1940 Playball

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert

Not that I collect this set or care to but I was just wondering why Ruth and Cobb are not iincluded. Is there a reason for it? They where both alive at the time...did they want to be paid and Playball refused? Just some food for thought.

[Archive]

Posted By: andy becker

that's a great question....i have wondered the same.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

There are no Cubs as well (unless you count Charlie Grimm's "old-timers' card). I was told once this was because the Cubs were owned by Wrigley Gum and Gum Inc. (Play Ball) represented competition. There's also a shortage of Cardinals ... there's no Slaughter, Mize or Moore in any Play Ball set. Also Feller and Lombardi as well. But many of the ommisions show up in the 1941 Double Play set, which I understand was produced by Gum Inc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Troy Kirk

I once read that Johnny Mize once had a lawsuit against Gum, Inc. I don't have any more details than that. I've always been curious to know more about that case. If anyone knows anything about this, I'd like to hear about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

Troy -- Do you happen to remember where you read that? Interesting. I've been doing some research about the history of Bowman lately and obviously have come across a bunch of Gum, Inc. info, but haven't read that yet.

I'll report back if I do find it somewere though...

[Archive]

Posted By: Troy Kirk

I haven't been able to locate my article that mentions that Johnny Mize had a lawsuit with Gum, Inc., but I did find another interesting tidbit. In the September 30, 1975 issue of SCD, there is a note that Johnny Mize was the missing player for card #126. The source was a docket on file at the offices of The Federal Trade Commission in Washington D.C. That is probably the basis of the lawsuit, but like I said, I haven't found that particular article yet.

[Archive]

Posted By: Troy Kirk

I found my reference to the Johnny Mize lawsuit with Gum, Inc.

On August 7, 1964, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a ruling against Topps in a lawsuit brought by Fleer. This was an earlier lawsuit than the one that resulted in the win by Fleer and the 1981 Fleer and Donruss cards. Eventually, Topps won this FTC suit on appeal in 1965. But in this 1964 ruling, there was some history of bubble gum cards presented as evidence. Here is what FTC examiner Herman Tocker said about Mize and Gum, Inc.

"A minor litigation involved a player, Johnny Mize, who, in 1941, sued Gum Products, Inc., claiming that it was using his picture without permission. Although gum Products (known for its 'Play Ball' issues of the late 30's and early 40's) won the decision, it decided not to continue the use of the baseball cards in its gum sales."

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Troy and Chris

First, sorry guys but I have to correct you. Gum, Inc. of Philadelphia (also known
as the Bowman Gum Co.) did not produce the 1941 Double Play set. This set was
produced by Gum Products of Cambridge, Mass.

Why Johnny Mize and other Cardinal players were not in some of these sets you
cited could be due to the St louis Team set (W574....1941) which portrayed all
these Cardinals. Mize was also in some of the Wheaties sets in the early '40s.
And, these sets probably had exclusive Rights to portraying him. He is in the
Double Play set (with Danny Litwhiler).

In 1981 I was set-up at a card show next to the table Johnny Mize was signing.
We struck up a really nice friendship. And, a few years later when I was in
Demorest, GA (his hometown) I stopped in to visit with him. He was really a
great ballplayer with St Louis and both New York teams. I asked him why the
Cardinals and the Giants traded him in the peak of his career ? Johnny told me,
he asked his management "pay me more money or trade me". So, these two
teams traded him. As, you know he was part of the "Yankee Dynasty" (1949 - 53)
and Mize, single-handedly, beat the Dodgers in the 1952 World Series with two
pinch-hit HRs and a third HR.

My impression of Johnny Mize was that he was a very proud man, a clutch hitter,
a great baseball player, and he didn't take any "guff" from his management.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

Ted,

Have you ever heard of Mize (or any other players) being involved in a lawsuit with Gum, Inc?

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Thank you Ted, and Troy.

That is great stuff. Don't recall encountering that information before. And THAT kind of stuff is what is great about this site!

Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

this thread appears to be educational and historical in realtion to vintage baseball cards.

I thought the main focus of the board was pissing matches among posters, ebay corruption threads, along with occasional grading service melee's, and other misc. conspiracy theories.



Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Chris (slantycouch)

Have no idea about any lawsuits vs Gum, Inc.

Where you able to get any of my old Bowman articles from Bob ?

Email me....

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Just want to correct something above...

The 1941 Cardinals set mentioned above is W754, not 574. The Browns set is W753.

It seems prices on these cards has gone up, lately.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Frank

Thanx for correcting me....I meant to type in W754. I must have had
a "dislexia moment".

I have not seen any of these two St louis teams' cards in a long while.
Forum members must have some to show ?

Let's see a Johnny Mize, an Enos Slaughter, or a Branch Rickey.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Heretic! a PSA 7!
You are not pure of heart and must be cleansed!