Hey all,
Sorry I'm a bit late but wanted to take a couple days to gather my cards for scanning and gather my thoughts as well.
I believe my checklist matches Gary's pretty well as that's the one I remember us putting together a while back. I'm still at 51 out of 60 total cards. Missing Spencer (of course) for the base set and 8 other variations for the Master set. I've never been able to confirm the Spencer as a valid part of the checklist. I'm also wondering about the Dauss Former Pitcher card as I think there's been a lot of confusion about that player.
I've really wanted to support the font theory in the past and have mentioned the subtle differences in the captions before. Problem is, in going through my own collection, it seems as though I find cards that already dispute it, heh. You really start getting into real nuances about what's bold and what isn't. The "bold" in some fonts, presumably from 1925, just appear darker than others from the same year. In the scans I show up above, cards like Frisch and Gowdy appear to have darker captions on their first card, but cards like the Bancroft and Kelly really throw me. On Bancroft which is shown in the scan, it appears that the 2nd card, the Boston, is actually a TINY bit bolder than the first. Both fonts are very close though.
The Williams is the strongest argument against the font theory unfortunately. On my Boston Williams, the name, position, team name and league are all heavily bolded. On my St. Louis Williams, the name is lighter and the position, teamname and league aren't bold at all. Williams truly deals the font theory a crushing blow because the fonts aren't even close in my opinion. I'd love if it was that clearcut and easy though!
w590-1-001.jpg
w590-2-001.jpg