View Full Version : 1941 Play Ball - paper variation?
Archive
11-25-2007, 04:52 AM
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Questions about 1941 Play Ball - <br /><br />- is the paper variation exactly what it sounds like - cards were printed on paper rather than cardstock? <br /><br />- approximate what percentage are paper vs cardstock?<br /><br />- were there specific series or cards that had paper variations while other series did not?<br /><br />any other info would be appreciated.
Archive
11-25-2007, 05:17 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>1.........Printed on paper stock with just the colorful fronts printed on it. Backs are blank.<br /><br />2 & 3....I once had an uncut sheet of this issue and it included cards #1-24. I think these were <br />the only ones printed on paper stock. However, some one can correct me on this.<br /><br />Therefore, these 24 represent 33% of the set.The 1941 PlayBall's were printed on 24-card sheets.<br /><br />Or, if you are asking about the availability of this issue vs the cardboard issue. That's difficult to <br />estimate since many of the cards from the paper stock were cut up. In any event , uncut 24-card<br /> sheets (or panels) are rare (relative to the actual cardboard cards).<br /><br />Ted Williams (#14) is seen as an individual card more so than the other 23 cards in this paper issue.<br /><br />TED Z
Archive
11-25-2007, 06:13 AM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>because world war 2 cut off gum based products & paper the 1941 set only had 72 cards. my guess is that they had more planned but i do not know if this is fact. the paper sheets are only the 1st 24 cards and are 12 to a sheet according to scd.i have heard that they were promomotional items and also that gum inc tried to market these as the war cut into paper products, 2 theories both could be true i guess. vcbc #8 has a story on the 41 playball and ted z. was a contributer.so i would like to ask, ted were the 41 paper stocks cut into cards at the factory or by kids/collectors or is that unknown???? also ted(& others) do you think this was a set that was planned at 72 cards or much larger and was shortened due to the war???
Archive
11-25-2007, 07:00 AM
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>thanks guys. I'll have to dig up that issue of VCBC.<br />One question - the Goodwin auction has a paper variation with print on the back. Is this normal? You mentioned they were only blank backs, so this one is different.
Archive
11-25-2007, 07:17 AM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>King-<br /> I've got a Gehringer that is paper version, and slabbed as such by SGC. I've got an uncut paper sheet of #'s 1-12 which is full production, printed on both sides.
Archive
11-25-2007, 07:22 AM
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Thanks Anthony. Does your Gehringer also have printing on the back?
Archive
11-25-2007, 07:28 AM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>yes, other than the stock it's just like the regular '41's.
Archive
11-25-2007, 07:31 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Yes, Bowman (GUM, Inc) stopped producing BB cards in 1941 (and some were actually issued in 1942).<br />But, then they started producing their WAR GUM issue which must have continued into 1943. As, card<br /> #132 in it depicts the battle of Stalingrad which occurred in the Winter of 1942-43.<br /><br />There are variations of this paper issue. As, I said I had a 24-card sheet. Smaller sheets are found and<br /> could have been cut down from this 24 card one.<br /><br />So Dennis, to answer your last "?".....I think they cut short the BB card set and switched to producing<br /> the WAR card set.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/awargummarhall.jpg"><br /><br />TED Z
Archive
11-25-2007, 08:10 AM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>thanks ted, it is hard to imagine how much the war affected the times. it's too bad that there are no 41 play balls of feller,grove,reiser and some others but at least we have the 72 color cards of that great baseball year. another question: why so many wrong backs/upside down backs on this issue?<br /><img src="http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l239/dcc1/41pb_grove.jpg"><br />from the virtual card site;design by keith conforti
Archive
11-25-2007, 05:46 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Just simply sloppy printing practices, where the front printed sheet is lifted off the drying rack and placed in reverse in<br /> the press to print the backs (or visa-versa). The only 1941 PlayBall I have is Johnny Cooney (#50) on front with a Joe<br /> DiMaggio back.<br /><br />These wrongbacks are not uncommon. Here is a 1949 Leaf with the same reversed wrongback. I show you this example,<br /> to make the point that in both these cases (Cooney/DiMaggio and Gordon/Feller) there seems to be a tendency that<br /> these errors are more frequently found in the last Series cards (such as these). I have seen many 1941 PlayBall wrong-<br />backs from the Hi# series (cards #49-72). And, have only seen one from the Lo# series. Same goes for the 1949 Leaf<br /> cards.<br /> <br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/sgordon.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/bgordon.jpg">