PDA

View Full Version : Post War Vintage....1949 Leaf Paige


Archive
12-14-2005, 05:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The 1949 Leaf Leroy "Satchell" Paige is one of the scarcest, high demand,<br />post-War cards. Had he been given a chance to pitch in the Majors in his<br />prime he would have been portrayed in the pre-War issues of US Caramel,<br />Goudeys, Diamond Stars, and the PlayBall sets.<br /><br />As it is, would a high Graded copy of this Paige be the most valuable card<br />in the post-War category ?<br /><br /><img src="http://freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/paige2.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/paigeb.jpg"><br /><br />

Archive
12-14-2005, 05:23 PM
Posted By: <b>David Vargha</b><p>Right up there with a '52 Topps Mantle, '54 Wilson Franks Ted Williams and a '51 Topps Connie Mack All Star Robin Roberts, I suppose.<br><br>DavidVargha@hotmail.com

Archive
12-14-2005, 05:31 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>It would be up there, but I think a PSA 10 '52 Mantle went for $275,000 a few years ago. I doubt the Paige would reach that level. Just my opinion. I wouldn't be suprised if a mint copy went for close to 100k.<br />JimB

Archive
12-14-2005, 05:37 PM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Given that there are only SIX of the 1949 Paige cards ever graded as an "8" by ANY of the grading companies...<br /><br />and ZERO graded as a "9"...<br /><br />and ZERO graded as a "10"...<br /><br />then a PSA 10 1949 Leaf Satchell Paige card would probably be the RAREST post war card around.<br /><br /><br />Maybe not priced as high as the PSA 10 Mantle...<br /><br />but then again, due to rarity... it might be.

Archive
12-14-2005, 05:39 PM
Posted By: <b>base2base</b><p>How much do you think a low grade 49 Leaf Paige would go for in a "1" PSA/SCG/GAI? <br />You never see this card selling on ebay.

Archive
12-14-2005, 06:03 PM
Posted By: <b>Mike M</b><p>I was watching one that was trimmed, and stated as such in the description, on eBay over the summer, and it sold for around $1,000. Otherwise, it was probably in good condition.

Archive
12-14-2005, 06:13 PM
Posted By: <b>Seth B.</b><p>David-<br />It's because I don't collect post-war cards, but somebody explain the Robin Roberts card to me? I mean, I get Ted Williams, I get Mickey Mantle, I even get the Satchel Paige shortprint, but I'm very intrigued by the 1951 Topps Connie Mack All-star Roberts...

Archive
12-14-2005, 06:24 PM
Posted By: <b>Jimi</b><p>Let's not forget the 1952 Topps Mathews RC. I just sold my PSA 2 (which would have been an SGC 10 due to a severe crease down the middle of his face), for $1,300+. <br><br>Jimi

Archive
12-14-2005, 06:25 PM
Posted By: <b>David Vargha</b><p>Roberts, Konstanty and Stanky were likely never issued in the "Current" all star set. There are maybe three known copies of each.<br><br>DavidVargha@hotmail.com

Archive
12-14-2005, 06:53 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Mike M<br /><br />I remember the trimmed Paige you referred to, it did go for<br />more than $1000. There was another one sometime back that was<br />ungraded and advertised as less than Vg. It went for $2500.

Archive
12-14-2005, 06:54 PM
Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>The Paige has been listed on ebay, in PSA-graded form, at least 7 times in the past two and a half years.<br /><br />I didn't record the exact dates, but these are from least to most recent:<br /><br />PSA 7 - $17,500<br />PSA 4 - no bids placed (opening bid $5750)<br />PSA 3 - $4378<br />PSA 7 - no bids placed (opening bid $19,995)<br />PSA 4 [same one as above] - no bids placed (opening bid $5600)<br />PSA 3 - cancelled<br />PSA 3 - $5,700<br /><br />I would expect a typical-looking PSA 1 to fetch around $2800.

Archive
12-14-2005, 08:47 PM
Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>For what it is worth<br /><br />I remember one about 4 years ago that was thumb tacked on all four corners to a baseball bat along with a couple other leaf cards. If I remember right it went for over $600.<br /><br />I wonder what ever became of that card?

Archive
12-14-2005, 08:50 PM
Posted By: <b>zach</b><p>I remember that, I seem to remember it also had Wagner's 1949 Leaf on it too.

Archive
12-14-2005, 08:56 PM
Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>I bought my GAI 2 on ebay on 10/3/05 (two months ago) for $2.2k. Thought it was a good deal and may be comparable to a PSA 2: <a href="http://imageevent.com/hofcards/baseballhoferssz?p=12&n=1&m=20&c=5&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://imageevent.com/hofcards/baseballhoferssz?p=12&n=1&m=20&c=5&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://imageevent.com/hofcards/baseballhoferssz?p=12&n=1&m=20&c=5&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2</a</a>><br /><br />Edited to add: I would a GAI 2 '68 3d Clemente would sell for more than $2.2k (if one existed).

Archive
12-14-2005, 10:10 PM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>A 1949 Leaf Satchell Paige GAI 8 just sold for $32k in the Mile High Auction.

Archive
12-14-2005, 10:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>In terms of post war cards, the 1958 Pancho Herrera error card is up there as well....

Archive
12-14-2005, 10:55 PM
Posted By: <b>Hoytdunk</b><p>I sold a Leaf Paige in a 2 for $3,400 earlier this year.

Archive
12-15-2005, 02:06 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Hal<br /><br />The latest Sports Market Report lists a PSA 8 Leaf Paige<br />at $42,500. A PSA 9 copy lists for $85,000.<br /><br />Does anyone know if any 1949 Leaf has been graded a 10 ?<br />I think it is virtually impossible due to the coarseness<br />of the cardboard stock that these Leafs were printed on.

Archive
12-15-2005, 02:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Ted:<br /><br />The info I posted earlier in this thread is accurate as of TODAY according to all the POP Reports.<br /><br />NONE of the 1949 Leaf Paige cards have EVER graded higher than an 8.<br /><br />None.<br /><br />I truly think that a 10 would exceed the Mantle price.

Archive
12-15-2005, 03:10 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>HAL<br /><br />I don't know if you are aware of the late '80s "find" of 1949<br />Leaf BB, 2nd series (scarce), unopened packs. Anyway, 4 boxes<br />each containing 24 unopened packs surfaced from the Michigan<br />area. Each pack when opened contained 6 cards.<br /><br />So....4 x 24 x 6 = 576 cards. Now, there are 49 cards in the 2nd<br />series, so....576 divided by 49 = approx. 12 cards of each player.<br /><br /> And, indeed there was between 10 - 15 cards of each of the<br />48 players in this series. Pretty even distribution, which is<br />what you would expect ? No....?<br /><br /> Except for the 49th card, Mr. Paige; there were only 3 cards<br />of him out of 576 total cards. There is no explanation for this.<br />We know that all 49 cards were equally printed on a 49 - card<br /> sheet.<br /><br />If this find is truly indicative of the distribution of these cards,<br />then the Paige card is scarcer than we think. <br />

Archive
12-15-2005, 03:22 PM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Wow.<br /><br />I think the CENTERING and PRINT-QUALITY of these cards is usually what keeps them from being graded very high.<br /><br />Thus, even a card FRESH OUT OF THE PACK might only get a 7...<br /><br />which is why a 10 would be incredible.

Archive
12-15-2005, 03:42 PM
Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>"And, indeed there was between 10 - 15 cards of each of the<br />48 players in this series. Pretty even distribution, which is<br />what you would expect ? No....?"<br /><br />Well, yes and no. It is what most people "would expect", but most people don't understand the statistical properties of random distributions and therefore overestimate how close the numbers in a random sample of this nature should be. It would actually be quite astonishing if all of the numbers fell between 10 and 15. <br /><br />If the total number of each card in the entire printing run is equal and we randomly sample 576 cards from the printing run, the distribution will be approximately normal (i.e., a bell curve). Technically, it would follow something called a Poisson distribution which is not exactly identical to a normal bell curve, but it's pretty darn close.<br /><br />Anyway, if you have the exact numbers of each card from the find, I can analyze the data and see if they are skewed enough for us to reject the hypothesis that the find really was nothing more than a random sample of a population containing equal numbers of all the cards in the series.

Archive
12-15-2005, 04:05 PM
Posted By: <b>base2base</b><p>It's on ebay<br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/1949-Leaf-8-Satchel-Paige-BVG-3-5-Vg_W0QQitemZ8730294858QQcategoryZ16269QQssPageName ZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/1949-Leaf-8-Satchel-Paige-BVG-3-5-Vg_W0QQitemZ8730294858QQcategoryZ16269QQssPageName ZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem</a>

Archive
12-15-2005, 04:29 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Glenn<br /><br />I understand what you are presenting here. I am a retired EE from AT & T -<br />Bell Labs. However, I not sure how many others do. Can you please state<br />your case in simpler terms. Are you saying that a normal distribution of<br />576 cards does not result in approx. 12 cards per 48 players ?<br /><br />12 cards x 48 players = 576<br /><br />I was not the fortunate one to discover this "find" 17 years ago. But, It was<br />a close friend that did and he shared his findings with me since he knew I<br />was a serious 1949 Leaf collector. So, I cannot provide you with an actual<br />breakdown of these 576 cards. However, my recollection is darn accurate and<br />the fact that there were only 3 - Paige cards in this lot defies all laws of<br />statistical probability.<br /><br />T-Rex Ted

Archive
12-15-2005, 04:34 PM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>I read in Rosen's book that some of the packs were left intact, is it possible that there could've been a disproportionate amount of Paiges in the unopened packs? Leaf was terrible with their printing on this issue, it wouldn't be a stretch to think they were just as bad with the distribution.<br /> I have only seen 1 unopened Leaf pack, and it was from the scarce series.<br /><br />On the other question, PSA has graded 2 PSA 10 '49 Leafs. The Frank Gustine SP that was just auctioned off and a common series Wagner. SGC's pop report doesn't work with Mac's so I couldn't access it, and GAI's won't be available until at least Monday.

Archive
12-15-2005, 05:20 PM
Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />I have all the respect in the world for AT&T EE's. My own father has been an AT&T EE for the past 32 years. I have never been an engineer, but I have been a statistics professor, and your claim that the presence of only 3 Paiges in the group of 576 defies all laws of statistical probability is demonstrably false. <br /><br />It takes neither a statistician nor an engineer, merely an 8th grade student, to determine that there will be an average of 12 of each card if there are 576 total of 48 different types. Averages are easy to calculate; it's variances that get confusing. Obviously there will be some variation in the numbers; that is, not every card will have exactly 12 just because the average is 12. So we will expect there to be fewer than 12 of some and more than 12 of others. (This is true whether there are equal numbers of each card in the total production run or not.) One (or more in case of a tie) of the 48 cards will be the least frequent in your sample, and another (or others) will be the most frequent. <br /><br />The probability that any one PARTICULAR card will have exactly 3 examples in the sample of 576 is 0.177%. The probability that there will be a card (any of the 48) that occurs with this fequency is just 48 times this number: 48 x .177% = 8.5%. So even if all the cards were produced in exactly equal numbers, and all the cards were distributed in packs completely at random, there is an 8.5% chance that the card that turns up least frequently in your sample of 576 cards will only turn up 3 times. <br /><br />This is the same as the probability that a .292 hitter will get hits in both of his first 2 at-bats of a game, certainly not probable but neither is it defiant of any laws of probability of which I am aware.

Archive
12-15-2005, 07:27 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Glenn<br /><br />If these 49 cards were randomly packaged, and I think you'd<br />agree that 96 wax packs represent a pretty good random sample,<br />then we can apply a bell curve function to describe the ex-<br />pected distribution. One aspect of this bell curve are the 3-<br />Sigma points at both ends of this function; therefore, wouldn't<br />we expect that two of the players of this set of 49 to have <br />just a few cards ? Not just one as you are stating ?<br /><br />However, there is a secondary factor that impacts this lack<br />of Paige cards in this "find". Early in 1949 there was an on-<br />going legal battle between the Leaf Gum Co. (Chicago) and the<br />Bowman Gum Co. (Philadelphia) over the rights to certain<br />players.<br />In the center of this controversy was the rights to portray Paige.<br /> The Bowman Co. won the legal battle and Leaf was forced to stop<br />producing BB cards and especially their Paige. This event more<br />than likely explains why this 2nd series is very scarce and had<br />very limited distribution. Leaf, however, continued to produce<br /> FB cards in 1949.

Archive
12-15-2005, 08:07 PM
Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />I agree that 576 cards is a decent sample size, but I have no clue if the sample is random. With a mean of 12 and a standard deviation of 3.43, 3 examples of a card represents a z score of -2.62 (applying the standard normal curve, which again, is not exactly accurate but very close). 0.88% of the frequencies should be outliers of this magnitude or greater in either direction. <br /><br />[That is, cards that occur 0, 1, 2, 3, 21, 22, 23,..., or 576 times in the sample. Since the distribution can't run into negative numbers, our sampling distribution isn't entirely symmetrical. Though vanishingly unlikely, it is certainly possible to have a random sample with n=576 that yielded 576 of the same card, but since the tails of the distribution as we approach and exceed three standard deviations from the mean contain so little area, I figure it's safe to ignore that minor asymmetry.] <br /><br />In a majority of samples of this size we wouldn't get any cards that showed up fewer than 4 or more than 20 times, but it will happen a noteworthy minority of the time. (So it usually wouldn't be even 1 card, let alone 2.)<br /><br />I don't disagree that the Paige was a short-print. Given all the evidence out there, I'm pretty sure it is. I just don't think this particular find of 576, on its own, makes a convincing case or is especially remarkable IF the Paige IS NOT a short print.<br /><br />edited to add: Though it doesn't affect the math much, I was thinking there were only 48 different cards. Now I realize there are actually 49. (Confusion related to the debate about whether the cards were produced in the year '48 or '49?)

Archive
12-15-2005, 08:16 PM
Posted By: <b>scott ingold</b><p>ah man now my head hurts.. thanks guy's

Archive
12-15-2005, 10:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Darren Duet</b><p>Didn't Wayne Varner advertise a GAI 9 or 10 about a year ago for $75,000?

Archive
12-15-2005, 11:08 PM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>Wayne had a '49 Bowman, not Leaf.

Archive
12-16-2005, 06:54 AM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I once heard (I think it was on Star Trek) that the simplest explanation, all other things being equal, is usually the right one. Leaf used 49-card sheets to print its cards. The cards were then cut, collated and packed. The collation is the point where randomness failed. The cards were not perfectly collated. I purchased a large Leaf boxing collection from the original owner and had a similar experience: as many as a dozen of certain cards and none of some others. It isn't short prints or mathematical models of randomness, it is lousy collation.

Archive
12-16-2005, 06:59 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I think the problem is that Leaf hired ex-cons to collate...<br /><br />and they pocketed every other Paige card to take home and sell to their fence.<br /><br />Too bad Ted Z. was not that fence!!

Archive
12-16-2005, 07:03 AM
Posted By: <b>Darren Duet</b><p>Adam,<br /><br />Occam's Razor as described by Carl Sagan in Contact.

Archive
12-16-2005, 09:22 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The lack of Paige cards is not attributable to "collating"<br />problems. The collating process doesn't know the difference<br />between a Paige, a Doby, or any other player....it's random. <br />If this was true there would be other players in this 2nd<br />series of 49 cards that would be just as tough to find.<br /><br />I have seen many of these "scarce" Leafs over the years in<br />the process of completing my set and up-grading it. Sure there<br />are players like Enos Slaughter, George Kell, Bob Feller, and<br />Larry Doby that are somewhat tougher than the others; but, no<br />where near as tough as Paige.<br /><br />In 1981 I was doing research on this Leaf BB set and the 1949<br />Bowman set for an article for Bob Lemke. I spoke with an older<br />Leaf employee in Chicago and I visited with George Moll, near <br />Philadelphia. Moll ran the Adv. agency for the Bowman Gum Co.<br />They talked about the litigation battle of which Gum Co. had the<br />rights to market BB card premiums with their Gum product.<br /><br />Bowman was first with their 1948 BB issue, and when Leaf was<br />first in 1949 with their BB issue, Warren Bowman (Pres.) took<br />the Leaf Co. to court. We know the outcome of this litigation,<br />Bowman won their case. The conflict was not only who was first<br />to market, but who had contractual rights to portray certain<br />players. Satchell Paige was the focus of attention, as were<br />some other players. But, since Paige was the new "hot" rookie<br />ballplayer the year before, Bowman argued that they exclusively<br />had the rights to portray him, and that Leaf should desist from<br />marketing him.

Archive
12-16-2005, 09:27 AM
Posted By: <b>Joe Jones</b><p>The new smithsonian book about baseball collecting has pictured a psa 9 paige.

Archive
12-16-2005, 09:32 AM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I saw that '49 Bowman that Wayne Varner had at a show. It was unbelievable!<br />JimB

Archive
12-16-2005, 10:27 AM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>According to PSA's pop report they have never graded a Leaf Paige 9.

Archive
12-16-2005, 10:30 AM
Posted By: <b>Joe Jones</b><p>It could be a typo because the picture has the psa holder cropped out.

Archive
12-16-2005, 10:37 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>It is a typo. <br /><br />The card is the book is an 8.<br /><br />I believe that is the card owned by Marshall Fogel that I was discussing with him on the other thread.

Archive
12-16-2005, 11:11 AM
Posted By: <b>Mike M</b><p>There is a foot note in the current SMR indicating a PSA 8 sold for $70,671. It didn't say when.

Archive
12-16-2005, 11:13 AM
Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Glenn, Ted:<br /><br />Doesn't this statement:<br /><br />In a majority of samples of this size we wouldn't get any cards that showed up fewer than 4 or more than 20 times, but it will happen a noteworthy minority of the time. (So it usually wouldn't be even 1 card, let alone 2.)<br /><br /><br />Agree with this statement:<br /><br />However, my recollection is darn accurate and<br />the fact that there were only 3 - Paige cards in this lot defies all laws of<br />statistical probability.<br /><br /><br />Except for the fact that T-Rex overstated the unliklihood, perhaps to emphasize his point.<br /><br />

Archive
12-16-2005, 11:15 AM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>if you want a Paige card issued right around the same time as the Leaf and Bowman but don't want to spend a small fortune, there is a Paige in the Exhibit set.

Archive
12-16-2005, 11:23 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>How ironic that this thread has found a way to merge with the 1951 Toleteros Gibson thread:<br /><br /><br />Someone paid $70k for a PSA 8 1949 Leaf Paige card...<br /><br />and someone paid $70k for an SGC 88 (8) 1950 Toleteros Gibson card.<br /><br /><br /><br />Both are the highest graded examples of that particular card known to exist, and both cards are fairly scarce in ANY condition.<br /><br />Both players were STARS of the Negro Leagues and BOTH were the VERY FIRST two Negro Leaguers inducted in the Major League Hall of Fame.<br /><br /><br /><br />Funny how a completely "free market" dictated identical prices on nearly identical cards in two totally different auctions several months apart.<br /><br />(The Gibson card is much harder to find, but the Paige card was issued during his playing days... so these factors apparently cancelled each other out)<br />

Archive
12-16-2005, 11:28 AM
Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Gil,<br /><br />No. It is akin to saying that for a home team to score 6 runs in a baseball game defies all laws of statistical probability. Or, to coin a Yogi-ism: Things that happen less than half of the time happen all the time.

Archive
12-16-2005, 11:54 AM
Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>So Glenn, am I correct in surmising that if Ted's statement had been:<br /><br />"However, my recollection is darn accurate and<br />the fact that there were only 3 - Paige cards in this lot seems quite unusual".<br /><br />You would be in agreement.<br /><br /><br />Edited to add: Yogi is the artistry that years of tutoring by Ol' Casey can produce.<br /><br /><br />Further edited to add: Things that happen less than half of the time, happen all of the time, but each infrequently.

Archive
12-16-2005, 04:05 PM
Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Yes, that'll work. I'd have said "somewhat unusual" or "rather unusual," but "quite unusual" is close enough.<br /><br />And a tip of the hat to Casey from me as well.

Archive
12-16-2005, 07:34 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>OK, let's stop bickering and nit-picking over my choice<br />of words in my earlier post on this subject. And, raise<br />this discussion to a higher level.<br /><br />The 1952 Topps Mantle consistently gets bigger $$$$ than<br />any other post-war card. It is by no means tough to find,<br />and is actually a double-printed card. At shows I always<br />check-out the display of cards that "707 Sportscards" has<br />to offer.<br />Levi Bleam will invariably have anywhere from 10 - 14 1952<br />Topps Mantle's in varying condition. He seldom has a Leaf<br />Paige to sell. Levi is a very aggressive buyer of cards, he<br />always has a pretty good selection of rare Leaf cards.<br />So, if he can't find a Paige, then I'm certain this is a very<br />scarce card. Combine this with high demand; and, perhaps<br /> it should command bigger $$$$ than the Mantle.

Archive
12-16-2005, 07:37 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Anyone think that a 49 Leaf Paige in PSA 7 would go for just 23K?

Archive
12-16-2005, 07:48 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>The '52 Topps Mantle has become iconic. It is known outside the baseball card collecting world and is second probably only to the T206 Wagner in that respect. Whether or not it deserves such status is another question. I personally would love to have a '49 Leaf Paige (though I like the Bowman card more), but the Leaf's are rather simplistic and rough looking, espeically when compared with the '52 Topps set. And the Mantle card is truly a beautiful card. We all know rarity is only one factor in the value of a card. If I preferred the Paige over the Mantle, I would be happy that it was a relative bargin for the spectacular card that it is. All this said, of the Paige cards I am aware of, I like the '53 Topps the best. And for the record, I have a '49 Bowman in my collection.<br />JimB<br /><br />Edited to add:<br />I am not putting down the Leaf set. I personally love its simplicity. And some of the cards, like the DiMaggio and Williams are spectacular. But I think its simplicity keeps it , as a set from gaining the stature of '52 Topps. And the cards in it follow.

Archive
12-16-2005, 08:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Continuing from my previous post. When we were kids in the<br />late '40s, we loved to watch Satchell Paige pitch. He had an<br />unusual double-loop wind up in his pitching motion which we<br />all tried to emulate.<br /><br />And, don't get me wrong, I loved Mickey since I was an avid<br />Yankee fan. I still quite well remember when I opened my very<br />last wax pack of 1952 Topps Hi#s in the fall of '52. I put<br />the skinny slab of Topps bubble gum in my mouth and carefully<br />removed the cards....1st one was George Spencer, then Hal<br /> Jeffcoat, Billy Herman, Ben Chapman, and Mickey Mantle.<br /><br />Boy was I excited as I ran home as fast as I could to show off<br /> my Mantle card to all my buddies..

Archive
12-16-2005, 08:47 PM
Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>My experience is that Levi always has several 49 Leaf Paige's to go with his multiple 52 Topps Mantle's. When compared to pre-war cards, neither of these cards is particularly rare.

Archive
12-16-2005, 09:13 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Andy I hate to disagree with you, but at the Sept and Dec Philly Shows<br />I do not recall him having any '49 L Paige cards. His booth is just an<br />aisle over from mine and I always check in with him on Friday afternoon.<br />So, I get to check-out what cards he has before he sells them.<br /><br />And, I believe I just said in my prior post how available the Mantle card is.<br />But, I see a lot more pre-WWI and pre-WWII cards of HOFers than the Leaf<br />Paige. For example the availability of any of the T206 Ty Cobbs, whether<br />on Ebay or at Shows, far out does the Paige. <br />

Archive
12-16-2005, 10:39 PM
Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>The T206 Cobb is not scarce by pre-war standards either. The Leaf Paige is harder to find than most other cards in the set (which I think is due to popularity as much as true population variances), and it is certainly more difficult than a 52 Topps Mantle, but it is hardly a scarce card. At one time (before the internet became so popular) I would agree that the Paige was a tough card to find. I don't believe this is the case any longer. I guess that scarce is a relative term. Paige may be the most scarce card from the Leaf set (and therefore making it the most scarce card from a "major" card set), but there are many more post war cards that are far more scarce than the Paige. In general terms, I don't consider it a scarce card. Just my opinion.<br /><br />By the way, I'm not trying to knock the Leaf Paige in any way. It is an awesome card, and I have owned one in the past (sold last year). I believe that the Paige should be more valuable than the 52 Topps Mantle in every grade, but that is simply not the case in reality. I just felt that calling that card scarce on a vintage baseball forum that discusses truly scarce cards was a bit of mis-information.<br /><br />I don't go to many shows these days, and it is possible that Levi has sold his inventory of Leaf Paige's, but I have seen multiple Leaf Paige's in varying grades (at the same time) at his table in the past.

Archive
12-16-2005, 10:53 PM
Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>The "straights" know little to nothing about Paige, Wagner, Jackson nor others. If you are not into this, but want a baseball card to go with your misc. other coffee table drawer crap, the '52 Mantle card is the choice preferred by 3 out of 4 straights.<br /><br />Guess how many straights there are, compared to how many of us there are.

Archive
12-17-2005, 07:16 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Gil<br /><br />Who are the "straights" ?

Archive
12-17-2005, 07:37 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Andy B.<br /><br />At least we seem to agree that the 1949 Leaf Paige card is tougher to<br />find than the 1952 Topps Mantle.<br /><br />However, I take issue with you, implying that this Paige Thread is not<br />applicable to this "Vintage" card Forum. If this subject on this Forum<br />was "O/T", then Leon would have made that determination and edited it<br />out.<br />Look, I have posted all the colorful pages of my N162 Album, which is<br /> arguably one of the scarcest 19th Century Vintage items; and, it got<br />very little response on this Forum. I have posted my 1880's colorful<br />Scorecard and there was very little response; although, Bill Heitman<br />did and I am thankful for his response. And, I have initiated Threads<br />which stimulated some "heavy" thoughts on mysteries of certain T206<br />cards; and, those posts have not really generated the response that<br />this Paige card Thread has.<br /><br />So, you tell me what subject is appropriate to post on this Forum, ?<br /><br />Because in the 5 months that I have been part of it, I really could<br />not tell you.

Archive
12-17-2005, 08:12 AM
Posted By: <b>Chris</b><p>Amen Ted! I for one am enjoying this thread. I have always been fascinated with this set and have always wanted to work on it but feel I am much too late to start it now. I don't know how scarce the Paige is but I think the reason you may not see so many offered is the fact he is a very popular player with very few cards available and I think people don't want to part with them if they have them. Not that I think there are a ton of them out there. Sometimes I think we call something scarce when in reality it is just an item that doesn't come up for sale often because coillectors want to hold onto them. Ted, what do you know about the printing of this set? Given the SP's in the set. There is a common in this set, the name escapes me right now that almost never comes up for sale. BTW Ted, for what it is worth, I love your posts. I don't always respon but always read them.

Archive
12-17-2005, 08:43 AM
Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />I have no issue discussing the 49 Leaf Set on this site. Please show me where I said that I had an issue with it, or said that it was off topic. My only issue is that I felt that you misrepresented the scarcity of the card. There are hundreds of Leaf Paige's in existance. Is it desirable? Absolutely. Is it tougher to find than many mainstream post WW2 cards? Absolutely. Is it particularly scarce? Not in my opinion. At the end of the day, I think the only thing that we don't agree on is the scarcity (or lack thereof) of the Leaf Paige.<br /><br />That was the ONLY point that I was trying to make, and now I'm regretting that I did.

Archive
12-17-2005, 10:30 AM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Maybe the statistics discussion is done on this thread, but I was just reading this morning in the Smithsonian Baseball book about Bill Mastro's collection. He said that he bought over 2000 packs of 1965 cards and was still missing one card for a complete set. I would have to go back to the book to check which one it was.<br />JimB

Archive
12-17-2005, 11:30 AM
Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>How many cards to a 1965 wax pack? 12? If so (and if the story's true) we can be virtually certain the cards were not randomly distributed in equal numbers. If he had bought only 2000 packs, with equal numbers from each series, the probability that he'd still be missing a card from the set (had they been randomly distributed in equal numbers) would be .00000000000000215. And you say he bought MORE THAN 2000 packs?

Archive
12-17-2005, 11:53 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Hey Folks,<br />No need for nice, respectable guys to get into a pissing match about what is allowed or "on topic" for this forum. I almost can't believe someone would say that don't know what to talk about, or what is talked about, on this forum. For anyone that wants to know you don't even have to click. It's at the top, on the front page of the board. I probably haven't done a perfect job of defining "off topic" because there's not "a" good answer. In general if Ted, or Andy, or Tbob, or Dan B, want to do an off topic it is permitted per the forum rules. If you are not a regular participant then you shouldn't start off topic threads. The idea is that we are a family and being "in" the family has certain privileges. One of those being allowed to post off topic stuff. If you have never started a vintage baseball card thread, or don't participate everyday, then please don't start off topic stuff. I don't consider 40's cards very off topic even if they are late 40's. (see forum Faq's). Every now and then a 50's baseball card set can be discussed if brought up by a regular board participant. I assure everyone I thought long, and discussed with previoius moderator(s), before I set rules in the beginning of my tenure. There are many gray areas on this board and this is one. In general it is a Pre-WWII vintage baseball card chat board....thanks again....

Archive
12-17-2005, 06:19 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>VintageChris<br /><br />How about emailing me and I will try to answer all your questions<br /> regarding this set.<br /><br />T-Rex Ted <br /><br />

Archive
12-19-2005, 08:30 PM
Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>"Does anyone really know what time it is ?"....the title and<br />lyrics of the famous Chicago Transit Authority song, 1967.<br /><br />Well, does anyone really READ the backs of BB cards anymore ?<br />Here we have the Chicago based Leaf Gum Co. card of Satchel<br />Paige.....have any of you read the back of it ?<br /><br />The last sentence in his write-up tells us without any doubt<br />what year this card was marketed.....1949. And, if you bother<br />to read the backs of many of the 1st and 2nd (scarce) series<br />cards in this set, you will realize it is indeed a 1949 set.<br /><br />Furthermore, if you do some homework regarding the 98 players<br />in this set you will realize that this set was never issued<br />in 1948. This is my final word on this subject.<br /><br />So.....Good Night and Good Luck and may you all have a.....<br /> <br />Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah and Season's Greetings. <br /><br />

Archive
12-19-2005, 09:59 PM
Posted By: <b>David Vargha</b><p>I just wanted to say that I think it's really cool how the margins on Ted's posts are different from the rest of ours.<br><br>DavidVargha@hotmail.com

Archive
12-19-2005, 10:36 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Glenn,<br />I believe there were 5 to a pack because he said he has over 10,000 cards.<br />JimB

Archive
12-20-2005, 07:55 AM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I have only a few of these but they are all copyright 1949. I cannot believe that Leaf would screw up its copyright rights by either listing the cards with the wrong dates (1949 if issued in 1948) or issuing the cards before they actually were copyrighted and then copyrighting them in 1949.

Archive
12-20-2005, 09:19 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>The were issued in the Spring of 1949.<br /><br />They are all mislabeled by everyone as 1948-49...<br /><br />but they should ONLY be labeled as a 1949 set.

Archive
12-20-2005, 10:33 AM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Didn't the thread a few months ago conclude that the copyright date referred to when the photos on the cards were copyrighted, not when the cards themselves were issued?<br />JimB

Archive
12-20-2005, 10:44 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Not to my recollection.<br /><br />I think that was a suggestion, but not proven.<br /><br />The only sure thing I remember was that the cards mentioned things on the back that had not yet happened until 1949.

Archive
12-22-2005, 11:33 AM
Posted By: <b>Eric Pugh</b><p>Just picked one of these up thanks to your enthusiastic responses. <br /><br />Will share the scan when the card arrives.