Pre-WWII definition for card collecting

[mart8081]

I am relatively new to vintage card collecting so far focusing on the t206 set and lately t3's but I have a general question (excuse any ignorance).

Looking at the BST section of this site the Pre-WWII cards forums include cards printed in 1941. Is this considered the final year of the inter-war period for card collecting?

Thanks

Martin

[BobbyVCP]

Most people consider the 41 PB the last set included in Prewar.

[mart8081]

Bobby - thank you for your reply

Martin

[Potomac Yank]

To us, pre WWII is anything prior to 7 Dec 1941.
To the British, it would be anything prior to 3rd Sept. 1939.

Welcome aboard Martin.

[drc]

There is a 1941 MP & Co. set. You can make a fair argument either way, Pre or during WWII. American trading cards were effected by US entering the war (paper stock shortages and very few during WWII baseball card sets), which is in part why the cutoff is when the US entered the war. Baseball cards history is about stages related to US history, such as US tobacco monopoly and breakup (rise and fall of tobacco cards), WWII, etc-- which is why the cards are in part categorized by American history. American collectors know the war started in 1939 Europe, and I'm sure some call it as a 'during war' set.

Also, there are so few WWII baseball cards that they are often dropped in the Pre-War category out of convenience anyway.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by drc

Also, there are so few WWII baseball cards that they are often dropped in the Pre-War category out of convenience anyway.

I was kind of wondering about where "during war" cards fall. We could always start a during war board for people that collect 1939-45 cards!

[Potomac Yank]

We entered in 1917.

Europe was at it since Sarajevo 1914.

When we say pre war:
There are a couple that post like if it means pre Desert Storm.

Historically, the originating back bone of this pre war community was about Tobacco cards, and "E" cards.
When we say pre war ... shouldn't it be pre Sarajevo 1914?

JMVHO .....

[mart8081]

Thank you all for the information - it is very interesting and is filling the gaps in my collecting knowledge. I'm kind of quite isloated on this side of the Atlantic and wish to learn more but not do so in a way thats makes me seem ignorant.

Martin

[drc]

It was a legitimate question. Consider "Pre War" as a standard general category, partly a product convenience, with the exact cut off dates being blurry and a matter of opinion. The hobby generally goes by 1941, but that date is mostly about the production of baseball cards as anything else. When the US entered the war in 1941, baseball card production almost ceased until after the war. 1941 is a clear cutoff date in baseball card history if not WWII. In 1946, US baseball card production started up again, starting the 'Post War' baseball card era. So the cutoff dates were mostly defined by the cards themselves rather any battle or declaration of war.

[tbob]

Originally Posted by Potomac Yank

We entered in 1917.

Europe was at it since Sarajevo 1914.

When we say pre war:
There are a couple that post like if it means pre Desert Storm.

Historically, the originating back bone of this pre war community was about Tobacco cards, and "E" cards.
When we say pre war ... shouldn't it be pre Sarajevo 1914?

JMVHO .....

I've always thought pre-war meant pre-1917 because the cards are American and that's when we entered the war. I don't collect cards after 1917 except for the occasional Topps and Bowman sets from the 50s and 60s. Cards from the '20s and '30s aren't pre-war to me, but I am in the minority I am sure.
It's also interesting to consider what was the "Golden Age of Baseball." I have heard this term used to describe 1906-1919 (deadball era) and also Ruth and the 20's and early 30's and even 1952-60. For New York fans the Golden Age was definitely the 50's, but always wondered what others think.

[ChrisStufflestreet]

Originally Posted by Potomac Yank

There are a couple that post like if it means pre Desert Storm.

It's all about perception, my friend.

In my case...Desert Storm was a war I was involved in (I was in the Army then) so it's actually a logical point of demarcation for me.

That said...I don't intend to post here about '86 Topps anytime soon. And as a student of history...there was no WW2 until 1941. Before Pearl Harbor, there were two large-scale conflicts going on: one that encompassed Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East and another between China and Japan. Once the U.S. was brought into the conflict, the war became global.

In the case of our British allies, they definitely began a war against Germany and Italy in 1939 but really weren't counting the Japanese as a belligerent party until they took sides with the U.S. Not that it was a hard decision for them, as the Japanese were beginning to threaten British territory from India to Australia and likely needed the excuse to expand their way as well as into U.S. possessions like the Philippines, Guam and Midway.

But I'm sure we're splitting hairs here. In the baseball card hobby, the fact that sets stopped almost cold after 1941 makes the distinction easy for us.

[ChrisStufflestreet]

Originally Posted by tbob

I've always thought pre-war meant pre-1917 because the cards are American and that's when we entered the war.

I once read somewhere about the effect of the War before 1917 on cardmakers. I do know that when the European crisis broke into a full-blown conflict with England, France and Russia on one side and Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey on the other there was an immediate effect. Some of the dyes used to make the brightly-colored cards were German in origin and a lot of the trendy tobacco of the era was Turkish. Perhaps others here know more about the effect, but there had to be a good reason the card quality fell off after about 1913 (CJs excepted) besides just the demise of the ATC trust.

[Potomac Yank]

Originally Posted by ChrisStufflestreet

It's all about perception, my friend.

*
When you see a smiley, it's all about a sense of humor, my friend.
---------------------------

In my case...Desert Storm was a war I was involved in (I was in the Army then) so it's actually a logical point of demarcation for me.

*
In my case ... I was with the Marines in Korea during 1952-53, and not as a student of history ... so should I be saying that pre war is pre Korean War?
--------------------------

That said...I don't intend to post here about '86 Topps anytime soon. And as a student of history...there was no WW2 until 1941. Before Pearl Harbor, there were two large-scale conflicts going on: one that encompassed Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East and another between China and Japan. Once the U.S. was brought into the conflict, the war became global.

*
No WWII until 1941? ... Who invaded Poland in 1939? Large scale conflicts? ... that's what they called the Korean War, the Korean Conflict, only 54000 were killed in that conflict, in less then 3 years.
---------------------------

In the case of our British allies, they definitely began a war against Germany and Italy in 1939 but really weren't counting the Japanese as a belligerent party until they took sides with the U.S. Not that it was a hard decision for them, as the Japanese were beginning to threaten British territory from India to Australia and likely needed the excuse to expand their way as well as into U.S. possessions like the Philippines, Guam and Midway.

*
The British definitely began the war against Germany???

Damn, all these years I've been under the impression that it was the Germans that invaded Poland on Sept 1st 1939 without a declaration of war.
That it was the Germans that flew the Stuka dive bombers.
That it was a German Blitzkreig.
The Munich Pact.
The Sudetenland.
Peace in our time!
----------------------------

But I'm sure we're splitting hairs here. In the baseball card hobby, the fact that sets stopped almost cold after 1941 makes the distinction easy for us.

*
Splitting what hairs?
Your facts are 90 % correct! 14 % 0f the time.

[ChrisStufflestreet]

I did note the fact that it was a humorous point, Joe.

But -- yikes! -- while I meant to say that England's war against Germany began in '39, it does look like I said they instigated it. That, of course, is not the case. Their declaration was a result of German aggression in Poland.

But my main point was that even though the War in Europe was a slaughter that saw the Germans dispatch Poland, a number of Balkan nations, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and France in stupefying fashion and driving the British back to their home islands...it was not seen as a truly "global" conflict (or, another way of putting it, a "world" war) until the Americans joined in.

In a way, 1939 isn't really a good point for the "start" of WW2 either. It can be argued that the Munich Pact of 1938 sealed the inevitability (even if French and British leaders didn't notice at the time), but the Japanese and Chinese had been fighting since 1931 when the Japanese Imperial army invaded Manchuria. Couldn't that be a "start" to the war? I'd even go so far as to say that WW2 can be considered to have begun in 1919 when the Treaty of Versailles imposed such harsh conditions on Germany that it merely began the incubation process for another generation of Germans to avenge it.

As I read your response, we're not in disagreement. And I applaud you for your service in Korea. That was called everything but a "war" (which was exactly what it was) because only 5 years after WW2, some people felt uncomfortable to call it what it was. It should have been a reminder that the UN and politicians have no right waging war; however, we've seen from the actions in Vietnam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan (both with the USSR from '79-'88 and the U.S. since 2001) and Iraq that the lessons weren't understood. Not only were the people handling the Korean War afraid to get anybody offended when the U.S., China and the U.S.S.R. all had nuclear capabilities...the way they "ended" it was meek. The Korean War never ended; the fighting was stopped by a "cease fire" that is still in play today, some 56 years later. As a fellow vet, I want to applaud you, shake your hand and buy you a beer if we ever get to meet.

Of course, you probably had little to say about being sent to Korea (though I don't know for sure...were you drafted or did you volunteer?) or anything regarding the way it played out. Like myself in '91, we were soldiers who did as we were told and trained to do. Except I willingly enlisted out of high school (in peacetime) because I was after the college money. As the son of a 'Nam vet, the grandson of two WW2 grunts, the great grandson of a doughboy who went to France in '18 and the great-great grandson of men who served on both sides of the Civil War...it seemed like a worthwhile effort.