NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-01-2017, 10:23 AM
talkin2rob talkin2rob is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 8
Default 1934-36 Diamond Stars identification help

Hi all, and happy new year!

I have a question regarding the 1936 Diamond Stars and was told to ask here as you all might be more knowledgeable on the topic.

The card in question is a 1936 Diamond Stars #87 Steve O'Neil. From my understanding, 1934 was printed with a green back. 1935 was printed with green, then blue. And 1936 was printed with blue. The card I have is a green back. I have tried to look this up before with no luck. I have tried asking on a couple other forums, again, with not much luck. It does not look to be faded. I thought maybe it was a rare card, or a misprint that no one has noticed. Now, I'm not sure what to think.

Here are a couple pictures of the card:
 photo 20161231_135438.jpg
1936 Diamond Stars No. 87 Steve O'neil photo 100_5503.jpg

What are your thoughts or opinions?

Any help would be appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-01-2017, 10:52 AM
hangman62 hangman62 is offline
Ralph Gee
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: N.J.
Posts: 1,358
Default Diamond Star

I happen to have that complete set..

just looked..every card I have # 85 and higher are blue backs....so that is odd about that card
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-01-2017, 11:00 AM
brianp-beme's Avatar
brianp-beme brianp-beme is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,532
Default Di-Stars

Interesting question/card. According to this checklist on the Old Cardboard website:

http://www.oldcardboard.com/r/r327/r327list.asp

card #'s 85 through 108 should only be seen with blue print on the backs and have a 1936 copyright date. It seems like in the past I have seen one of the high numbers with a green back, but my memory bank may have taken an early withdrawal. Would be interested in what others have to chime in about this subject.

Brian
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-01-2017, 12:17 PM
brianp-beme's Avatar
brianp-beme brianp-beme is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,532
Default

I think I partially re-deposited what had been withdrawn from my memory bank. The card is a 103 Bill Dickey, or it could be the #11 Dickey, as the card has back damage in the area where the number is located. I remember that, according to the list in the link I posted previously, the card fit the supposed specifications of neither number #11 or 103. This is where my memory is still fuzzy, as I don't recall whether it had a blue back and a 1935 copyright date, or a Green back with either a 1935 or 1936 copyright.

It will be some time before I can get back with more details, so until then sit tight, card collecting community, but make sure you move around occasionally to prevent maladies related to inactivity.

Brian

Last edited by brianp-beme; 01-01-2017 at 12:20 PM. Reason: Dramatic spacing
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-01-2017, 01:13 PM
Bocabirdman's Avatar
Bocabirdman Bocabirdman is offline
Mike
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rat Mouth
Posts: 3,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianp-beme View Post
make sure you move around occasionally to prevent maladies related to inactivity.

Brian
Too late for that...We are card collectors after all...........
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-01-2017, 01:19 PM
talkin2rob talkin2rob is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 8
Default 1934-36 Diamond Stars identification help

Thanks for the responses. I'm sure someone will be able to diagnose this. If not, the card will be tossed back into the depths of the closet collection.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-01-2017, 01:36 PM
SAllen2556's Avatar
SAllen2556 SAllen2556 is offline
Scott
Scott All.en
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 600
Default

I think there's only one way you could have Steve O'neil in green ink, and that would be if it's a reprint. There's one pretty high quality reprint set out there and they often pop up on eBay. If you post a scan of the front it might be easier to tell.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-01-2017, 01:57 PM
talkin2rob talkin2rob is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 8
Default 1934-36 Diamond Stars identification help

I wasn't aware there were reprints of this set. Here's a picture of the front. It's the best I can get from taking a picture on my phone. I can scan it if that would be better.

 photo 20170101_154846.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-01-2017, 02:04 PM
SAllen2556's Avatar
SAllen2556 SAllen2556 is offline
Scott
Scott All.en
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 600
Default

Yep. Reprint. Look at a real one on eBay and you'll probably be able to tell.
The borders on yours are too white. Looks too glossy too.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-01-2017, 02:17 PM
talkin2rob talkin2rob is offline
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 8
Default 1934-36 Diamond Stars identification help

Thank you for that. I've never gotten into this set and did not know anything about them. Looks like this will be filed in trash. lol
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-01-2017, 02:22 PM
conor912's Avatar
conor912 conor912 is offline
C0nor D0na.hue
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,151
Default

Good call, Scott. I agree, way too much gloss to be legit.
__________________
Items for sale or trade here UPDATED 3-16-18
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-01-2017, 02:28 PM
brianp-beme's Avatar
brianp-beme brianp-beme is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,532
Default It is always advised to check your Dickey for bogusness

I agree with the analysis of the front. I better check that Dickey for bogusness. You have to admit the back is pretty authentic looking.

Brian
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-01-2017, 06:34 PM
Aquarian Sports Cards Aquarian Sports Cards is offline
Scott Russell
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianp-beme View Post
I agree with the analysis of the front. I better check that Dickey for bogusness. You have to admit the back is pretty authentic looking.

Brian
Just catching up in this thread but I was going to say the back paper didn't look like it had enough texture leading to incredibly crisp print. I love these cards and their Deco feel, the backs just aren't that pretty from a print quality and paper quality standpoint.
__________________
Check out https://www.thecollectorconnection.com Always looking for consignments 717.327.8915 We sell your less expensive pre-war cards individually instead of in bulk lots to make YOU the most money possible!

and Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thecollectorconnectionauctions
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-24-2017, 10:57 PM
brianp-beme's Avatar
brianp-beme brianp-beme is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,532
Default Diamond Stars high # copyright dates

I refuse to have anyone criticize me for dragging my feet. Half a year later and here is my follow-up on the Diamond Star Dickey I mentioned previously in this thread. First off, it appears authentic. As you can see in the scan the back damage has obliterated the number. The batting stats are for 1935, and the copyright is 1934, and the print is blue.

What I have determined is that this is card #103 (not #11) issued in 1936. I found images of 3 #103 Dickey backs online, and they all have the same 1935 stats, 1934 copyright and blue print.

What caused my confusion in the first place is actually the Old Cardboard listing for the Diamond Stars set (which, by the way, is the best I have come across) which indicates that the copyright should be 1936 for the Dickey card #103. In fact, it indicates that all the high # cards (97 through 108) should have a copyright date of 1936. I believe this info is inaccurate on their site. I have the following high # cards, and I have listed the copyright dates seen on them:

97 Lopez 1935
98 Rowe 1935
99 Traynor 1935 (thanks Epro-9)
100 Averill 1935
101 Bartell 1934 (thanks Epro-9)
102 Mungo 1934 (thanks John)
103 Dickey 1934
104 Rolfe 1935 (thanks Epro-9)
105 Lombardi 1935
106 Lucas 1935 (thanks beme)
107 Hack 1935
108 Berger 1935

Can anyone else chime in on the copyright date shown on the other cards (99 Traynor, 101 Bartell, 104 Rolfe, 106 Lucas)? I assume the Old Cardboard site has the copyright dates of this whole high # grouping incorrect. If it appears so after responses, I will contact them so they can update.

I wonder why the Dickey and Mungo cards have a 1934 copyright? I would assume it was just an oversight by the producers.

Brian
Attached Images
File Type: jpg diamondstarsdickey071.jpg (76.5 KB, 209 views)
File Type: jpg diamondstarsdickey072.jpg (76.5 KB, 213 views)

Last edited by brianp-beme; 06-25-2017 at 09:40 PM. Reason: added copyright data contributed by Net54'ers
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-24-2017, 11:18 PM
brianp-beme's Avatar
brianp-beme brianp-beme is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,532
Default

97 (28) "Al" Lopez - - B6
98 (33) "Schoolboy" Rowe - - B6
99 (27) "Pie" Traynor - - B6
100 (35) Earle Averill - - B6
101 (15) Dick Bartell - - B6
102 (19) Van Mungo - - B6
103 (11) Bill Dickey - - - B6
104 (29) Robert Rolfe - - B6
105 (36) "Ernie" Lombardi - - B6
106 (46) "Red" Lucas - - B6
107 (34) Stanley Hack - - B6
108 (25) Walter Berger - - B6

Above is a copy/paste of Old Cardboard's #97 through 108 section of the Diamond Stars set. The 'B6' in their listing designates blue print and a 1936 copyright, and the 3rd column that it is seen in is for cards with 1935 stats (the dashes are supposed to line up for cards with 1933 stats and then 1934 stats, and indicate that the card does not exist with this year's stats on the back).

Brian

Last edited by brianp-beme; 06-24-2017 at 11:23 PM. Reason: Clarification for those who are on clarified vacations
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-25-2017, 05:40 AM
swarmee's Avatar
swarmee swarmee is offline
J0hn Raff3rty
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Niceville FL
Posts: 6,902
Default

http://www.oldcardboard.com/r/r327/r327list.asp
Are you saying he's reading it wrong? Looks right to me based on the original formatting on the webpage.


#102 Mungo has a 1934 copyright date and 1935 stats.
__________________
--
PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head
PSA: Regularly Get Cheated
BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern
SGC: Closed auto authentication business
JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC
Oh, what a difference a year makes.

Last edited by swarmee; 06-25-2017 at 05:41 AM. Reason: further clarification
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-25-2017, 10:19 AM
brianp-beme's Avatar
brianp-beme brianp-beme is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,532
Default

Hi John, thanks for confirming the back info on the Van Mungo card. According to their system, your card should properly be identified in the third column (cards with 1935 stats) with a 'B4' designation (B stands for blue print, and the 4 standing for 1934 copyright date). Their listing has this card in the 3rd column erroneously as 'B6', indicating that it would have instead a 1936 copyright date.

Brian
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-25-2017, 11:07 AM
BobC BobC is offline
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianp-beme View Post
Hi John, thanks for confirming the back info on the Van Mungo card. According to their system, your card should properly be identified in the third column (cards with 1935 stats) with a 'B4' designation (B stands for blue print, and the 4 standing for 1934 copyright date). Their listing has this card in the 3rd column erroneously as 'B6', indicating that it would have instead a 1936 copyright date.

Brian
I have not looked at the OBC site to see exactly how they listed this but, is it possible that their B6 reference is not to a blue back with a 1936 "copyright" date and is instead a reference to a blue back with a 1936 "issue" date? In that case the inclusion of an earlier year copyright date may just be an oversight (laziness) on the part of the part of the card manufacturer.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-25-2017, 11:31 AM
brianp-beme's Avatar
brianp-beme brianp-beme is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,532
Default

Hi Bob and all,

Here is a link to the Old Cardboard Diamond Stars listing.

http://www.oldcardboard.com/r/r327/r327list.asp

They do not specifically refer to a card's issue date, but the year of issue can be inferred with the columns that designate the year of the stats shown on the back (1933, 1934, and 1935).

Definitely worth a look at this set that is more intriguing than it appears at first glance.

Brian
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-25-2017, 08:50 PM
pro9's Avatar
pro9 pro9 is offline
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 75
Default

Old Cardboard is wrong. The dates match up as posted above. The missing ones are
99-1935
101- 1934
104- 1935

I believe the green backed cards on cards that should only come in blue are sunfaded. I used to have a Dickey that had a green back, but in my opinion it was faded on both sides from the sun.

Last edited by pro9; 06-25-2017 at 08:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-25-2017, 09:58 PM
brianp-beme's Avatar
brianp-beme brianp-beme is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pro9 View Post
Old Cardboard is wrong. The dates match up as posted above. The missing ones are
99-1935
101- 1934
104- 1935
Thanks Mr. E-9 for the confirmation of the copyright dates on those 3 cards. With the 106 Lucas (1935) that I looked up online, we have the following list of copyright dates for the high numbers:

97 Lopez 1935
98 Rowe 1935
99 Traynor 1935 (thanks Epro-9)
100 Averill 1935
101 Bartell 1934 (thanks Epro-9)
102 Mungo 1934 (thanks John)
103 Dickey 1934
104 Rolfe 1935 (thanks Epro-9)
105 Lombardi 1935
106 Lucas 1935 (thanks beme)
107 Hack 1935
108 Berger 1935

I will consider it an honor and my duty to notify Old Cardboard of this thread and what has been hashed out, and hopefully make a great checklist of this set even more accurate.

The satisfaction of making a small difference in this world what we call vintage baseball card collecting will be reward enough, unless of course there is a substantial reward attached to updating info in this manner. Accolades be damned, unless they involve the bestowment of honorary titles, such as "All Knowing Being" or "Kind Benefactor to the Collecting Masses". But I digress.

Brian
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-26-2017, 12:57 AM
brianp-beme's Avatar
brianp-beme brianp-beme is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,532
Default That was fast!

Quick update...I contacted Lyman at Old Cardboard and he has already made the changes to his checklist. Thanks to Lyman and all who helped me work through this Diamond in the rough.

Brian
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-27-2017, 01:21 AM
Spike Spike is offline
Matthew Glidden
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 340
Default

Great detail work and thanks for the updated checklist!
__________________
Number5TypeCollection.com, blogging the vintage century one card set at a time.

Member of OBC (Old Baseball Cards), the longest-running on-line collecting club. Find us at oldbaseball.com.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-27-2017, 01:17 PM
vrechek vrechek is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10
Default Copyright dates

Mungo, Bartell and Dickey were in earlier series and info was used again except for the updated stats. They previously published those three so it makes sense that they repeated the original copyright dates.
You'll notice that on any of the many back variations using the same card numbers, none of them are the result of different copyright dates. They were consistent as to the original year of copyright even when they re-issued cards with updates stats or different numbers.
Bartell is a little different in that the "P" on his jersey got rubbed out on a second version of card #15 and his bio picks up that he went from the Phillies to the Giants.
Fun to look at this stuff again after they've been out for 80 plus years.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:45 AM.


ebay GSB