpeg

PS.Many Ive seen have back damage in center of the back

ethicsprof

03-09-2010, 10:07 PM

Leon,
i don't see 254-2 in burdick's ACC.
are you suggesting we amend it?! :)
all the best, ole buddy----i'm pleased i finally have a colgan proof or 254-2, thanks to your last auction.

rhettyeakley

03-10-2010, 01:51 AM

These cards have always been a bit of an enigma. I have never really gotten into them (though I may in the future as my Colgan's purchases have been pretty slow lately!). There is no evidence that these were ever actually issued with any Colgan's product (although they could have been.)

There was an issue that are similar in size and everything that featured Confederate Generals (also on really thin stock) made by the Kis-Me gum company. My theory has long been that these "Colgans Proofs" were likely distributed with candy or gum (probably in individual pieces within the wrapper.) I have seen original pieces of Kis-Me gum (and other similar gums from the time period) and they are roughly the size of these little cards and square and came individually wrapped in a parchment paper wrapper.

I had always assumed these were a 1909 or 1910 issue, but recently I saw a Harry Davis card with him listed for Cleveland, a team he only played for in 1912, so that may actually be the date for this particular issue (although there is always the possiblity of a multiple year issue--but these tend to show up fairly infrequently.

-Rhett

milkit1

03-11-2010, 06:57 AM

is there a pop report on them? I have a Pfeister as well though not in as good a shape :(

calvindog

03-11-2010, 07:19 AM

Seems highly unlikely these are Colgan proofs. When have you ever seen proofs where an effort was made to have the names of the players put on them in a different font and location than the final product? And the pictures are cropped? Seems pretty clear these are just a different issue.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/2910100804/" title="1909 Colgan's Chip Proof by calvindog65, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3259/2910100804_206f765cbd_o.jpg" width="450" height="771" alt="1909 Colgan's Chip Proof" /></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/4398311665/" title="1909-11 Colgan's Chips E254 by calvindog65, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/4398311665_88826045f3_o.jpg" width="400" height="700" alt="1909-11 Colgan's Chips E254" /></a>

Leon

03-11-2010, 07:30 AM

Leon,
i don't see 254-2 in burdick's ACC.
are you suggesting we amend it?! :)
all the best, ole buddy----i'm pleased i finally have a colgan proof or 254-2, thanks to your last auction.

Hey Barry
Yes, this would be a case where I think an additional (amendment) would be nice. I think E254-2 would be spot on!! take care

barrysloate

03-11-2010, 08:44 AM

At least we got Leon to admit that it is possible to amend the ACC. In that respect, this thread has been a smashing success!:)

fkm_bky

03-11-2010, 10:03 AM

Maybe Colgan's changed from a square tin to a round one and had to go back to the drawing board.

Well...I'm glad I solved that for everyone. NEXT! ;)

Bill

ethicsprof

03-11-2010, 11:54 AM

Barry S., yes indeed it is a monumental day!!!

Jeff's argument along with the 2 chase in comparison settles the case methinks.
254-2. Go ahead and get the ball rolling on this change when you get a chance Leon.

play on words unintended but kinda neat.
best,
barry

milkit1

03-11-2010, 02:20 PM

So um....yeah pop report anyone?
Also do you think sgc would ever slab by pfeister proof with an actual colgan?

19cbb

03-11-2010, 03:34 PM

My contribution

http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/9808/bush1.png

DixieBaseball

01-01-2011, 12:02 PM

Re: 1909 Colgan Squares
I was going to start a new thread, but it seems this is the only Colgan square thread we have on the board for discussion, so I thought I would just keep it to the same thread, even though it has been 9 months since last discussion. (Leon-If it is better to just start a new thread, then by all means I will do it) From reading all the posts, It seems clear to me that we can at least deduce that these are probably not proofs, but at this point should still think of them as Colgan squares due to the images being just like Colgans images, which brings me to my question : Has anyone verified that all the images are exactly like the Colgan chip images ? If an image was different than its Colgan's counterpart, would that be proof enough that these are not Colgan's squares ? Would be interested in more perspective from the board on this, as well as any new pickups from this group over the last 9 months. Here is my contribution, which I snagged at the Baltimore National back in August :

teetwoohsix

01-01-2011, 12:20 PM

Maybe SGC could post a response as to how they decided to mark these as "proofs" on the flip? They must have a reason........

Sincerely, Clayton

fkw

01-01-2011, 07:37 PM

Theyve been called "square proofs" for a long time, SGC just used that name because thats what catalogs have called them for many years.

FrankWakefield

01-01-2011, 07:44 PM

When I first heard of these, I fell in with the thinking that they're Colgan's proofs. I bid on a few of them, never won one. Now, it seems to me that they don't antedate Colgans. What seems more likely to me is that after Colgans sold to Auto Sales, at some point in time Auto Sales quit with the round baseball cards... and evidently, shortly thereafter, someone put square ones of a similar nature in with various candy products. Square ones would have been easier to make, and easier to put in with a piece of caramel or chocolate. So I think the Colgan's proofs aren't proofs at all, but some 'after the fact' production that postdates Colgans.

DixieBaseball

01-01-2011, 08:42 PM

millerhouse

01-02-2011, 09:34 AM

So many of these squares have appeared from so many different sources that there can be no question that these are in no way proof cards. (Some have paper residue on the back, while a number do not. This only proves that some were glued into a scrapbook at some point -- not at all uncommon for the time.) Alan Hager, never exactly a leading authority (despite having published a book), appears to be the person most responsible for the "Colgans proof" nonsense, but, given that he apparently had a small stack of these himself (graded, I believe, by ASA), the appellation came loaded with self-interest.

Unfortunately, every other attempt to catalog these is equally mired in speculation. E254-2 is only slightly more likely than anything else. While they do make use of the Colgans pictures, need I remind board members that the reuse of images in E, D and T cards from this era was rampant? Mino Cigarettes had nothing to do with American Caramel (as far as I can tell), which may or may not have had anything to do with General Baking, who may or may not have had anything to do with either E101 or E102 -- or, for that matter, Niagara Baking. Yet all freely used images from the other sets.

Until someone stumbles onto the holy grail, like, say, the camera-shaped candy box with which the now-obviously miscatalogued W555s were issued, the W-miscellaneous catagory is the only place to put them. (E254-2 is pure guesswork.) And, in the absence of a W-listing (Leon, please feel free to pick one.), calling them square "Colgans" at least lets people know what one is discussing.

Best of the New Year to everyone,

Millerhouse

Leon

01-02-2011, 09:39 AM

Interesting thoughts, Frank. That seems very possible. I really don't think these are proofs and several have stated good reasons why they are not, but they are definitely squares and probably from a candy version like Colgan's, so we continue to affiliate them as Colgan's squares, but may in fact be Autosales square's, or some other candy maker who used the same images as Colgan's. I still need to confirm that all the images are exact to their Colgan counterpart, as I think that if one were different, it might lend itself to "proof" that these are not Colgan's at all, but simply a Uncatalogued Square. If that were the case, maybe over time we could correct the record. We certainly can avoid calling them proofs going forward and by no means does that diminish their rarity as I don't recall seeing 2 of any example, but surely they exist. There are very few around, that is for sure.

Good thoughts, Jeremy. My thought on these has always been that they are not proofs (they have 0 attributes of proofs) and I have labeled them as an E254 variation, say E254-2. There are duplicate examples of players so that also helps rule out the "proof" label. There is more than one Cobb and I believe I even sold one before. I've handled about 20 of them in total. A larger group of them was once glued in an album and that is where the "black remnants on back" statements come from. I doubt very seriously those black paper remnants had anything to do with the mfg of them. Neat little cards imo...but then too I like esoteric stuff.

edited to add- Millerhouse- we were posting at the same time. Great minds think alike :) ....and thanks for lending your expertise.....One of these days I would love to see your type collection!!

DixieBaseball

01-02-2011, 05:58 PM

What other issues are the Colgan images on? (My focus is on minor leaguer's, so I don't have a handle on the major leaguer's) My image of the Babb, is the only time I have seen that image used, the best I recall. I know Babb's card in the T210 series is of him fielding, and I think Colgan's is the only time that image was used for him...
Dan - Thanks for your input... So we have a Uncatalogued Square Candy Issue and for reference purposes, we call them Colgan squares, for familarity.

My original question about the Colgan images matching up exactly with these Uncatalogued squares, tells me that perhaps there may need to be some work/research in that area just to make sure all the Colgan images line up exactly with this issue. I don't think anyone has actually verified all of them.

Good Info guys -

nolemmings

01-02-2011, 07:15 PM

It appears from the Old Cardboard checklist that there are several confirmed square cards of players who are depicted on more than one team in Colgans (like Babb), and that in each instance, the square card is captioned with the same team as the e254 Colgans, not the later e270. This suggests that these were made before Autosales took over the Colgan brand.

DixieBaseball

01-02-2011, 07:58 PM

Todd - I went back through and read some good observations in the thread and John Remington made mention of Daubert being with Memphis only in 1909. I looked it up on baseballreference and it appears that Daubert spent the last 1/3rd of the season in Toledo and the first 2/3rds of the season in Memphis. So, with Daubert being depicted with Memphis, that seems to answer the time frame for Colgan's (1909) and Autosales...

One thing I find interesting that stands out, there is only 1 southern league team represented in this issue and that of course is Memphis. Why only Memphis ? Perhaps this was a test issue, as someone suggested earlier in the thread. Also, in looking at the SCD, there are 3 players from Memphis : Babb, Bauerwald, and Daubert that are depicted on squares. In virtually every other T or E set, when 1 southern league team like Memphis has players in that set, usually Nashville or other Southern League teams are featured. This set screams test issue or production shut down after a very short run of squares hit the market or advertising examples, salesman samples, etc. If this was a Colgan's issue where are the 2 Nashville players, like in the E254 set ? Where are the other Southern League examples ? The SCD from 2009 shows 49 different players. If anyone has an 10 or 11 SCD, it would be interesting to see if more have been added...

nolemmings

01-02-2011, 09:09 PM

It's my understanding that Colgan's printed e254s from 1909-1911, and that Autosales did not get involved until e270. All of the square Colgans seem to correspond to the 1909 e254. I can't explain the absence of Atlanta Crackers, but maybe the reason there are no other Southern Association/Southern League square Colgans (except Memphis as you noted) is because there were no corresponding 1909 e254s for those players. It appears the Birmingham and Chatt players would have been printed after 1909, and while the two Nashville players were there in '09, they were also there in 1910---maybe their e254s were not issued until then. I'm just going on some research from Baseballreference.com tonight, so if you have better info, then I'll gladly defer.

FrankWakefield

01-02-2011, 09:43 PM

I always worry when someone starts dating an issue by the team indicated for a depicted player. I usually think of Willie Mays. He's up with the New York Giants in 1951. The Giants move to San Francisco for the 1958 season, Willie moves with them. A card of Mays in 1954 could show Willie with an "NY Giants" hat. But so could a card from 1964 or 1974. In May of 1972 he was traded to the NY Mets. So a 1974 card could show him with any of the 3 teams. But, if a card shows him with a "NY Mets" hat, then it seems highly likely that the card would be from 1972 or afterward.

My recollection is that Auto Sales got involved around 1912. Somewhere there's a thread about the tins that would fine tune that date. I think the round cards were still going into tins then.

Maybe the square cards were a regional issue, or maybe in a few regions... I once thought there was only one of each back when I thought they were proofs. But sometime I saw where one of the square ones was offered for sale when I knew the fellow who already had that one, so I figured there must be more than one of at least some of the players depicted. Since then I think I've seen other duplicates. I still lean toward the square ones being something that came out on a limited basis after the Colgan's issue.

In my American Card Catalog, Mr. Burdick has E254 Stars of the Diamond, Colgans Chips 1 1/2 round b&w. E255 is taken, it is for Tradesmen, Kis-Me Gum. E270 Baseball Players, Violet or mint chips, 1 3/8 round, 2 series. In my book E286 Ju Ju Drums is the last E card listed. Maybe these square cards should be E287's.

nolemmings

01-02-2011, 10:12 PM

I don't disagree that dating cards by team affiliations is imprecise; still, I find your example inapposite. You might see a Willie Mays card with an old photo, but it is not the photo that's important, it's the caption. I doubt you'd see a 1973 Mays card with a New York Giants caption, regardless of photo.

Here these captions or nameplates have team affiliations that can be traced to 1909. In several instances--more than a half dozen-- there were Colgans cards made of these players with updated team affiliations. If you already have a team change for a player say by 1912, why not release your "square" card showing the new team since you took the time to issue a round one with the change? Sure it's possible that this was just old inventory from several years earlier, but it seems at least as likely to me that these were printed and released in 1909. I would be interested in learning why you think the cards were issued after Autosales was finished with Colgans.

FrankWakefield

01-02-2011, 10:30 PM

In 1993 the Upper Deck Heroes of Baseball cards could have had a Mays New York Giants caption.

But if Mays gets back into baseball, and becomes a special coach for the Colorado Rockies, and they made a card of him in a Rockies uniform, then we'd know that the card must be after the 1970s or that the card maker was big time omniscient.

So to me, captions don't mean all that much. Look at Roy Ellam's caption in T206. Still, I understand what you're saying about them... such as Hub Perdue's caption on his 1915 Cracker Jack card has him with St. Louis, even though he's wearing a Braves uniform from when he was with Boston at the beginning of 1914.

DixieBaseball

01-03-2011, 12:23 PM

Frank - I understand your thoughts and anything is possible...
Todd - What you are saying makes sense on the Chatt & B'Ham teams, and Nashville could be 1910, so that leaves us with Atlanta not being featured from 1909.... Perhaps these are Samples that never were produced in quantity due to lack of interest in product/candy/card,etc. or market they were being sold in had little interest in the square/candy,etc. (This could explain why there seems to be no more than a few examples of any one player. Since multiple cards exist which takes away the proof theory, I would love to see 3 or 4 of any one player. It does not seem likely unless someone has been hoarding these for 15 years or longer as I recall maybe seeing a few dozen of these over the last several years.
FYI - In reviewing all the Colgan's Square images vs the Colgan's Chip images, I did find one inconsistency. Oddly enough, Daubert's image is different, possibly reversed, on the Colgan's square. Has anyone ever caught this ? We know that all the images are the identical from Chips to squares, but has anyone seen a reverse image ? (Simple mistake from the negative, perhaps in production ?) Maybe these images are slightly different and not reversed. Is this the only image that is different in the Square set ? Take a look-see :

ethicsprof

01-03-2011, 12:47 PM

very interesting thread!
the daubert looks like a reverse to me----still fascinating if it's the only one of the whole bunch with this difference.
i have only the one square camnitz and am wondering as you indicate just
how rare these square beauties are----have you done a survey to see what
folks have or is there data already out there regarding numbers of these squares. I like yourself have seen only a few in the last several years.

best,
barry

DixieBaseball

01-03-2011, 03:00 PM

I received a few private emails regarding the post, and one individual has maybe a dozen or so duplicates and the 2009 SCD only list 49 known players but according to another person, there may be closer to 60-80 different players known or even more. (We need to start a Ted Z type checklist and keep it open-ended for future expansion) These Colgan Square's are definitely rare and perhaps my guess at this point is there is anywhere from 1-5 examples of any of the known players. (Purely a guess, until more research is done - I would bet it is more like 2-3 on average with some lucky folks out there owning maybe the only example) We need to shake some trees.

oaks1912

01-03-2011, 04:02 PM

I'm aware of 4 cards in the set which have reversed images from their E-254 counterpart.... Bridwell, Brockett, Daubert, Parent ....... Another quirk of the set. The Pirates players are indicated as "Pittsburg" on the squares, even though they may indicate "Pittsburgh" on the E-254....

DixieBaseball

01-03-2011, 04:14 PM

Thanks Mark for the input - (I believe the last we spoke was the Chicago National-Good to hear from you again!) That info is helpful. The quirk's are the only thing that separates this from the Colgan's images, so maybe this info will be helpful. I still scratch my head why Memphis ? If we ever find out who put these out, that question will get answered, I bet. Just strange that 1 southern league team was put out and 3 players from it. Maybe we should concentrate on the Memphis players not featured in the squares, but are featured in the E254's. Crandall, Wauner... ?? Was Wauner & Crandall released at different times from Babb, Bauerwald, and Daubert ?

nolemmings

01-03-2011, 07:04 PM

According to Baseballreference.com, both Wauner (really Wanner) and Crandall did not join Memphis until 1910, which of course is consistent with the premise that these square cards are tied to 1909.

FrankWakefield

01-03-2011, 07:38 PM

Not 'tied'. Such a card could be made this year, a century later.

nolemmings

01-03-2011, 07:39 PM

It's a premise, Frank. Refute it.

FrankWakefield

01-03-2011, 07:42 PM

A premise based on what?

All you can tell is that the card was made after a certain event. You can want it to be contemporaneous with the event, but that doesn't make it so. And you're fooling yourself, and others to insist that it is otherwise.

nolemmings

01-03-2011, 07:51 PM

Fair enough Frank. It's a postdated issue, possibly issued as an Upper Deck Commemorative issued circa a century later--I expect Willie Mays to be part of the set. Or its an Autosales release years after it acquired Colgans, because you want it to be. My only point about the Memphis players is that they played there in 1910, which is consistent with my prior posts. You're right, there's no premise. It's my theory, not premise, which theory you can shove up your ass.

FrankWakefield

01-03-2011, 07:59 PM

Well at least you have some passion about these old cards. I admire that.

millerhouse

01-03-2011, 11:42 PM

To all,

I hate to throw a monkey wrench into the dating party for this issue, but how do you explain the Harry Davis card with Cleveland, which was sold in the November 2009 Goodwin auction (Lot 251)? Davis played from about 1901 to 1911 with the A's, and then managed Cleveland in 1912, although he left that post with only about a fifth of the season remaining.

Indeed, the only other player change in the set is Harry Lord (who can be found issued with Chicago and with Boston captions). Neither of these cards is currently checklisted in the SCD Standard Catalog. My recollection is that Lord switched teams in 1910, though I'm certain someone can check verify this date.

Millerhouse

millerhouse

01-03-2011, 11:57 PM

To all,

As has been alluded to in prior posts, the Standard Catalog checklist for these is woefully missing a number of cards, like the Lords mentioned in my prior post and one of the two Davises (Philadelphia and Cleveland).

What's amazing to me is that this set was first checklisted, much more completely, by Richard Egan in his seminal work on Candy and Gum cards, issued around 1969/1970. Why the SCD checklister over these many years has managed to ignore Egan's listing is a mystery. In any event, if an old-timer out there could pull out a copy of Egan's work, my guess is that maybe twenty-five or so of these squares would be added to the Standard Catalog list.

By the way, I'm also the guy, mentioned above, with about a dozen duplicates from this set, which includes dupes of Harry Coveleski, Ed Konetchy, Dode Paskert, Billy Purtell and George Stone, none of which appears in the Standard Catalog.

Millerhouse

FrankWakefield

01-04-2011, 05:55 AM

Millerhouse,

I mention 1912 in post #46. I think new Colgans cards were being developed or made about then. The little round cards cover a broader date than that covered by the white border tobacco cards, ie T206.

DixieBaseball

01-04-2011, 10:10 AM

Millerhouse - Thanks for the input and getting involved. This is valuable information that would make the Daubert-Memphis 09 theory yield to the Davis theory (Can go forward with dated production, but can't go back, ie Davis 1912, Daubert 1909) I think your explanation simply squashes the 1909 theory. Did someone mention that Eagen's notes were included in Bert Sugar's 1977 first edition sports card book or did I dream that? We need to get Eagan's checklist in on this thread so we can forge ahead with discussion. Thanks Millerhouse for your info !

FrankWakefield

01-04-2011, 11:47 AM

From Mr. Ricard Egan...

"Part 3: An anonymous paper issue, not yet cataloged, has been located which uses photos from E-254. The titles of the cards have been removed and a printed title added in the bottom obverse. The photos are definately from E-254 as some are known with lettering that covered the photo in place although the background and associated lettering has been removed. The following players are known, in some cases the photos have been reversed, and incorrected spellings corrected." (sic)

1. AMES, New York Nat'l.
2. BABB, Memphis
3. BAERWALD, Memphis
4. BAILEY, St. Louis Am. L.
5. BAKER, Phila. Am. L.
6. BATES, Phila. Nat'l L.
7. BEAUMONT, Boston Nat'l L.
8. BECKER, Boston Nat'l L.
9. BRIDWELL, New York Nat'l L. (rev.)
10. BROCKETT, New York Am. L. (rev.)
11. BURCH, Brooklyn
12. BUSH, Detroit
13. CAMNITZ, Pittsburgh
14. CHANCE, Chicago Nat'l. L.
15. CHASE, New York Am. L.
16. CLARKE, Pittsburgh
17. COBB, Detroit
18. COLLINS, Phila. Am. L.
19. COVELESKI, Cincinnati
20. CRISS, St. Louis Am. L.
21. DAUBERT, Memphis (rev)
22. DAVIS, Phila. Am. L.
23. DEMMETT, New York, Am. L.
24. DEVLIN, New York, Am. L.
25. DOUGHTERTY, Chicago Am. L.
26. ELBERFIELD, New York Am. L.
27. ENGLE, New York Am. L.
28. EVANS, St. Louis, Nat'l L.
29. EVERS, Chicago, Nat'l L.
30. GASPAR, Cincinnati
31. GETZ, Boston Nat'l L.
32. GIBSON Pittsburgh
33. HARTSELL, Phila. Am. L.
34. HARTZELL, St. Louis Am. L.
35. HEWLEY, Rochester
36. HOOPER, Boston Am. L.
37. JENNINGS, Detroit
38. Joss, Cleveland
39. KNABE, Phila. Nat'l L.
40. KNIGHT, New York Am. L.
41. KONETCHY, St. Louis Nat'l L.
42. LAFITTE, Rochester
43. LANGE, Chicago Amer. L.
44. LEACH, Pittsburgh
45. LELIVELT, Detroit
46. LORD, Boston
47. LUDWIG, Milwaukee
48. MADDOX, Pittsburgh
49. McINTYRE, Detroit
50. MILLER, Pittsburgh
51. MITCHELL, Cincinnati
52. MULLER, Detroit
53. MURPHY, Phila. Am. L.
54. PARENT, Chicago Am. L.
55. PASKERT, Cincinnati
56, PEITZ, Louisvile
57. PFEISTER, Chicago Nat'l L.
58. PHILLIPE, Pittsburgh
59. PURTELL, Chicago Am. L.
60. RAYMOND, New York Nat'l L.
61. RUCKER, Brooklyn
62. SCHARDT, Milwaukee
63. SEYMOUR, New York Nat'l L.
64. SNODGRASS, New York Nat'l L.
65. SPADE, Cincinnati
66. STEINFELDT, Chicago Nat'l L.
67. STONE, St. Louis Am. L.
68. Sullivan, Louisville
69. SUMMERS, Detroit
70. UNGLAUB, Washington Am. L.
71. WADDELL, St. Louis Am. L.
72. WAGNER, Pittsburgh
73. WHITE, Buffalo
74. WILSON, Pittsburgh
75. WILTSE, New York Nat'l L.
76. WOODS, Buffalo
77. ZIMMERMAN, Chicago Nat'l L.

On the Paskert card one can see the "CIA" that is printed on the collar but the remainder is removed.

All cards compared are same picture."

THAT, is what is in Mr. Egan's Handbook. It is at the end of his list XXVII.

I incorrectly listed Parent as with Pittsburgh, Egan shows him with Chicago Am. L., I've made that correction. 1-5-11 11am.

FrankWakefield

01-04-2011, 12:56 PM

Bill Schardt was with Milwaukee only one season, 1910. Bill Ludwig was there for 1910 and part of 1911. Ed Laffite was with Rochester only for the 1910 season. That makes 1909 or earlier an extremely unlikely date for these square cards, nay impossible date for the cards.

So it seems that whoever supplied photographs and or cards to Colgans, and then AutoSales as they continued with the Colgans line, that this supplier later provided these square cards to someone, and this would have occurred AFTER the commencement of issue/distribution of E254s in 1909. Mr. Egan's comment about the letters on Paskert's shirt suggest that the round Colgans cards came first. Maybe the supplier/printer had a deal where they were obligated to supply round cards only to Colgans and their successor. So what they next sent out were these square cards.

And Egan's List notes 3 of the square cards having reversed images from the Colgans issue.

nolemmings

01-04-2011, 08:54 PM

Not so fast.

I have seen nothing to prove that these cards could not have been printed in 1909, and I maintain that they were, perhaps more than any other year. All I have been shown is that one player could not have been produced until 1912 and a few others are shown with their 1910 teams. Now we know that t206, p2 pins and px7 were all produced over a span of years in the 1909-1912 range (depending on set), and there is nothing to suggest that the same could not be said for these square cards. More importantly, Colgans themselves were issued over a period of these years, with new cards added and team changes made. Under these circumstances, I believe it is a fallacy to say that because one was made in 1912 they all must have been, just as it is to say that because some were made after 1909 it is impossible for any to have been made that year.

Millerhouse says Harry Lord has a square for both Boston and Chicago, so changes were apparently made to these cards when teams changed in 1910. Also, Egan shows Harry Davis with Philly, and the Goodwin auction has him on Cleveland, so there’s another example of a square with different teams. Yet from Egans list are 13 players who had more than one e254; i.e., cards where team changes were made. Of these, all but one is depicted on his square card with the team he played on in 1909. Two, Demmitt and Elberfeld, were on different teams in1909 and 1910, and have different Colgan e254s. Each of these has a square card showing the 1909 team. Rube Waddell has three different e254s, two which show team changes from 1911, yet his square card shows him with his 1909-10 team. More than another dozen others from Egan’s list had an e254 and then an e270, the latter reflecting team changes, yet none appear on square cards for anything other than the original team. Now why would the manufacturer take the time to update Davis and Lord on these squares but none of the others? Better yet, why, if the entire kaboodle was not printed or issued until 1912 or later would the manufacturer not take the time to make obvious corrections which it knew about from e254 and e270? And where, please, is there ANY evidence that Autosales had anything to do with this? It appears that maybe one square card reflects a name/team combination that might have existed after they acquired Colgans. How does that equate to some belief that they had control of all these square cards and decided to allow distribution by someone else later on? Many many of these images are Horner portraits, and appear in other card sets or Spalding/Reach guides. Why should we believe that Autosales had some sort of exclusivity on who got to use these images, when there is evidence that they were used elsewhere and often?

It would be nice if someone were to track the five year span when Colgans were made, i.e. 1909-1913, for each player in the square card set. From there it could be determined the first year a particular square could have been printed, not counting for errors (and there are some–Jeremy, did you know the two B’Ham players on e254, who you wondered about as not having squares, NEVER played for Birmingham; so too Egan apparently lists Parent for Pittsburgh where he never played) I do this for some sets I collect but have no stake here. Jeremy, wanna step up? :)

DixieBaseball

01-04-2011, 09:34 PM

Todd - It's an open discussion and you make a compelling case as well. I value all of the discussion thus far and the truth is none of us know, but can only surmise the possibilities. Your points are taken and at this point it is conceivable these squares were over a span of years. I love the arguments both ways, and while I think the 1912 argument appears obvious, I would not go as far as tossing the Autosales angle into this. At this point all we know is these are Unknown Player Squares with image's used on Colgan's. I think the likelihood these are some derivative of Colgan's or at least a competitor is more likely than not. With that being said, I would not bet on it. (How's that for riding the fence) ;)

FrankWakefield

01-04-2011, 09:41 PM

I don't necessarily disagree with that. Seems to me some of these square things could have been made in 1909. And some were definitely in 1910 and later.

But back there where you said that the square cards are 'tied' to 1909, that just isn't so.

I thought the goal here was to show that these square cards weren't predecessors to the Colgans Chips cards. Nothing in what Egan wrote suggests that the square cards were proofs or predecessors.

I've contemplated the 'Pittsburg' vs 'Pittsburgh' thing. It was "Pittsburg" from about 1890 to about 1911. Then it reverted to "Pittsburgh". We know the white border and brown border tobacco cards just have the "g" on the end. What do you guys thing about that?