Question about Herpolsheimer's 1921 cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I've noticed that many (even most) of the mysterious 1921 Herp's cards have some kind of bleed-through or something that causes a ghost of the bold "braided" border on the back to appear on the front. Scans below, but not very good ones.

So I got to wondering how or why this could be. Issues where this effect is well-known (the 33 Goudey's being the prime example) are very large run, mainstream issues. Sheets were stacked upon one another before the ink was dry, causing a slight transfer to the next card.

But the Herp's issue was a total of only 69 cards. How many sheets could there have been? Maybe 3 sheets of 24 each? 2 of 36?

No matter what configuration, there could NOT have been many sheets. So why would they be stacked so neatly that many cards have the condition? Who stacks three sheets? Or two? And could that few sheets weigh enough to transfer the image? Or were there more sheets, and if so where are the rest of the cards?

Also, one theory of these cards is that they were a sample or proof set. In that case, wouldn't there be more care taken to assure that they were extra-nice looking and not have this kind of condition?

It's possible that the braid image from the front is from overstamping the back somehow, so that each card has the braid from it's own back somehow pressed into the front. This would require no stacking at all. However, from looking at the card I have I'm not sure the braid on the back lines up with the image on the front.

Finally, as I was thinking of this I get to the biggest question of all. I couldn't come up with any reasonable sheet configuration that didn't result in a total of 72 cards. Where are the other three? Who were they?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Joann, can I post my Cobb? Just because?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Of course you can. (grumble grumble hmmmph).

What a great card. The Ty Cobb from the Herp's set - a Tiger's fan and GR native's ultimate card. I think it's cool that I know who owns it. I heard there was a Ruth in the set. Anyone know where that one is?

And from looking at Jeff's scans, it doesn't look like the back braid and front braid line up exactly, but they are close. I still don't think it's a press-thru from the same card.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

The Herps are an earlier set than the E121 Series of 80, but produced after the Holsum Bread (Type I set), and they date from the same time as the Standard Biscuit set that was also produced "between" these two sets. It would be logical then to infer that the Herps were probably produced as a set of 80 (as that is the # advertised on the backs of those with Standard Biscuit (D350-3). It is likely the checklist is Not complete in that 80 different players were produced, with several not making it through the years.

That being said it seems possible and likely that this set was a "printers proof" produced for the company to see what their cards would look like, and apparently was not taken to the next step of mass production for any kind of actual promotion. This is all speculative, but until more than one example of each card comes to light (or any card not from the initial find for that matter) this is my theory.
-Rhett

While we are showing our cards...

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

As Jeff's Cobby illustrates it had an oil? based pencil mark on it, at one time. Of the one large group that was ever found every single one had a mark similar to this. They are very hard to get off without leaving some form of a mark or indention behind.......regards

edited to add that my Stengel has the exact mark as Jeff's Cobb

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

But if it were a printer's proof set or whatever, why would the mark be on so many of them?

It seems bizarro to me - as in really crazy - that a single print run of only a very few sheets would have been stacked and left the mark. Far more likely for a single proof run that the sheets would have been laid side by side or something.

Plus, consider that if sheets were stacked while wet, wouldn't they almost HAVE to be sheets of the same images, run one after another quickly off the same plate and set-up, and stacked while wet? If they had to change plates between each sheet, wouldn't the previous sheet have dried in the meantime? Doesn't the fact that the braid is on all (or many) of the fronts provide extremely strong evidence that there were many more of these?

Logically, there is no way that if these were single sheets, the only ones ever run, they could have been wet-stacked. The only way possible would be if they had four presses set up side by side, each with a different plate running a different sheet, turned them on all at the same time and then took the printed sheets from the four different presses and put them in a single stack while all were still wet. That seems unlikely to me.

They may have run many of each sheet and picked the best one as the printer's proof, but then why would they have picked the ones with the bleed-through?

Somehow it seems to me that there had to be more cards. If so, they were pretty efficiently disposed of!

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: DaStaka

Joan: Don't gimme dis sheet.
Whereon you wan me to stak 'em?
'Ceptr ontopr de other ones?
Waddauwanna fromme?

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Joann, Ive thought the same exact thing about these cards when I first picked some up. At one time I had 11 of them and at least 3-4 have the same wet sheet transfer on the front. I always thought It might be that this find of 69 cards were all stacked on top of each other and wrapped tightly for many many years and the ink transfered from the pressure.

I had a couple thousand 1984 Oakland Invaders bumper stickers with ads printed on back that this happened too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Van Horn

Joann,

Could you please e-mail me at wizard15243@yahoo.com.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce MacPherson

I have always believed that this was originally a set of 80 as well with a few cards lost along the way. I noticed that mark too and like Frank, thought they may have been stacked on top of each other -perhaps shortly after they were cut. Mine obviously have the same mark as the others, but I noticed that the Cobb is marked at $5, Baker is $2 and Rice and a common I have are marked at $1. Maybe they were marked before Rice went into the HOF?

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

My theory...... they were first discovered in the 1970's and put into a garage sale or flea market and thats were the penciled "$" price mark on back came from. The other 11 missing cards were either sold then (or maybe some didnt make it through the years and were lost). The cards that didnt sell in this garage sale were then put back away for another 30 years or so until being rediscovered a couple years ago in the eBay era (easy to sell) and then to the hobby.

BTW 2 of the 11 Ive owned didnt have any pencil price on the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

It seems increasingly impossible for me to reconcile the braid bleed-thru on the front of these cards with limited (ie, 1/1) production. Everything about it is more consistent with many more cards being produced - even if all at the same time and scrapped.

I see the point about them being stacked dry and banded together for a long time. It certainly explains the fact that the lines on the front seem to be pretty well oriented in straight and square lines. But wouldn't the lines then have varying thicknesses and intensity around the periphery? If they were banded about the middle, then it seems like the braids on front would be clearer and heavier about the middle and lighter at the ends where the pressure was lower. Could they have somehow been "banded" together in a more uniform way?

It's possible, but multiple stacked wet sheets still explain the lines best. They don't explain the lack of cards best, but they do explain the lines best.

As to the dollar figures, my theory is that they were "free with the purchase of" values. I just don't see any way anyone was paying $5 for a card in those days. But it would make sense if a Sales Manager or Marketing Manager for Herp's, in possession of these cards (as has been speculated frequently) would have made notes on the back as to the amount of purchase at Herp's that would earn the buyer the card. Buy $5 of merchandise, get a Cobb. For a $1, get a common. Doesn't that make some sense?

The other explanation for the numbers is that they were actual card prices. If so, they must have been put on way way after 1920. Maybe even into the 60's or 70's. It just seems to me that, if that were the case, these would have found their way into the world at that time. If someone took the time to price them as salable collectibles, they would have likely sold them then. Heck. Who knows? Maybe they did. But I think that it's more likely the numbers were added in about 1920, and if so the theory above is at least as good as any other. IMO, of course!

Great responses. Thanks very much.

Joann

ETA: hahaha FKW - we were on the same page as least wrt the 70's part as the first time these came out. I hadn't thought of the garage sale angle. Crap. The thought of the 11 missing cards being sold in a garage sale in the 70's, not 3 miles from where I currently sit, and maybe out there somewhere, is enough to drive me nuts.

ETA II: to fix some grammatical horrors.

[Archive]

Posted By: 1880nonsports

but a much of the time ephemera and paper collector. I have seen MANY different kinds of "ghosting" that has occured over time to paper and inked goods. Moisture - pressure - storage - and god knows what facilitates errent and unwanted transfer. Add to that the exact same patterns - the fact that only one of each card exists and I think you have fairly good circumstantial evidence that it was a set that wasn't actually distributed - and that the braiding is in fact transfer. Is it possible that the backs were printed last or with a slightly greater amount of ink and subsequently - contemporaneously cut and stored one on the other? Multiple shhets as was pointed out doesn't make a lot of sense either. Some later date is credible as it moved down the timeline - someone liked the cards or the sheet - bundled them up - and put them away in whatever environment. Who knows. I think the point may be moot as how it occured wouldn't be germain unless there was a question of authenticity. Just a thought or two at 2:30 AM and not an ultimate defence of my position. If one had a sample in hand - a good loupe might help.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed Ivey

I'll take the Cobb and Stengel for 5 bucks each.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I guess I answered the wrong question first, pertaining to the pencil marks. The ghost of the bold "braided" border on the back to appear on the front would seem to be a wet sheet transfer.....even if they were cut from the only? sheet and stacked while wet...regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Joann, I just took a hard look at mine, and I'd say I'm about 95% sure it's bleed-through and not wet-sheet transfer. You can clearly see where the braid imprint is on the front of the card, and it appears to be exactly where the braid is on the back.



-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

My SWAG method of science didn't work and Al is correct. After looking at 3 others, I have, up close...I would say there is a 100% chance the braids on fronts of these cards are bleed through. It's proven on this card as the braids match up perfectly on the front and back.....sorry for the large scans but sort of needed too....regards



edited typo's

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Leon,
I agree that it appears to be a bleed versus a wet sheet transfer. It appears that the majority of the card backgrounds have been whited out, making it easy to see the black ink bleeding through. I have 8 and only 1, Wambsganss has a full photo detail in the background.

Here is one of my better Bleeds:




And the Wambsganss: