Random Exhibit questions

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I've got a few random questions about exhibit cards that I hope some of you can answer.<BR><BR> 1. Occassionally, dealers refer to their Exhibit cards by set number, rather than year. For example, I think I've seen cards sold as being part of "Set No. 82." I believe Lew Lipset usually advertises his Exhibits this way. Is there any reference book that catalogs Exhibits by set numer? Do any of you have a checklist of exhibits by set number? Are any of these sets not listed in the Standard Catalog?<BR><BR> 2. Are the 1921-24 Exhibits one set, two sets, three sets, or four? If more than one, how do you tell the difference among them? It seems clear that the Al Simmons was issued only in 1924, since he didn't play in the majors before then. But how do you tell for the rest of them?<BR><BR> 3. Is there any way to tell the specific year of issue for a 1947-66 Exhibit?<BR><BR> Thanks in advance for your help.<BR><BR>Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>1. The set designations you reference are the work of legendary collector Elwood "Woody" Scharf in series of articles he wrote for The Trader Speaks in the 1970's. They rose to the status of official designations among old-time collectors but never made the mainstream hobby press (Beckett, Standard Catalogue) hence are not used today. His work was really good, but a little too detailed for most collectors' tastes. One example: he broke the set of 1926-29 PC backed baseball players into three separate sets (81, 82, 83) based on issuance dates and certain variations that can be really picayune and hard to follow. <BR><BR>2. With no copyrights on the cards, this is one of the most complex issues in Exhibit collecting, for which there is no true answer. The set assumption rests on printing sheet configuration: 32 per sheet. People assume that all sets must be multiples of 32 or fractions of 32 (8, 16). There is no reason to suggest that just because the company used 32 cards to a sheet, there were 32 or 64 or 96 or 128 cards to a set. You have to remember, this was not Topps issuing one sport at a time. ESCO issued many subjects in identical formats, so there is no absolute reason why a sheet is a set. Also, you have to allow for double prints. Unfortunately, poses are reused/reissued. The boxing cards issued contemporaneously actually have back biographies and copyrights, but I have proven (I think) that they were issued over a three year period, with deletions and additions during that time. The 1921 set, for example, has 59 cards, not 64 (2 sheets); I suspect double prints of five boxers that were replaced in 1923 with new cards. I would not be at all surprised if the baseball cards followed the same pattern. Also, there were cards added to and dropped from the print run in boxing and I have no reason to suspect that they did not do the same with baseball. There are certainly new issues for each year, how many is questionable. The 1922 cards are readily distinguished by their use of a solid, thin line identifying the subject. The 1921's all use a fancier script that includes thicker letters with spaces in some of the letter parts. The 1923s are rare cards that use a fancy script like the 1921s but in a thin line like the 1922s. If you have a reissued player, it is not possible to determine which year the card is from. <BR><BR>3. Sort of. There are 3 main variations in the origin lines. The earliest cards use "MADE IN THE USA". The middle cards use "Made In The USA". The last issued cards use "Printed In The USA". Some cards are found with more than one designation. There are also sub-variations to these print themes that you simply have to see side by side to understand. There are also spillover cards from one "set" to the next, most notably DiMaggio and Williams, who were produced in the Salutations format well after 1947. I have seen advertising materials listing them with later produced cards. The listing in the Standard Catalogue is pretty good at listing all the subjects but does not address the sub-variations within the particular subjects, but I am afraid that endeavor would require a far more detailed analysis than the format would permit.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>some of the earlier 1947-66 cards also have "AN EXHIBIT CARD" printed in the same typeface as the "MADE IN USA". These can be found without the added line too.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhett</b><p>They are usually seen as 3 distnct sets. 1921, 1922, and 1923-24. The 1921 Cards are easier to distinguish, as long as they are American League players. The '21 American Leaguers are designated as Am. L. while after 1921 they are designated as A.L. Many players are distinct to one of the sets, there are many that were reissued in one orr more sets. Sometimes the Exhibit Co. changed teams, added (or removed) a white border, or changed thi picture. Currently there are 64 cards in the 1921 set, 74 players that are new/different in the 1922 set, and 58 that are distinct new cards in the 1923-24 set. Get an SCD Standard Catalog and they will list the different players in the different sets.<BR>-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Thank you both very much. That's far more information than I ever hoped to get, and greatly appreciated. And I will take a look at my Standard Catalog again. I know in the earlier editions they did not distinguish among the 1921-24 sets, but it sounds like they have now recognized a distinction.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JUlie</b><p>why my 1947-66 Jackie Robinson isx wearing a K.C. Monarchs uniform...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Assuming the figures quoted above are correct issue numbers (I am never convinced with ESCO offerings that we have seen all there is to find) 64 cards in 1921 indicates two full sheets of cards. 58 cards in 1922 indicates a two-sheet run that is short six cards. They either DP'd 6 cards or reprinted 6 1921's (or printed something else entirely). My bet would be on reprints of popular players from the 1921 set. I do note that some of the biggest names in 1921 can be found with and without borders. Perhaps this indicates a reprinting of those cards on a sheet with a different format in 1922? 74 in the 1923 group is 10 more than a full two sheets of cards. <BR><BR>Since none of the numbers add up after 1921, the most likely explanation is that the baseball cards followed the demonstrable pattern of the boxing cards: selected subjects were dropped and/or added from time to time throughout the 3 year period in order to round out full sheets. This would also neatly account for the relative scarcity of the 1923 set; it had a very limited run compared to the others.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I flipped my figures. At 74 cards in 1922, the issue becomes even more interesting. The next sheet would be 96 cards, or 18 more potential double prints/reprints. <BR><BR>The only way to really sort this out is to take all 3 sets plus all variations and do a side by side count and analysis. Of course, no one has the cards to do it...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhett</b><p>The 1921 set is far more common than the other two. And as you said that is almost certainly due to the fact that many of the players were reprinted through the 1922 set as well as possibly the 1923-24 set. As was mentioned before about printing in multiples of 32, they certainly continued to do this with both of the subsequent sets, with reprinted cards from the earlier years. The numbers that I mentioned in my earlier posts about known number of subjects includes team changes, and loss or addition of borders, as these are recognized as "new" cards. It should be noted from my experience that the 1923-24 Exhibits is a very challenging set, with 1922 being a little less difficult but is also quite a challenge. Certain players within those sets also seem tougher than others, possible unequal distribution of sheets. It would be interesting to see, I don't think it would be too difficult, which of the 1921 cards were printed over several years, and which were possibly only issued one year. All you would need to do is take some poll numbers from some of the major collections around. I don't have the time, but maybe someone else does. <BR>-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I don't even try for every border variation (I mean, who really can say whether the Hornsby w/border was a 21, 22 or 23, and who really cares?). I shoot for every pose and every team change. Ditto for back variations on the PC back cards. I just don't have the stomach to be turned on about print variations in the postcard logo. I may get a type card of each one, but that's about all.<BR><BR>BTW, the photography on some of the 1921-24 cards is great. I love the 1921 Schalk, Johnson & Ruth, and the 1922 Heilmann. Classic images and big.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I know some of the 1921s (and 22,23,24 I assume) have white borders and some have no borders. But I've never seen the same player both with and without borders. Have you seen any of these? Can you post an example?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Hornsby. I have the bordered one and I once passed on a no-borders one because I didn't want to own the same card twice (I know, stupid).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I have the Hornsby with the border too. I've never seen the one without the border.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>so I can find it again when I get home from the UK. Thanks for great info guys!<BR><BR>Tim