1921 W-unc self developing cards [Archive]

View Full Version : 1921 W-unc self developing cards

Archive

07-21-2005, 11:52 PM

Posted By: leonThese were posted about on the board not too long ago. I was luckey enough to find a few extra pennies laying around to nab them. Does anyone else besides the board member who alerted me to them have any? Or has anyone seen any? I haven't before this group. The paper on front almost looks too white but the back residue shows they were mounted in a notebook for a long time.... They are really small too....regards <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1122011407.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1122011452.JPG">

Archive

07-22-2005, 01:20 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI have not seen others before. The images are about as sharp as they come for self-developing cards.

Archive

07-22-2005, 06:56 AM

Posted By: leonI agree they are very sharp. With the remnants on the back looking very old I do think they are period. On these types of cards it is difficult to tell though. Does one of your books (which I have a few of) tell how I can tell if they are period or not? Maybe the photo paper? I believe they are "period" but since I don't have much to go on I would like all the warm-fuzziness I can get....regards

Archive

07-22-2005, 07:36 AM

Posted By: Scott ForrestIf the glue is water-soluble they are "older". That would be easy enough to test. edited to add: just drop that Cobb in a bowl of water - if he floats he's a witch.

Archive

07-22-2005, 11:57 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackLeon, I'm not familiar with the issue or how the year was picked. But the rarity itself of the cards is significant. Does't appear someone hasn't been running off lots of reprints to stick on eBay. One of the issues with the Ray O Prints photo cards is that there were lots of complete sets in high grade on the market. The back of the photo paper appears off white/toned, which is cosistent with being older. If the photo paper is thin that's also consistent with old age. Years later paper was typically thicker. The ultimate test with early 20th cetury photo cards is if they have silvering. Though it does not appear on all old photo cards (thus, the lack of it is not proof a card is fake), if you turn the card at an angle to a lamp or light and a silveriness appears in the image (sometimes has a 'mirror' effect), that's proof it's old. Silvering is an aging process, meaning it appears only on cards that are many years old. It's possible with real little photos the silvering might not appear. Looking at your above image, I don't see a problem with your cards. Many times, no signs that something is bad is a sign that something is good.

Archive

07-22-2005, 12:21 PM

Posted By: leonThey do in fact have the "silvering" you mentioned. My only small question about them is that the silvering isn't as "blotchy" as I am used to on other regular cards. In other words when I do what you said, and I always do that anyway- hold them flat in my palm and look at them from an angle, the silvering is fairly even. On regular old cards, E121, M101-4/5 etc....it is usually not so even...I do look at the totality of the whole card and I am not too worried....All of the signs add up to them being "period" and real......thanks again.....

Archive

07-22-2005, 12:28 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackLeon, silvering (which appears on cards that are actual photos, not machine printed cards) appears in different ways, intensities and patters, so it doesn't have to be the same on all items. One last thing. As I recall these cards were shown with other trimmed Pre-War cards. If all of the cards came from the same scrapbook, or even scrapbook page, that would indicate the age of your cards.

Archive

07-22-2005, 01:44 PM

Posted By: andy beckercongrats! this thread is a perfect example of why this is the greatest site on the web. thanks for sharing!

Archive

07-22-2005, 02:08 PM

Posted By: Daniel BrettaLeon, did your cards come from the same source as Josh K's Alexander?

Archive

07-22-2005, 02:26 PM

Posted By: leonYes...

Archive

07-22-2005, 03:07 PM

Posted By: Daniel BrettaVery cool cards. Has an Eddie Collins ever surfaced for this issue?

Archive

07-22-2005, 09:54 PM

Posted By: Josh K.Boy Im glad that the consensus is that these cards are real - it never crossed my mind when I received the alexander that they may not be. My scan doesnt quite do justice with respect to the true size of these cards. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1121880179.JPG">

Archive

07-22-2005, 09:59 PM

Posted By: leonThe "silvering" on the m101-4/5, E135, E121 etc...is really what I usually call "gloss" and it's usually somewhat uneven. These cards do in fact have "silvering" and not the gloss. regards

Archive

07-22-2005, 10:50 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackFor those unfamiliar with the issue, some vintage self developing photo baseball cards where sold as kits (I don't know how these particular cards were made). The kit consisted of a piece of photo paper, negative and a little stand, and the kid developed his own baseball cards. As someone in modern times with the original kit could make more cards using more photo paper, there is sometimes a concern if a card is the real vintage version. This is in part why the card with the original kit is most desirable, and why Leon was double checking to make sure his were old. There is particular concern about some 1930 Ray O Prints (includes Ruth, Gehrig). Luckily, it's not of great concern with other self developing issues because of their rarity (meaning, they obviously haven't been reprinted much if at all). Some non-Ray O Print kits are extremely rare, and it's probable that kits for certain cards no longer exist. If you find a rough grade and obscure (Have to use your Standard Catalog to identify it) self developing photo card in an old scrap book, it is more than likely the original.