This Elmer Smith card closed last night in Legendary for $650 plus vig [I was not the buyer]:
It was characterized as an Exhibit-like card that none of the Exhibit experts had ever seen the likes of before. That may not be entirely accurate, but the real story may be more interesting.
What struck me immediately when I saw it was the distinctive handwriting of the legend. It reminded me of this arcade card of boxer Lew Tendler that I've had for many years, have seen about two times, and have long cataloged as not being an Exhibit card:
Look at the high loop on the "l" and the formation of the "r", as well as the block printing on the bottom. I believe these two cards were lettered by the same same person. The Tendler card carries his 1923 stats on the back, which indicates a 1924 issue date at the earliest:
The font used does not match any Exhibit product.
Smith wasn't with Cleveland after 1921.
Now for the really interesting part: check out this Ruth card, long cataloged as part of the Exhibit PC back baseball set:
The straight cross on the "t" the high arch of the "h", the breaks between the first letter of each name and the rest, the block printing...all match up spot on with the Smith card and to a lesser but still notable degree with the Tendler card. The card is found with the split postcard back and the "Not to be used in Exhibit machines" legend that has been shown to be printed on some Exhibit products, and has long been associated with a late 1920s printing as the 2nd Ruth card in the set. It is also the only one with this handwriting and the legend itself is not standard to the set.
ESCO did not do its card artwork in house. As was the norm for the era, it subbed out the work to a creative firm. What I suspect is that the Smith and Tendler cards were made as one-of projects for some reason in 1921 and 1924, and that the Ruth card--which is found far more frequently than the Tendler or Smith cards but is still a toughie--was worked up several years later by the same graphic artist who did the two other cards. What I think we have is an artist in common but on three distinct issues made years apart during the 1920s.