Mystery Solved - Pinpointing the dates of W590 cards

[paul]

The W590 set has always been a bit of a mystery. The Standard Catalog lists the cards as being issued from 1925-1931, and the grading companies label the cards the same way. However, I believe that most collectors who have spent any time with this set agree that the cards were not issued continuously from 1925 through 1931. Instead, they were issued in two distinct printings: a first printing in 1925 and a second printing in 1931.

You can verify this by looking at the captions of the players who switched teams between 1925 and 1931. Grover Cleveland Alexander is a perfect example. Alexander was with the Cubs in 1925 and has a W590 card that lists him with the Cubs. Alexander began pitching for the House of David team in 1931, and he has a W590 card that lists him with the House of David. Alexander pitched for the Cardinals from 1926-1929, but he has no W590 card listing him as a Cardinal. From this, it seems reasonable to conclude that the W590s were issued only in 1925 and 1931, and not in the years in between.

Another example is Tris Speaker. His more common W590 card lists him as a Cleveland Indian, where he played in 1925. Speaker has no W590 listing him with the Senators where he played in 1927 or the A's where he played in 1928. But he does have a W590 listing him with Newark, where he was a player manager in 1929 and 1930. This again suggests that no W590s were issued in 1927 or 1928. Speaker's listing with Newark might suggest a 1929 or 1930 date for the second printing, but that is not possible because Alexander did not begin playing with the House of David until 1931. So the second printing was almost certainly issued in 1931, and Speaker is mistakenly listed as the manager of Newark, rather than being very recently retired.

That still leaves the mystery of figuring out whether a particular card was issued in 1925 or 1931. For players that switched teams in that time frame, it's easy. But to my knowledge, no one has previously explained (at least publicly) how to distinguish a 1925 W590 from a 1931 W590 for players that were on the same team in 1925 and 1931. This has been particularly frustrating for rookie card collectors. Lou Gehrig's 1925 W590 is his rookie card, but collectors have been unable to determine whether a particular W590 Gehrig is from 1925 or 1931.

However, by looking closely at cards known to be from 1925 and cards known to be from 1931, it becomes clear that there is a subtle but noticeable difference. Look below at my 1925 Speaker (Cleveland) and my 1931 Speaker (Newark). In the 1925 card, Speaker's name appears in a distinctly bolder font than the 1931 card, which has a much thinner font, with letters that appear a little taller (though that may be an optical illusion). The same is true of the 1925 Collins (White Sox) and 1931 Collins (A's coach). The same is also true of the 1925 Alexander (Cubs) and the 1931 Alexander (House of David).

I know there is a collector on this board who has completed a W590 master set with all team variations (or maybe he's one card short). I'd be very grateful if he would review his collection and confirm or refute my "font" theory. But just from this small sample, it seems reasonable to conclude that the cards with the bolder font are all from 1925, and the cards with the thinner font are all from 1931. So if you have a bold font W590 Gehrig, you have his true rookie card. If you have a thin font W590 Gehrig, you don't have his rookie, but you have a true rarity because the 1931 cards are remarkably scarce compared to the 1925s.

[glchen]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for looking into this. I've actually been meaning to post a thread on this set for a while. I worked w/ another board member (shammus) on this a while back, and anyway, with a lot of help from Brian, here is the Master Checklist that I've come up w/. If there are any errors in the checklist, please let me know. Also, if anyone has any cards in this set, which I've only mentioned as confirmed in the Standard Catalog, please let me know, and I'll modify the checklist.

[glchen]

Therefore, the above checklist seems to imply there would be at least 3 printings of the set with the first printing being 1925, the second around 1928-29, and the last 1931. The best case for the 2nd printing is the Rogers Hornsby card. Hornsby only played for Boston for one year 1928. From 1929-32, he played for the Chicago Cubs. Therefore, if Hornsby were part of the printing in 1931, he should have been listed as playing for the Chicago Cubs, and not the Boston Braves. However, there is no confirmed card for Hornsby with the Cubs. This could mean, however, (only my theory) that he was replaced with another player in the set, and not part of the 1931 printing. If one argues that there were only two printings 1925 and 1931, then you would have to say that the publisher missed updating the team name for Hornsby and just had a different font for him also.

However, I still like the font theory. Here are the two variations of the Hornsby card that I own. Note that the fonts are different, and the Boston team font does not match the 1931 font that Paul has in this cards.

[glchen]

Just for reference, here's the other W590 Hornsby Boston variation that I once owned, but sold to another board member. The font seems to match the one that I currently have.

[h2oya311]

Very awesome detective work!!

I noticed that the "1931's" have a much grainier photo quality as well (compared to the 1925 issue).

So are there any conclusions that can be made about Mr. Gehrig? Do we know if both font styles exist? Or if he was issued in 1928-29 instead, assuming Gary's theory is correct?

It looks like I have a "bold font" Lindstrom meaning it was either a 1925 or 1928-29.

[steve B]

Really interesting.

One thing I notice that might be nothing since I'm not familiar with the set is that the captioning on the Lindstrom and the Collins White Sox is different from the others, having the team name spelled out rather than city and league.

Maybe a few runs, but still ones that can be told apart from each other?

Steve B

[glchen]

I think that based on the font theory, the years of issue would be:

1925 - Player name in bold, Position not bold
1928/29 - Player name in bold, Position in bold
1931 - Player name not bold, Position not bold

I've updated the checklist based on the cards I own (or have owned in the past), and what Paul has shown based on these fonts. If anyone else has a card that has a different font than what is shown in the checklist for that Player/Team/Position, please let me know, and I'll update the checklist.

Based upon this, I believe the Gehrig card should be a 1925 year of issue. I've attached a picture of a Gehrig that I owned in the past.

A couple of other interesting things. First, as Brian pointed out to me, the "Former" designation on the position means that the player had retired when the set was issued.

Also, there are two "George Burns" players in the set, with the same name. One was a 1st baseman and the other was an outfielder. If there is a New York card for this player, then he could be the only player with 3 different cards in this set since the George Burns Outfielder never played for a New York team after 1925.

Edit: Note that in the Master Checklist for George Burns - New York, I also listed 1911-21 as his playing days, and this would only be for the George Burns - Outfielder variation and not the 1B one. However, I only did this for completeness, since 1921 is well before the generally accepted 1925 date of issue for the W590 set.

Edit2: From post 14 in this thread, a board member has definitely shown that the George Burns - New York card is the same player as the George Burns - Outfielder variation, and when Burns was a coach for the New York Giants in 1931. I have updated the Master Checklist accordingly.

[paul]

Gary, you've obviously done far more work on this than me. I had never even considered the possibility of a third printing. It seems strange that there would be only one player (Hornsby) uniquely identified to a 1928 printing, but maybe the 1928s are just very rare. Hopefully, more people will chime in with scans. I may have been a bit premature with my title "Mystery Solved".

[danmckee]

This thread ruined my day bigtime! I was about 6 cards away from a set but am missing a crap load that are listed as "former"

Ugh!

Thanks a lot Gary

[nolemmings]

I think it might be worse Dan. As I look at that list, it seems that every player there could have two cards, not just the players where it's been confirmed. Each subject was playing in 1925, meaning every one could have a card saying "former __", team change or, if the guy had played for the same team the whole 6 years, just a font change.

There are 41 subjects? It looks like they used the exact same sheet for each printing, and just changed the captions and the fonts. It's strange no one here has confirmed the Roy Spencer card, but it seems doubtful they would have a sheet or strip configuration of 41, unless the 42nd space was used for some sort of header. Otherwise I suppose they never produced a Spencer card, and the right count is 40.

The Burns could have been a corrected error, as he did play for the Giants through 1921, and who knows, maybe there's a third Hornsby out there. Happy hunting!

[ValKehl]

I wonder if there are any other variations of WaJo that exist - seems plausible to me as Johnson was managing Newark in 1928 and Washington in 1929 & 1931.
Val

[paul]

It seems like there also should be a Ty Cobb "former outfielder" variation. The 1931s are very tough to find, though, so maybe none survived or maybe one is lurking out there somewhere.

[68Hawk]

paid in the $80 - $120 range a few years back for this one.....hope the essence of this thread hold true...

[IMG][/IMG]

[spec]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I think it might be worse Dan. As I look at that list, it seems that every player there could have two cards, not just the players where it's been confirmed. Each subject was playing in 1925, meaning every one could have a card saying "former __", team change or, if the guy had played for the same team the whole 6 years, just a font change.

There are 41 subjects? It looks like they used the exact same sheet for each printing, and just changed the captions and the fonts. It's strange no one here has confirmed the Roy Spencer card, but it seems doubtful they would have a sheet or strip configuration of 41, unless the 42nd space was used for some sort of header. Otherwise I suppose they never produced a Spencer card, and the right count is 40.

The Burns could have been a corrected error, as he did play for the Giants through 1921, and who knows, maybe there's a third Hornsby out there. Happy hunting!

The Burns (NY Giants) W590 shows him as a coach and thus should be 6b, not 7c, on the master list. I can also confirm the other variations listed as Standard Catalog only, with the exception, of course, of Roy Spencer, who probably does not exist. Presumably W590s were issued in strips of 10, like their cousins, W580 boxers, athletes, presidents and movie stars. Four of my W590s have numbers in the left margin (Burns-Clev. 10, Grimm 11, Kelly 12 and Young 15), likely the numbers of the strips.

[mybuddyinc]

For what's it's worth , all the Boxing W590's I've owned or seen, fall into the "1925 - Player name in bold, Position (weight-class) not bold" group.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by spec

The Burns (NY Giants) W590 shows him as a coach and thus should be 6b, not 7c, on the master list. I can also confirm the other variations listed as Standard Catalog only, with the exception, of course, of Roy Spencer, who probably does not exist. Presumably W590s were issued in strips of 10, like their cousins, W580 boxers, athletes, presidents and movie stars. Four of my W590s have numbers in the left margin (Burns-Clev. 10, Grimm 11, Kelly 12 and Young 15), likely the numbers of the strips.

Great discussion so far guys. Kudos to the ones doing the heavy lifting on this stuff so we can all benefit. I am not sure about how many were in strips but maybe different years came different ways?

[h2oya311]

Or perhaps the second image is simply the right hand portion of rows 8, 9, 10, and 11.

Edited to add: although it looks like the top border is quite a bit larger in your first strip example vs. the second. Are there any discernible differences b/w those 5 common player images? I didn't see any.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by spec

The Burns (NY Giants) W590 shows him as a coach and thus should be 6b, not 7c, on the master list. I can also confirm the other variations listed as Standard Catalog only, with the exception, of course, of Roy Spencer, who probably does not exist. Presumably W590s were issued in strips of 10, like their cousins, W580 boxers, athletes, presidents and movie stars. Four of my W590s have numbers in the left margin (Burns-Clev. 10, Grimm 11, Kelly 12 and Young 15), likely the numbers of the strips.

Thanks for this info! I've updated the Master Checklist.

[spec]

Originally Posted by Leon

Great discussion so far guys. Kudos to the ones doing the heavy lifting on this stuff so we can all benefit. I am not sure about how many were in strips but maybe different years came different ways?

It's worth noting that Leon's 5x4 block of W590s has 2 baseball players on the same row as 3 boxers. That suggests there were not 4 purely baseball strips. Thus, the elusive Mr. Spencer seems more plausible, though still unlikely.
Does anyone have an unchanged player, like Gehrig, with caption in the thinner type face (I don't)? If not, the lighter font may have been used only for players with changed captions, just as the caption variations in E97 were unique.

[nolemmings]

It's worth noting that Leon's 5x4 block of W590s has 2 baseball players on the same row as 3 boxers. That suggests there were not 4 purely baseball strips.

I noticed that too.

Also, it looks as if Todt and/or Wheat are not in the same strip row.

[glchen]

I want to show the another known uncut strip (which I do not own), in addition to the one that Leon has in a previous post.

The 10 card strip that Leon has in the most common one that I've seen, with the players: (row 11) Charlie Grimm, Max Carey, Jimmy Caveney, George Burns (Phil - OF), Grover Alexander, Travis Jackson, Dave Bancroft, Buckey Harris, and Frank Frisch, and Tris Speaker.

This other uncut strip, which is hard to see, has the following: (row 10) George Burns (Cleve - 1B), Ray Blades, Eddie Rommell, Phil Todt, George Dauss, Heinie Sand, Jess Barnes, Rabbit Maranville, Dazzy Vance, and Eppa Rixey.

Note that if you assume that the rows are sequential, e.g., row 10 is above row 11, this causes discrepancies what the booklet sheet that Leon has. In the booklet, it shows the last 5 players from (row 11). However, in the row immediately above it, there are 5 non-baseball cards. This doesn't mesh with (row 10), which has baseball players for the entire row.

Therefore, another theory is that the W590s were distributed in different ways, booklet sheets and individually in 10 card strips. You will notice on the 10 card strips there are very wide top and bottom borders, which you do not see in the booklet sheets. This may explain why some cards in the w590 set are much more common than others since some may have only been distributed in the booklet sheets, while others may have been distributed in the booklet sheets and in the individual 10 card strips.

[shammus]

Hey all,

Sorry I'm a bit late but wanted to take a couple days to gather my cards for scanning and gather my thoughts as well.

I believe my checklist matches Gary's pretty well as that's the one I remember us putting together a while back. I'm still at 51 out of 60 total cards. Missing Spencer (of course) for the base set and 8 other variations for the Master set. I've never been able to confirm the Spencer as a valid part of the checklist. I'm also wondering about the Dauss Former Pitcher card as I think there's been a lot of confusion about that player.

I've really wanted to support the font theory in the past and have mentioned the subtle differences in the captions before. Problem is, in going through my own collection, it seems as though I find cards that already dispute it, heh. You really start getting into real nuances about what's bold and what isn't. The "bold" in some fonts, presumably from 1925, just appear darker than others from the same year. In the scans I show up above, cards like Frisch and Gowdy appear to have darker captions on their first card, but cards like the Bancroft and Kelly really throw me. On Bancroft which is shown in the scan, it appears that the 2nd card, the Boston, is actually a TINY bit bolder than the first. Both fonts are very close though.

The Williams is the strongest argument against the font theory unfortunately. On my Boston Williams, the name, position, team name and league are all heavily bolded. On my St. Louis Williams, the name is lighter and the position, teamname and league aren't bold at all. Williams truly deals the font theory a crushing blow because the fonts aren't even close in my opinion. I'd love if it was that clearcut and easy though!

w590-1-001.jpg

w590-2-001.jpg

[paul]

I guess I should have posted my font theory BEFORE shelling out the big bucks for a Gehrig "rookie".

[Leon]

Here is a better scan of the W590 sheet. It looks like at least the bottom is trimmed and maybe more.

[glchen]

I've been behind on this thread, so have wanted to update it in a while. First, a long, long time ago when this thread was still active, a board member pointed out that I had two of the W590 Cobbs where the fonts looked different. Therefore, I scanned them both on the same scanner side by side. The scan shows the font differences between the two (type 2 vs type 1) although it's not as easy to see in person. However, if you know about the font theory then you can see the differences.

[glchen]

Next thing to show are two Ross Youngs, which look like Type 1 and Type 3 according to the font theory, with the Type 3 being of the "Former" position variation for the card. The thing to see here is on the far left is the number "15" (cut off on one of the cards). This seems to show that this card was the first card on the 15th row of the sheet / page that this card was issued. Since both cards are on the same row / position, this supports the theory that new players / cards were not added to the set. Instead, for each year the set was issued, only the player's team or position was updated as needed. Therefore, each year should have the same number of player cards.

[glchen]

Finally, two new position / team variations have been uncovered, so I have added these to the checklist in post #2. They are:

Max Carey with the new position as Coach
Bob Meusel with the new team as Cincinnati

Note that the Carey should be a Type 3 according to the font theory, but the boldness and typeface are closer to Type 1.

[paul]

That Max Carey seems to really undermine the font theory.

[vintagehofrookies]

if one of those Cobbs was from 1931 wouldn't it say "former" or his last team which would be the A's?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by vintagehofrookies

if one of those Cobbs was from 1931 wouldn't it say "former" or his last team which would be the A's?

According to the font theory since both the player and team name are in bold, the year of issue should be around 1928/29. Therefore, there wouldn't be "former" on the card, but the team name should theoretically have changed to Philadelphia A.L. rather than continue to stay with Detroit.

Unfortunately, the one of the many things that we don't know with the set is how consistent the issuers were with correcting the team and name changes. Did they simply forget to make the changes for Cobb or is the bold/bold part of the font theory disproven? Unfortunately, all of the uncut strips and panels that we have seen so far are from the 1925 year. If we could see a 1931 uncut strip, that might greatly help in dating these cards. Also, if Ty Cobb cards with his team as Philadelphia and with "Former" do appear, then we would probably need to re-assess this part of the font theory. However, the 1931 cards are extremely rare, which is why two new variations to this set were just added in the last year. It's tough to say if and when they would come out. The other thing that has not yet been proven is whether all of the same players that were issued in 1925 were also remained in 1931. For example, for the players that retired, we have seen that "Former" is now added to the card. However, we have not seen all of the players that retired having "Former" cards yet. (e.g., Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, etc) Therefore, it is still possible that for these retired players, they did not have "Former" added to their card or their card in the set was swapped out with another player (e.g., a Roy Spencer).

[glchen]

More additions to the checklist from Dan M. (Thanks, Dan!) The full checklist is updated in Post 2 of this thread. Here's the summary of the new additions:

(1) Rogers Hornsby - Chicago N.L.
(2) Walter Johnson - Coach (not Pitcher)
(3) George Sissler (Sisler) - Boston (not St. Louis)

The Hornsby card confirms that there were (at least) 3 printings of the W590 set as he is now confirmed on three different cards. The new additions all seem to be from the 1931 printing.

If anyone has a picture of the Sisler card for St. Louis, if they could show it, that would be great. The one that I have has the team/position cut off.

Also, a mea culpa from me. In the previous checklist, I had a Bancroft card with New York - Short Stop as confirmed. However, I do not believe that this card is confirmed. If anyone knows that this card exists, please show it. The Standard Catalog only lists Bancroft with New York, but did not list his position. In the picture from Dan, you can see that there is Bancroft with New York and the position for Coach. Brian also showed this card in post 22, but I completely missed it. Therefore, I kept the New York - SS on the checklist, but changed the status on this card to Not Confirmed. I added the New York - Coach to the checklist for Bancroft, but this is most likely not a true new addition. If anyone does have a New York - SS card for Bancroft or has seen it, please let me know. Thanks!

[glchen]

Originally Posted by glchen

According to the font theory since both the player and team name are in bold, the year of issue should be around 1928/29. Therefore, there wouldn't be "former" on the card, but the team name should theoretically have changed to Philadelphia A.L. rather than continue to stay with Detroit.

Unfortunately, the one of the many things that we don't know with the set is how consistent the issuers were with correcting the team and name changes. Did they simply forget to make the changes for Cobb or is the bold/bold part of the font theory disproven? Unfortunately, all of the uncut strips and panels that we have seen so far are from the 1925 year. If we could see a 1931 uncut strip, that might greatly help in dating these cards. Also, if Ty Cobb cards with his team as Philadelphia and with "Former" do appear, then we would probably need to re-assess this part of the font theory. However, the 1931 cards are extremely rare, which is why two new variations to this set were just added in the last year. It's tough to say if and when they would come out. The other thing that has not yet been proven is whether all of the same players that were issued in 1925 were also remained in 1931. For example, for the players that retired, we have seen that "Former" is now added to the card. However, we have not seen all of the players that retired having "Former" cards yet. (e.g., Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, etc) Therefore, it is still possible that for these retired players, they did not have "Former" added to their card or their card in the set was swapped out with another player (e.g., a Roy Spencer).

Now that new Hornsby and Wojo cards have been uncovered, it wouldn't surprise me if there were a Ty Cobb - Philadelphia - Former CF card out there. However, this is assuming that the manufacturer kept the same players on the sheets and bothered to always update them. They could have still kept Cobb as Detroit - CF or replaced him with another player or (non sports person).

[Leon]

Fantastic information in this thread. Thanks to all who shared it.

Originally Posted by glchen

Now that new Hornsby and Wojo cards have been uncovered, it wouldn't surprise me if there were a Ty Cobb - Philadelphia - Former CF card out there. However, this is assuming that the manufacturer kept the same players on the sheets and bothered to always update them. They could have still kept Cobb as Detroit - CF or replaced him with another player or (non sports person).

[glchen]

Just wanted to add a scan of another W590 strip with Lou Gehrig on it. This uncut strip was sold at a recent Hunt auction (Link), which unfortunately, I did not win as I completely forgot about the auction ending day. (Might not have won it anyway.) Unfortunately, this uncut strip for Gehrig no longer exists since it looks like the winner of the strip already cut the strip down to slab the Gehrig card. This Gehrig card was slabbed by PSA with a 6, and just sold at the PWCC auction (Link). The consignor is probably ecstatic as he cleared a huge profit on that card. (Not me on either side of this transaction.)

[Snapolit1]

I bought the Gehrig. Can't believe he had the stones t cut it. Wow. Did a nice job. I'm not sure I could have done it. Was wondering where the new Gehrig came from.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by glchen

Just wanted to add a scan of another W590 strip with Lou Gehrig on it. This uncut strip was sold at a recent Hunt auction (Link), which unfortunately, I did not win as I completely forgot about the auction ending day. (Might not have won it anyway.) Unfortunately, this uncut strip for Gehrig no longer exists since it looks like the winner of the strip already cut the strip down to slab the Gehrig card. This Gehrig card was slabbed by PSA with a 6, and just sold at the PWCC auction (Link). The consignor is probably ecstatic as he cleared a huge profit on that card. (Not me on either side of this transaction.)

Amazing ROI, wish I could pull off a few moves like that.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I bought the Gehrig. Can't believe he had the stones t cut it. Wow. Did a nice job. I'm not sure I could have done it. Was wondering where the new Gehrig came from.

Congrats Steve. I was an underbidder on the card. Looking at the bid history, my first thought was the winner really stepped up and wanted the card.

Well done sir!!

[bcbgcbrcb]

WOW, that is the highest price that I have ever seen a strip card sell for, anyone else see higher?

Mine was pretty nice, think it was an SGC 30, got around $900 for it.....

In my opinion, strip cards that are hand-cut should receive "A" grades and not numerical. I don't agree with what happened here.....

[Snapolit1]

Think I need to pay a lot more attention to Hunt auctions. Lol.

[Snapolit1]

Phil - what's the logic behind your position that all hand cut strip cards should get an A? I realize there has been discussion here before as to how PSA and SGC have treated strip cards over time. But all cards are cut from a strip or a sheet. By a machine 99.9999% of the time. And we grade them and penalize them if the cut is awful. Why should a card cut with scissors be treated automatically like it can't be graded? Why not just grade like every other card, which is what PSA did here.

[itjclarke]

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

(No idea what this post was all about, weird technical issues on my phone)

[bcbgcbrcb]

Steve:

The machine cut cards were issued and cut by the manufacturer for distribution in that manner. Of course, some were cut better than others, if all were perfect, there would be numerous 9's and 10's and prices would drop dramatically.

I'm sure you heard about all of the controversy surrounding the famous $3MM T206 Honus Wagner and the revelation that it was hand-cut from a strip many years later and submitted to PSA and assigned a numerical grade. Everyone seemed to have major problems with that, same theory here.

It is impossible to tell if a strip card was cut last week or 100 years ago. Part of the blame goes to the grading companies, who sometimes assign a numerical grade and sometimes only "A". I am aware of the size requirements and broken lines that must be present for a numerical grade to be given but have seen cards go both ways regardless of that criteria.

[Snapolit1]

I see the distinction I just don't see why it's meaningful. The strip cards were printed to be cut. I can see cutting a picture out of a book and getting it graded as a "card" pretty dicey, but why care if a strip card was cut last week or 70 years ago?