1949 Leaf set - NOT 1948!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>The only remaining shred of proof to the contrary has now been removed. The Leaf set was a 1949 set and NONE of the cards were printed with different backs.<br /><br />Someone had quoted an old Mastronet catalog that indicated that legendary collector Marshall Fogel had a Leaf Satchell Paige with a 1948 copyright date on back.<br /><br />Well, let's just chalk it up to "puffery" on Mastro's part, because here is Marshall's response to my e-mail:<br /><br /><br />Hal<br /><br />I was hoping my Paige card was with a 1948 reverse; but, it is with a 1949 reverse.<br /><br />Beat Regards, <br /><br />Marshall<br /><br /><br />-------------------------<br /><br />In a nutshell, there ARE NO Satchell Paige or Jackie Robinson Leaf cards with a "1948" copyright date on back.<br /><br />The entire Leaf set was first distributed in the first few months of 1949. It is a 1949 set only and NOT a "1948-49" set.<br /><br />-------------------------<br /><br />This is very similar to the Old Judge thread on the board, where certain Old Judge cards were definitely distributed with the 1888 and 1889 sets as clearly indicated by their style... but have the 1887 copyright date.<br /><br />The copyright dates do NOT indicate when the cards were printed and distributed... only when the picture was taken and or the script was copyrighted.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>granted. Leaf and Bowman are both '49 sets. Only Leafs I have are the Ted Williams and the Abe Attell. I love the Paige, though--and one other Leaf--could it be Doby?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Yes, the Doby and Leaf are historic.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>If Hal is right there are an awful lot of erroneous PSA flips out there, as well as SMRs, Becketts, etc. I assume the two copyright dates are at the heart of the problem; but it does seem that if the cards were all issued in 1949 they should be called 1949. I would guess, though, that PSA will be reluctant to implement any change either in the way it labels cards or in the SMR. As for Beckett, assuming they call Leafs either 1948 or 1948-49, they are still clinging to the ridiculous notion that (for example) Barry Bonds' 1987 cards are his rookie cards when he had three cards widely issued by the major companies in 1986, so I wouldn't expect change there either.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Peter:<br /><br />I am pretty sure that Bob Lemke is going to remedy this and label the set as a "1949" set in the next edition of the "big book" catalog.<br /><br />Once he does, the grading companies will start labelling them correctly.<br /><br />And YES, there will be a LOT of "erroneous" labels floating around out there. (1948 Leafs, 1915 M101-5's, 1887 Allen & Ginters, 1934 Diamond Stars, 1904 Fan Crazes)<br /><br />Hopefully people will read the "big book" and learn for themselves before they buy something just because of the label.<br /><br /><img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Gotta be a lawsuit in here somewhere. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>.......Hal's going to be on the market for some high grade 48 Bowmans

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Looks like the following HOFers have their "true" RCs in 48 Bowman rather than Leaf under the Lewis doctrine: Kiner, Mize, Feller, Rizzuto, Slaughter, Spahn, Musial. Which leaves (no pun intended) Paige, Robinson, Newhouser and Doby as the only RCs in the Leaf set. Which (I think) leaves Newhouser as the only exclusive RC in the set, as Paige, Robinson and Doby appear in 49 Bowman. EDITED TO ADD I forgot about the 41 Double Play set so Mize and Feller would not be rookies and didn't Rizzuto have a Double Play card as well?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I show the following cards are as being earlier than the 48 Bowman for Mize: 1939 Exhibit, 1941 Doubleplay and 1943 MP&Co.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Hal is right, the Leafs are entirely a 1949 set. I spoke at length with 49 expert Ted Zanidakis last week and he confirmed the Leafs were only available in 1949, and beat the Bowmans to the candy stores by a couple of months. I asked him if because he grew up in NJ could it be possible that in other parts of the country the Bowmans came out first, but he has spoken with people nationally who bought packs as kids and everyone's experience was Leafs were available in very early 1949 only (and not in 48) and the Bowmans appeared a bit later.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>Listed below are just a few cards that could be considered rookie cards for each player, depending on your definition and preferences. There are others as well:<br /><br />1.) Johnny Mize:<br />- 1936 R312<br />- 1941 Double Play<br /><br />2.) Bob Feller:<br />- 1936 R314 Goudey Wide Pen<br />- 1937 OPC<br /><br />3.) Enos Slaughter:<br />- 1941 Double Play<br />- 1941 W754<br /><br />4.) Ralph Kiner:<br />- 1946-49 W603<br />- 1947 Tip Top Bread<br />- 1947 Bond Bread<br />- 1947 W602<br /><br />5.) Stan Musial:<br />- 1946-49 W603<br />- 1946 Sears Postcard<br />- 1947 Bond Bread<br />- 1947 W602<br /><br />6.) Warren Spahn:<br />- 1946-49 W603<br />- 1947 Tip Top Bread<br />- 1947 Bond Bread<br />- 1947 W602<br /><br />7.) Hal Newhouser<br />- 1939-46 Salutation Exhibit<br />- 1946-49 W603<br />- 1947 W602<br /><br />8.) Phil Rizzuto:<br />-1941 Double Play<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Interesting. Hal, what is your "official" position on the Double Play set and if you think those are RCs how do you differentiate it from the sets just mentioned?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Andy- You left Jackie Robinson off your list, and I feel his rookie card should be his 1947 Bond Bread set. But I know many collectors disagree. Why is that? It was issued in his actual rookie year, and is beautifully executed with crisp photos and great product advertising. Is it because it was a Brooklyn only issue, or because Jackie was the only player in the set? Just curious.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>I used to debate with other collectors about which cards are "true" rookie cards. I discovered that everyone views this differently, so it is useless to debate. Every collector that is interested in rookie cards needs to decide for themselves what constitutes a rookie card. I know Hal well enough that he will not consider a "1949" Leaf card to be a rookie card is the player is represented in the "1948" Bowman set. What my list shows is that there are choices that collectors can make beyond Leaf and Bowman.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>I left Jackie off the list because he wasn't being discussed, since he doesn't have a 1948 Bowman. Therefore, either his 1949 Bowman or Leaf could be considered his rookie card, as well as the Bond Bread issue, 1946 Parade Sportive, 1948 Swell Sports Thrills, or any other number of sets. Again, I believe it is up to the definition and the preferences of the collector.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Andy's list and Barry's point sure suggest to me there is a great deal of subjectivity, and perhaps arbitrariness, involved. I suppose one could differentiate between a "major" set and a "regional" one, but that distinction probably breaks down in practice too. I am sure glad I don't suffer from obsessive compulsive order or it might push me over the brink!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You mean obsessive compulsive disorder, also known as OCD. No big deal (it was obsessive-compulsive of me to point out your error). I guess what constitutes a rookie card can be subjective; however the fact remains that with each player a very specific card, regardless of one's definition, was in fact the first to appear on the market. And if you were a baseball fan in the 1940's, you might remember that a specific card of Jackie Robinson was the very first one in existence. What is in dispute is how people collect, which is perfectly fine. One of the first axioms of collecting every beginner hears is there is no right way or wrong way to collect.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Take a look at my last post. I sent it in at 2:03 PM, then corrected a typo at 1:57 PM- six minutes before I posted. Did I just travel back in time? Cool- if I do it long enough I'll be able to buy Jackie's rookie card at my local candy store.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Hey, we can sell this time machine on eBay for huge money.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Now Barry only someone with OCD (typo, not ignorance) would notice what you just pointed out about the timing of your correction!! Better go wash your hands and double check the locks!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>HW</b><p>If Ted says it was 1949, then I would be pretty sure that it is 1949. He certainly knows his cards from that era.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I uncovered the truth... and now I must live by it.<br /><br />My PSA 8 1949 Leaf cards of Spahn and Musial must be replaced.<br /><br /><img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Newhouser, Doby, Robinson and Kell can stay since 1949 still works for them.<br /><br />I already had Kiner in the 1948 Bowman, so I am OK there.<br /><br />---------------<br /><br />The 1941 Double Play count as rookie cards for me for:<br /><br />Mize, Slaughter, Rizzuto and Boudreau

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>So Hal what is your thinking why do the Double Play count and not Bond Bread or the various other cards mentioned by Andy. What is the distinction in your mind.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Yes, I am a tad compulsive, but not clinically so. There is an episode of Curb Your Enthusiam about OCD, and it was on last night, so it was just fresh in my mind. PSAJD (sorry, I don't know your name) did you notice your edit occurred after your posting time too? I think Leon needs to calibrate the clocks. Daily savings time is a perfect night to do it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Hey Barry, it's Peter, sorry. Shouldn't my edit have occurred AFTER my post, as it did? I must be missing your point.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You're absolutely right. I'm suffering from OCD compounded by dyslexia. BUT!!- Look at your last post. That edit occurred a minute before the post. Or am I going crazy?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Yes, this time I edited before I posted!! Must be that new breakfast cereal I ate this morning.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I guess they run on two separate clocks, and they aren't calibrated. That's where I am compulsive- if my watch is a minute off I have to fix it. We can't all be perfect.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>If I have to calibrate the clocks it will be on overtime and there is a moderator rule about No overtime pay...sorry....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Whatever they are paying you now, I'll double it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Triple it and it's a deal <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Sorry I couldn't resist..Sorry for hijacking the thread too. I guess I can cut myself some slack once in a while. Now where were we? As for '48 vs '49 Leaf I think this was some great research done, and great effort given, by Hal...kudo's....Btw, I sold my Leaf Robinson card some time ago and never had Paige.....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>But do you have some 1948 Bowman Musials and Spahns for me?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Since you started the thread I'll do it but generally these would go in the B/S/T thread...Maybe if the 35 post thread is about the exact card for sale it could be ok? Or maybe I'm just rationalizing? This one isn't as nice as you will want though, as it has a minor bottom right corner crease. Sort of ironic that it's one of the last '50's cards I still have to sell....later....and nice work.<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1112494710.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>But a few years ago we changed the 1948 Leaf set to a 1949 Leaf set.<br /><br />I think the change was done early in 1998.<br /><br />Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Hal, shouldn't you replace your Spahn with a Tip Top or a W602?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Am starting to think that I should.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>I thought Tip Top was clearly a regional issue not a national issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I think all of these bread cards are regional... but the Tip Tops are cool.<br /><br />Where else can you get a card of LARRY BERRA?<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>And where but 48 (49) Leaf can you get a card of LEROY Paige?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Derek</b><p>Not to be a stick-in-the-mud, but is this still a pre-war room? Which war? I assumed the Great War, or maybe at least WWII...but pre-Korean War? What is exactly vintage these days? Again, just asking.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>To me, "VINTAGE" means anything PRE-1950.<br /><br />Which also works well because it could be called "PRE-TOPPS."

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>You asked if this is still a pre-war site. The answer can easily be found at the top of the front page where it says what this site is about. It is "primarily" pre-war....which does not mean "exclusively". So far I have not deleted any off topic threads as folks are being pretty good. Occasional off topic threads are definitely permitted, and more permitted, by regular contributors. In general when we speak of "pre-war" it means pre-wwii. I hope this helps......regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I believe Tip Tops were regional in the sense that each individual team was distributed only regionally. If you add all the teams together, you get something approximating national distribution.<br /><br />I'm not sure how relevant the whole concept of regional v. national really is. I know everyone is free to collect what they want. But surely the Reccius Wagner was a regional issue. I find it extremely unlikely that the Just So cards were anything but a regional issue. For that matter, how likely is it that T206s made it west of the Mississippi? In fact, T206 major leaguers might have been distributed only in the Northeast and Midwest. I believe T-213 Coupons were issued regionally in the South, and almost every interesting back from the M101-4/5 series must have been issued regionally on a very limited basis.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Like I said on another thread...<br /><br />once you go back past 1950...<br /><br />you can really throw the "standard rookie card" rules out the window.<br /><br />Very few sets were NATIONWIDE (1933-34 Goudey?, 1939-41 Play Ball?, 1934-36 Diamond Stars?, 1916 M101-5&4?)...<br /><br />but a collector is still free to focus on the sets with the widest distribution if he or she wants.<br /><br />Like we say around here:<br /><br />"cwYOUwtc"

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The 1st series, 2/3 (33 cards) of the 49 have the 1948 COPY-<br />RIGHT; and, 16 cards have the 1949 COPYRIGHT. The 2nd series<br />(scarce issue) approx. has the same breakdown between 1948 &<br />1949 COPYRIGHTs. Does this suggest that some cards were issued<br />in 1948, while others in 1949 ? HECK NO !<br />1st..It is ILLEGAL, & certainly ILLOGICAL to grant a COPYRIGHT<br /> in advance.<br />2nd..I can clearly recall buying and trading many of the LEAF<br /> BB cards early in 1949. In Hillside, NJ we only had the 1st<br /> series cards. My original collection survived and I had over<br /> 100 of these cards. We kept buying them since we could not<br /> figure how many completed a set (due to the skip-nos. cards)<br />3rd..Then, in the early '80s I acquired an uncut 49-card sheet<br /> of 1948 LEAF Boxing Champs and an uncut 49-card sheet of<br /> 1949 LEAF BB cards (1st series). This confirmed in my mind<br /> that my recollection was accurate regarding this 1949 issue<br />4th..In researching into the players who were traded late in<br /> 1948 that are portrayed in this set, it becomes evident that<br /> it is virtually impossible to have marketed this set in 1948<br />Finally, I was able to complete the 1949 LEAF set during the<br />1980's, starting with Leroy Paige. I acquired this card back<br />in 1982 from Rick Starks (Erie, PA dealer). He helped me with<br />almost all of the 2nd 49 cards, as nearby OHIO was the main<br />souce of them. My experience with the "scarce" LEAF cards is<br />that LEAF limited distribution of them to OHIO and MICHIGAN. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>TED:<br /><br />Can you please clarify a bit:<br /><br />The complete 1949 Leaf baseball set has 98 cards... which I presume means that they printed TWO separate sheets with 49 players on each sheet, right???<br /><br />And what you are telling us is that they did NOT have a full sheet with the 1948 copyright date and a second sheet with the 1949 copyright date...<br /><br />but that 33 of the 49 players on the SAME uncut sheet have the 1948 copyright date...<br /><br />while the other 16 on that uncut sheet have the 1949 date on back???<br /><br />I agree that this in undisputable evidence that the sheets were printed in 1949, since there is no way they would have "assumed" in 1948 that they would eventually get copyrights for those 16 players in 1949.<br /><br />-----------------------<br /><br />What numbered players appear on that sheet??<br />Are the 49 players who appeared on the OTHER sheet (scarce series) all the ones who have the SP by their name in the standard catalog?<br /><br />So not only did Leaf skip-number... but they only distributed the second 49 cards in the Ohio and Michigan areas.<br /><br />Dirty scoundrels.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>mcavoy</b><p>Good info and good work.<br /><br />My understanding: copyright is/was not "granted." As a result, it does not correspond to when printing occurred, or when distribution occurred. It is claimed by statement (that (c)) and by following strict the legal requirements. The Federal office passively processed and catalogued the materials, and left it up to the copyright holders to defend their rights to reproduction and distribution. Although similar, the patent office is more active in determining patent awards (which may be challenged by plaintiffs and defendents)<br /><br />Assuming Leaf wrote the player's bio., Leaf submitted two copies to the federal office handling copyright, and claimed the rights to reproduce and distribute the written bio's from that date. Leaf did not have to submit baseball cards, because it obtained copytight to the bio., as I understand it. Copyright to the pictures is a different matter. As the rights holder, it could have printed the bio. on anything it wanted, and it would have retained the rights in any case.<br /><br />Anyone could write, reproduce, and distribute a player's bio., but no one could reproduce for sale and distribute Leaf's written version. As the copyright holder to the bio's, Leaf (presumably it owned the rights to reproduction and distribution of the bio's) could have assigned the reproduction rights to anyone. It evidentally printed cards with the different copyright dates at one time (sounds like 1949) and distributed them for sale in series at one point in time (sounds like 1949).<br /><br />It would be normal for a bio. printed printed at two different dates to carry an identical copyright year. It would not make sense for the same written bio. to be printed with two different dates, an occurrence which might even be grounds for loss of copyright, although I am unsure (I do not doubt it has happened and that the matter has been decided in the courts - I don't have access to Nexis/Lexis, so I don't know, for sure)<br /><br />Copyright holders challenge in a civil action when a violation is determined. The court decides, in part, whether the plaintiff holds a valid copyright. Leaf's willingness to copyright player bio's suggests post-war baseball cards, mags and pulps was pretty cut-throat. Leaf appears to have wanted to threaten any firm contemplating plagiarizing its card reverses.<br /><br />Lots of lawyers here, please correct my recollection errors

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Hal, you have asked me essentially four questions, so here<br /> are my answers:<br /><br /> 1st....Yes, the 1949 Leaf BB set of 98 cards were printed on<br /> two sheets configured in a 7 x 7 array = 49 cards each.<br /><br /> 2nd....I have had only the first series uncut sheet and there<br /> exists a mixture of 1948 & 1949 COPYRIGHTed cards on this<br /> sheet (the Copyright breakdown is 33 and 16, respectively)<br /> I have never seen a 2nd series sheet; however, it can be<br /> a safe assumption that it would contain a mixture of both<br /> year's Copyrights, as the 1st sheet. Indeed, if you look<br /> at the backs of the "so-called" SP cards, the breakdown of<br /> two years' Copyrights is very similar.<br /><br /> 3rd....The Skip-Numbering of the cards is a marketing tech-<br /> nique LEAF first used in their 1948 BOXING Champs set. So<br /> it must of proved profitable; therefore LEAF continued it<br /> in the 1949 BB set.<br /><br /> 4th....You need only to read the bios on the backs of these<br /> cards and do a little research in the BB Encyclopedia to<br /> convince yourself that this set was never issued in 1948.<br /> There are many examples of late year trades in 1948 of<br /> players in this set. Two, that immediately come to mind<br /> are Pete Reiser and Oval Grove. Both were traded Dec.'48<br /> and this is reflected in their bios.<br /><br /> Finally, I'll bet my well-centered, sharp-registered, clean-<br /> back 1949 LEAF Paige card that there is NO 1948 Copyrighted<br /> 1949 LEAF Paige card in existence.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>'Nuff said!<br /><br />We shall now bury the "1948 Leaf" set forever, as it is officially DEAD!<br /><br />From this day hence: 1949 Leaf<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Except on who knows how many labels from PSA GAI and SGC.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>The labels won't be "dead"...<br /><br />they will just be "dead wrong."<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>