1948 Leaf question

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Pardon me that this is not Pre-War... but 1948 is still pretty "vintage"...

so I am wondering why there is so much clamor made about the M101-5 and M101-4 cards and whether they come from 1915 or 1916 (since the have no dates printed on them)...

but yet the 1948 and 1949 Leaf cards have specific printing dates written CLEARLY on the rear of the cards...

and PSA still calls them ALL "1948 Leaf" cards??

Why aren't the ones that SAY 1949 on the back LABELLED and considered as being from 1949?

This makes a BIG difference for us rookie card collectors, since the Satchell Paige Leaf card in the Mastro auction is a 1949 printed card and NOT a 1948 version. Same is true for the Jackie Robinson card in the auction.


Am I being too picky?

Or am I right in that these 1949 cards are NOT rookie cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

SGC is not much better...

since they just lump them all into the "1948-49 Leaf" set category.



I want to know by the FRONT of a slab whether a card was printed in 1948 or 1949. Ridiculous.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

my first thought is that if you labeled one 1948 and one 1949 some may think there are 2 different sets.esp. considering the way they are #ed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Interesting point, since the 1948 "set" and the 1949 "set" would indeed be identical except for the tiny copyright date on the back.

So am I being too picky?

Is this really ONE set?

Can a 1949 edition of these cards be a "rookie" when there is a "1948" version out there?

------------------

If there is a difference between the FACTORY designation on the back of otherwise identical T206 cards...

then certainly there must be a premium for the 1948 version of these cards, huh?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

But I always thought the same thing.I think technically if there is a '48 then that would be the rookie...but I'm probably wrong...later

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I have heard some people suggest that ALL of the cards were issued in 1949, regardless of copyright date. Does anyone out there have a large collection of Leafs with a 1948 copyright date? If so, do any of them refer specifically to the player's performance in 1948? Do any refer just to 1947? My recollection is that all of the cards talk about the 1948 season, regardless of copyright date, but I could be wrong and I haven't seen every card.

Also, has anyone ever seen the same player with both a 1948 and a 1949 copyright date?

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

As evidenced by the fact that they all have 48 statistics on the back. According to this source, anyhow. Edited to add: in which case, you better seek a declaratory judgment from a Florida court or consult the Talmud as to whether they are rookie cards or not, counsellor.

http://www.geocities.com/chrisstufflestreet/4849l.html>

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Great information. Thanks!

Here is the back of a 1949 Leaf card that makes it clear that the card was issued in 1949 BEFORE the season started:



Here is the back of an 1948 Leaf card that also makes it clear that it was printed AFTER the 1948 season ended, because the complete 1948 stats are included for Joltin Joe:

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

The 1949 Leaf Satchell Paige card says:

"Should sizzle into his own THIS year." (meaning 1949)

SO.......

Does anyone have a 1948 copyright Leaf card of Paige to see if it says:

"Should sizzle into his own NEXT year."

????

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I can't find an image from the BACK of a 1948 Satchell Paige Leaf card.

Can everyone please help?

Thanks! I will be sure to recognize all of you as "research assistants" when I publish my findings.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

For what its worth it appears from the images that I have seen in the catalog that all of the cards have gray cardboard backs. If this is true it would also place the cards in late 1948 at earliest. The 1948 football set was issued in two series before the completion of the 1948 season. The first series has a tan back. The second series comes with both tan and gray cardboard backs with the later coming from the back part of the print run when they switched cardboard. If the baseball set is gray backed it followed the football set. The 1949 football set is all gray backed.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

according to the mastro may 18 2000 catalogue page 199 "psa has made a practice of labeling both the R401-1 (1948) and R401-3 (1949)issues as 1948. so there is an acc difference, for what its worth. also the card is a psa nm/mint paige but they do not show the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

Also not quite vintage... Callahan Hall of Fame cards are uniformly listed as either 1950 or 1950-56 even though certain cards clearly state on the back that they are from certain years(for example 1953) and could not have been issued in 1950 as they commemorate the Hall of Fame induction of players not selected until after 1950.... This also holds true for Old Judge labeling by the way.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5169696344

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

My friend Ted Zanidakis, who is the world's expert on 1949 Bowman and Leaf, and who is old enough to remember having bought packs in 1949, maintains that the Leaf set is not at all a 1948 set and that all the cards were released in early 1949. Regardless of the copyright date, you could not buy them in 1948. We haven't spoken about these in many years but I'm pretty sure that was his claim regarding the release date- time can elapse between a copyright date and the time it takes to print and get the cards into the stores (imagine obtaining a copyright in Dec 1948, as an example).

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Thanks Dennis, but that is also a 1949 backed card.

The 1948 cards have the date all alone at the very bottom.

The 1949 cards have the date in the middle of the bottom sentence.

-----------------

MAYBE THERE AREN'T ANY "1948" SATCHEL PAIGE CARDS???!!!!!

Barry's friend and Jay Miller's info would make it seem that the cards were only issued in 1949.

------------------

Maybe ALL Paige rookie cards are from 1949?



-------------------

STILL LOOKING FOR A LEAF PAIGE WITH A 1948 COPYRIGHT!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Hal have you seen ANY cards which were issued in two versions -- i.e., one with a 48 copyright and one with a 49 copyright?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

OK, this is getting even crazier, because I have looked all over the web and seen this:


ALL Stan Musial cards from this set have "1948"

ALL Ted Williams cards from this set have "1948"

ALL Joe DiMaggio cards from this set have "1948"


BUT......


ALL Babe Ruth cards from this set have "1949"

ALL Jackie Robinson cards from this set have "1949"

ALL Satchel Paige cards from this set have "1949"

------------------------------------


In other words... NO, Peter... I can't find ANY cards that came with BOTH backs.

Can anyone find anything to "dispute" these findings???

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Hal that makes sense as it would have seemed uneconomical to have to make up a new printing plate to print the same card with a different back. I think it is safe to assume that a card with a 1949 copyright was probably printed in 1949. What seems to be unclear is whether the cards with the 1948 copyright were issued in late 1948 or in 1949. Is your ultimate question here whether you need to buy a Leaf Paige to have his true RC? EDITED TO ADD: I just checked the SMR and for what little it is worth, they don't designate the 49B Paige as a rookie. I wonder if Beckett does.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

It was at first... but I think we have now discovered the following facts:

The Satchell Paige AND Jackie Robinson LEAF cards were both printed in 1949...

which makes the 1949 BOWMAN cards for Paige AND Robinson their first "rookie" cards from major sets.

(I know Andy will consider the 1947 Bond Bread card to be Robinson's rookie card, but not many do.)

-----------------------------

There are a few OTHER important rookie cards that were printed in the 1948 BOWMAN set and the 1948-49 LEAF set (Kiner, Spahn, etc.)...

so it will be VERY important to see whether these LEAF cards have "1948" or "1949" on the back. I will check and get back with the answers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

OK, here is the scoop:

The LEAF cards for MUSIAL and SPAHN have the "1948" print date on back... so these WOULD still qualify as "rookie cards" along with their 1948 black & white BOWMAN cards.

BUT.....

BAD NEWS for RALPH KINER fans.

His Leaf card is from "1949"....

which makes the 1948 b&w BOWMAN his true rookie card.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

hal, in that mastro catalogue may 18th 2000,page 199 in the discription of the paige card they are selling....."only one other paige currently exists in a psa 8 holder and it resides in the hands of the famed collector marshall fogel.marshall claims his example has the 1948 copyright making this the only 1949 graded by psa nm to mint 8." i don't know if thats irrefutable evidence but i imagine fogel wouldn't make it up.(the 48 copyright)

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Sorry, but he will have to produce it before I believe it... since he has millions of cards and could have just been mistaken in his memory.

I just can't believe that they would CHANGE the whole back of a card on the printing press just because they printed some in December 1948 and some in January 1949.

---------------------

Here is an example of the 1948 BOWMAN backs:



As you can see from the site below... the stats referenced on the card (51 homers) are his 1947 stats:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mizejo01.shtml

Thus, there is zero doubt but that the 1948 Bowman set came out in 1948.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

It would also seem pretty obvious, after reading this thread, that the 1948 Bowman set was printed and distributed a LOT earlier in the 1948 calendar year than the 1948 Leaf cards....

yet BOTH are widely considered "rookie" cards for Musial, Spahn, etc.

This is why my position is that the M101-5 cards and the M101-4 cards are BOTH rookie cards...

since they were produced within a few weeks of each other in the same calendar year.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I sent Marshall an e-mail asking for a scan of the back of his Paige card.

He and I have spoken before as we are fellow Trial Lawyers, so hopefully he will respond and end our mystery!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

If you speak with him tell him "Lucky Luciano" said Hi....he'll know what you mean....good luck on your hunt....later

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

I found this on the web from Brian Wentz. The relevant excerpt is "The Leaf issue of Satchel Paige is considered a Rookie regardless of whether it has a copyright date of 1948 or 1949 on the reverse." The complete link is:

http://www.bmwcards.com/Hobbynews2.htm

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

I also bought the leaf cards in packs and wondered why they had different dates. It seems that they simply copyrighted some of the cards in late 48 after the 1948 season and used that date on those cards. They used the 1949 date on cards that were copyrighted in early 1949 before the 1949 season.

Each card is only found with one date either 1948 or 1949 depending on the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

THANK YOU, Peter.

Your information makes perfect sense.

The Leaf company had to get PERMISSION to make and distribute likenesses of EVERY player in their set...

so they only needed to get that permission ONE time for EACH player before they could produce cards of that player.

In other words, they must have still been waiting on copyright permission to make the Paige and Ruth and Robinson cards when January 1, 1949 rolled around...

whereas they must have already received permission to make the Spahn and Musial and DiMaggio cards in late 1948.

----------------

Again, this is consistent with what Barry said earlier.

The "copyright" date is only indicative of when Leaf received permission to make a baseball card of that particular player... NOT when the card was printed or the printing press was engraved.

The "gray cardboard" and the language on the backs of the cards and the historical perspective of collectors makes it seem as if ALL of the cards may very well have been PRINTED and DISTRIBUTED in early 1949.

-------------------

Like I said, a "1948" Satchell Paige would not only have to have a different copyright date... but the LANGUAGE about "this year" would also have to be different.

I won't believe it until I see it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Hal,

Several years ago I bought a collection of complete sets of Bowman's (48-52) from a gentleman here in CA. I asked him why he did not have any Leafs and he said that when they first came out in 1949 the kids were all excited but after spending their money on them on countless packs they realized the set was skip numbered they stopped collecting them and many threw away their cards. It was his recollection that the set never was available in 1948 and he was adamant that the only set in 48 was the "small ugly black and white cards".

Hope this helps.

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Thanks Greg!

It is indeed very helpful...

and 100% consistent with everything we have heard from collectors who remember buying packs in 1948 and 1949!

-------------------------

I hope everyone notices that I am KILLING my own collection in the interests of the hobby

If the Leaf cards were NEVER issued until 1949...

then these cards that I own are NOT rookie cards:

1949 Leaf Musial
1949 Leaf Spahn

-------------------------

But the TRUTH is more important.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

I think the Trial Attorney doth spin too much. Having to pick up a 48B Musial is a small price to pay for not having to shell out for a 48 Leaf Paige!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I just want to know as much as I can before I buy or sell anything.

I love my Leaf Musial... and would hate to have to replace it with the ugly black and white thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Cook

One more confirmation these came out in 1949. I have one copywrited 1948 which discusses the player's performance in the 1948 World Series, so clearly not issued before late fall 1948 at a minimum.

Andy

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

"I love my Leaf Musial... and would hate to have to replace it with the ugly black and white thing."

Hal if that is the case why not collect what you like and not get so hung up on technicalities and philosophical questions about what is "really" a rookie card and what you "have" to own? It's just a hobby, isn't it?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Because it is easier to stay on budget when the 100,000 vintage cards on Ebay do not meet my qualifications.

Otherwise... they ALL look so cool... that I could justify buying them all...

which would be hell on the budget.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Hal c'mon that "slippery slope" argument is not terribly persuasive and you know it. Obviously there is a difference between keeping a Leaf Musial which you like and which most people would call his rookie card and the anarchy of having no focus at all. Keep the card, the 48B is (in my humble opinion) an uninteresting card even if a hypertechnical, Talmudic analysis says it is his rookie card and the Leaf isn't.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I think the "1948" printed on the back of the card will allow me to persuade my inner self to keep the Leaf Musial and the Leaf Spahn.

The true "winners" of this debate, I believe, are the owners of and 1949 Bowman Jackie Robinson and Satchell Paige cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

LATEST UPDATE:

Read the script on the back of this "1948" Leaf card:



Here are the facts on when Early Wynn was traded to the Indians:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CLE/1949_trans.shtml

If the trade was made on December 14th... and it took a week or so to get the printing press engraved to make this card... and the printers were all out for the Christmas holidays...

it is pretty hard to believe that Leaf got a baseball card printed in 17 days that accurately reflected the details of the Early Wynn trade.

After all, this is before ESPN, so it would take the people at Leaf a few days to even HEAR about the trade (since Early Wynn was still very young and unknown at the time).

-------------------------

More evidence that even the Leaf cards with the "1948" copyright date were not printed until 1949.

AND... even if the card WAS printed on December 30th, 1948... there is NO WAY that the cards were available to the public until 1949.

I think all of the cards in the Leaf set are from 1949.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I never collected this set in its entirety... so I never even noticed the random "skip" numbering.

What a DIRTY trick to play on little kids who spent their allowance trying to "complete" the set!!!!!



No wonder they all threw away their Leaf cards in 1949 and bought those pretty 1949 Bowmans instead.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Last chance for anyone to dispute the findings before they get forwarded to Bob Lemke and made "official."

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Hal it looks like you are down from a dialogue with me to a monologue. Did you ever hear back from Fogel on whether his Paige had a 48 date? I would still like to know whether any card was issued with both dates. It seems to me until we know that the data is incomplete.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Some think that the date of card manufacture, rather than the date of its issuance, is a factor in determining rookie cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think if you were a kid buying packs in 1949 you might remember simply which ones got to the stores first- Bowman or Leaf. That could really be the determining factor in determining which card is a player's rookie card. If one company released their cards weeks before the other, then that's it. Distribution might vary from city to city but clearly one company beat the other to the marketplace. I'm on vacation right now but I'll see if I can get Ted to tell me which ones he remembers first- he grew up in New Jersey, for what it's worth.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

that my '49 Bowman was either Paige's rookie, or co-rookie, since shortly after I bought it. But I'd rather have the Leaf--because it's a nicer card! (I don't have one...sniff.)

Did I commit a breach of manners, or forget to push the
"respond" button?

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

And others, including me, prefer a rookie card to show the players rookie picture.

Independent of date of card manufacture or distribution, so long as it is produced and released in the same nominal period as the actual rookie year.

Failing to achieve that, as close an approximation to the ideal is preferable, to me.

It is all the picture, Not the card nor its issuance date.

In the event of a tie in the year of the picture generation, then these other factors become criteria.

Edited to add: This is part of what makes this forum interesting to me. Many opinions, approaches and interests.

[Archive]

Posted By: mcavoy

The rules on obtaining copyright have changed in recent years. I do not know the rules for 1948-1949, but if uncut sheets exist, many of these questions could be addressed. Copyright does not necessarily correspond to printing dates. Cards printed in 1949 having a 1948 copyright, should not have ever a 1949 copyright, unless different bios exist. Generally, then, the US copyright date should correspond with US publication. Back then, copyright requirements required the deposit of two (I think) copies with the copyright office, one of which would be deposited into the Library of Congress for examination by the public (and to transfer aquisition costs to copyright holders from the public). Therefore, it would not make sense for the same bio to have two copyright dates.

The purpose of copyright to holders is to control reproduction. Civil penalties may be awarded for unauthorized copying as well as court orders preventing future violations. In this case, Leaf's player bios were protected from plagerism by Bowman, Topps, pulp mags, season preview books, etc.

I quickly searched the Library of Congress for Leaf Gum, but I found nothing.