View Full Version : Could G & B be two separate issues?
Archive
09-02-2006, 06:48 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>In going through my G & Bs, I noticed that some have "chewing gum" above the company name at the bottom and some do not (the area is blank). The ones with chewing gum do not appear to be any more difficult than the ones without. I did not attach any signifigance to it until I noticed a few duplicates that have other differences besides the "chewing gum" or lack thereof. In the O'Rourke portraits, the only difference is the "chewing gum". In the Ryan portraits, the font is different and the script team name "Chicago" is different. Finally, in the Welch portraits, the script team name is different and the portrait without chewing gum has an oval around the picture, like an SF Hess. (I have one other G & B like that also, Whitney. <br /><br />It appears to me that the cards were made in two distict batches- one with "chewing gum", one without, and that they are different series- same poses reissued. <br /><br />Leon- please reduce these scans if they are too large.<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1157158084.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1157158109.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1157158124.JPG">
Archive
09-02-2006, 06:53 PM
Posted By: <b>bigfish</b><p>Really nice looking cards!!!
Archive
09-02-2006, 06:55 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Richard- first off, it's a nice luxury to have duplicate poses of G & B. That aside, it certainly does seem correct that there were two distinct print runs. Perhaps they were popular enough that they ran out and had to print some more. That seems logical.
Archive
09-02-2006, 06:59 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>As I look again the Ryan and Welch each have an "S" at the end of the team name in one, and not in the other. No question two separate print runs.
Archive
09-02-2006, 07:01 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>is the answer. I also tried to find a pattern and there was none. Line drawings, photo portraits, all teams were just as likely to appear with "chewing gum" as without.
Archive
09-02-2006, 07:04 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>the O'Rourke is exactly the same photo and scripted team name. If they simply reissued with different advertising captions, why re-do the Ryan and Welch but not O'Rourke?
Archive
09-02-2006, 07:06 PM
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Really interesting discovery! Is there a similar pattern with Yum Yums?
Archive
09-02-2006, 07:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>I need many more Yum Yums to make that determination.<br />But I don't think so. All Yum Yum captions are the same and I have noticed no differences in my few dupes.
Archive
09-02-2006, 07:22 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Great cards. I sure think of Four Base Hits when I look at those cards. Those pictures really resemble them. Just from memory it seems like I see more with the chewing gum than without...I'm still looking for a fielding pose if you ever want to talk..?
Archive
09-02-2006, 07:23 PM
Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Yup, I was just going through a few of my dupes and one of my T206 Wagners just seems a little different from my other T206 Wagner... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <br /><br />Nice cards... I know you had a question in mind but thanks for sharing those scans. Those are awesome...
Archive
09-02-2006, 07:24 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>There is probably no specific reason why the O'Rourke doesn't share the same characteristics as the other two. We are assuming the printers spent the same amount of time we are in checking out these nuances.
Archive
09-02-2006, 07:39 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>The N403, E223 and Four Base Hits share many of the same photos. I know the Ewing portrait is the same (ouch), and you probably recognize this one:<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1157160964.JPG"> <br /><br />and Fred, I think I bought most of these in the early 1990s before they were fully appreciated.
Archive
09-02-2006, 07:44 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>That's great....but he looks like he has a crease almost right where mine does?<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1157161408.JPG">
Archive
09-02-2006, 07:46 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>and yours is twice as big.......<br /><br />I can't believe I said that.
Archive
09-02-2006, 07:46 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>at least you didn't say my Johnson is twice as big...
Archive
09-02-2006, 08:04 PM
Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Nope, just your Kelly, Leon...
Archive
09-03-2006, 07:14 AM
Posted By: <b>david</b><p>this was originally noted by lew in his book.<br /><br />'the words chewing gum appear on some of the cards on others it is omitted. thus far, non of the nine subjects known american league cards have chewing gum. however, of the remaining 46 subjects 17 do not have chewing gum while 17 do. six of the 29 have been found which exist both with and without the variation. the possibility must be considered that this variation could distinguish between cards issued in 1888, those in 1889 and those in both years.'<br /><br />
Archive
09-04-2006, 05:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>There may have been two print runs, but how can anyone speculate that this was due to the "popularity" of the issue? With only 1 to 5 (or thereabouts) of each card surviving, this must have been one of the least loved of all sets when issued.<br />
Archive
09-04-2006, 05:57 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>I think the low survival rate says more about the product than the cards.<br />Same goes for YumYums.
Archive
09-04-2006, 07:55 PM
Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Maybe Yum Yum tasted like Crap Crap.
Archive
09-04-2006, 08:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>Just curious, as I have not seen too many other non-sports G&B's, were the baseball players issued simultaneously, and how many other non-baseball subjects are known.<br />-Rhett Yeakley<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1157335743.JPG">