How rare are 1917 D328 Weil Baking Co. cards?

[Mrvintage]

I was just curious how tough the 1917 D328 set are to find? Looking through the population reports there doesn't seem to be very many of them that have been submitted. Thanks, Andy

[h2oya311]

you're right, the population reports would suggest that they are far tougher than Boston Store and E135 (Collins-McCarthy), but comparable to the Standard Biscuit back:

PSA:

Boston Store = 328
Collins-McCarthy = 356
Weil Baking = 6
Standard Biscuit = 12

SGC:

Boston Store = 1,030
Collins-McCarthy = 876
Weil Baking = 73
Standard Biscuit = 42

Those are pretty significant differences. I picked up my Weil Baking Sam Rice rookie on eBay back in 2004 and haven't seen another since. Here's a front and back scan of the card, which has subsequently been graded by SGC (one of three Rice Weil's graded by SGC):

[Leon]

Don't see a lot of them.

[calvindog]

[MMarvelli]

I thought I would break up this run of HOF'ers...

D328-2 Vitt, Oscar F+B.jpg

[nolemmings]

I saw that Oscar Vitt and thought immediately that I used to own that very card. Except turns out mine is(was) a Standard Biscuit with almost the exact same off-center look:


Anyway, I still have ol' Pinch Thomas:


BTW, I believe the blank-backs are even tougher than the Weils, but demand doesn't seem to be all that great and thus I have not seen a significant premium attached for them.

[Bosox Blair]

My Olaf card:

[buymycards]

I only have one. They are tough. A beat up common sold on ebay a couple of weeks ago. I was expecting it to sell for fifty bucks or so but it ended up at $328. That shows you how much I know about their values.

The 1916's are pretty easy to find and many of the lower grade commons sell for $25 to $40 but the 1917's seem to more scarce.

Rick

[kdixon]

Only one I have.

[kdixon]

What is the difference between a 1916 and a 1917 Weil?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by kdixon

What is the difference between a 1916 and a 1917 Weil?

Numbering on some of the cards and different players in certain instances.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by kdixon

What is the difference between a 1916 and a 1917 Weil?

1916 Weil baking is "part" of the M101-4 series that were produced and distributed by Felix Mendelssohn. The 1916 issue is slightly smaller than the 1917 issue and the background images in the 1917 issue are cut off. The 1917 I believe command a slightly high premium as opposed to the 1916 series.

[nolemmings]

I agree with the previous poster, but believe the premium is pretty substantial.
As he said, the 1916s are a variant of m101-4/Sporting News, smaller and with full backgrounds. The 1917s are akin to the E135 Collins-McCarthy/Boston Store, with washed-out backgrounds and larger like E121 American Caramel.

There is some confusion because both Weil and Standard Biscuit appear in both sets, with no change in the advertising back. Also, the ACC numbering is a bit screwy, as the "newer" Weil set carries a lower number----1916 is D329 and 1917 is D328 (it also doesn't help that both Standard Biscuits are D350, a -1 and a -2; even a -3 from 1921). Add to that the fact that the 1917s were for many years considered to be issued in 1916, and the TPGs sometimes mislabel them, and you can have yourself a real head scratcher.

[ethicsprof]

the weil must not be too difficult, since I have an example of a
17 (hugh high) and a 16 (al betzel).
Todd, your brief description of the many confusions that have surrounded
the D329s and D328s was most helpful and illuminative, as was your most
detailed piece in OC some time back.
all the best,
barry

[keating3620]

Are the backs the first use of the phrase to "Baseball's HOF"?

[buymycards]

The 1917 D328 is on top and you can see that it is quite a bit larger than the 1916 D329.

[nolemmings]

Thanks for the kind words, Barry--all the best to you too.

Are the backs the first use of the phrase to "Baseball's HOF"?

Not exactly. While others can chime in with any earlier examples, the Weil backs from 1916 technically would have been preceded in their use of the HOF reference by the m101-5 Holmes-to-Homes set, which was issued several weeks prior.

[buymycards]

Another issue that causes confusion is SGC's pop report. They correctly list a pop report for 1916 D329 and for 1917 D328, but they also have a listing for 1916 D328. I think this listing contains cards that are a mix of 1916 and 1917 cards.

For instance, they list #44 Larry Doyle. Doyle is #44 in the 1917 D328 set but SGC has this card listed under 1916 D328. The same applies to several other cards in this pop report. So, are they 1916's or 1917's? #159 Tom Seaton should be a 1916 D329 but it is listed as a 1916 D328.

I made SGC aware of this problem well over a year ago. They emailed me and said they would check it out but it doesn't appear that any changes have been made. I tried to access their pop report site today to verify this, but the site was down.

I don't have a lot of knowledge about the Weils. Did Weil issue cards in 1916 that were similar to the Collins-McCarthy set or did SGC just screw up?

I'm not trying to be negative about SGC because I know how difficult it is to get a handle on these sets, but I would like to clarify this issue.

Thanks,
Rick

[nolemmings]

The grading companies, along with most of the hobby, used to believe that what are now called 1917 E135s and their variants (Boston Store, Weil and Standard Biscuit) were actually issued in 1916. Thus many Weil and Standard Biscuits that align with E135, as opposed to the ones that are like the Sporting News/M101s, carry flips that say 1916, and are likely in the pop report for that reason.

I always thought it was very strange and seemingly unlikely that Weil and Standard Biscuit would issue two, 200 card sets in the same year. As it turns out, you can tell from team changes to the cards of Joe Wood (Cleveland) and Jimmy Lavender (Philadelphia) that the E135s were not issued until 1917, as those two did not play for those teams until that year.

[buymycards]

Thanks Todd! I appreciate your knowledge and your willingness to share information.

Rick