Help with strip card identification

[marcdelpercio]

Hello all,
I picked this up on eBay a few days ago as it looked like an issue I couldn't immediately identify. I have it in hand now and am still stumped. I'm guessing it is hand cut but is done very precisely and measures exactly 1 1/4 x 2 3/8 inches. It is blank backed. The player and number correspond to the W575-1 checklist but it is clearly much smaller and different paper stock than a W575 and the caption is different as well. I am pretty familiar with the strip card sets but have found nothing that comes close to matching this one. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!

[nolemmings]

1922 W504 Universal Toy & Novelty

[marcdelpercio]

Thanks Todd! That's definitely it. Doesn't appear that these are terribly common so I'm glad to add this one to my collection.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Marc:

You're right, they are not easy to find at all, especially the Giants & Senators players.

[fkw]

1922? has something changed? I dont have new catalogs...

I have the year listed as 1925 (Hack Wilson's rookie is in the NY NL set), but they (4 different team sheets) may have been made for more than 1 years...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by fkw

1922? has something changed? I dont have new catalogs...

I have the year listed as 1925 (Hack Wilson's rookie is in the NY NL set), but they (4 different team sheets) may have been made for more than 1 years...

I have the year listed at 1925 too. This sheet was longer than my scanner .

[FrankWakefield]

For starters, that's a nice little card, Marc.

Next, I was impressed with Todd's identifying it as a w504, with lightening speed.

I don't have one of these. If Leon wasn't so greedy he'd cut one out of that sheet he has... how greedy of him to have all of those!!!

Bert Sugar's publication has a 1925 date, "c. 1925". I've not looked at players' team affiliation to suggest a date, but I'd lean toward that 1925 date until someone has a reason to think otherwise.

Leon, email me and I'll send you a mailing address so you can mail me whichever one of those you want to cut out.

[FrankWakefield]

Fournier was with St. Louis in 1922, his first year with Brooklyn was 1923, where he played through 1926.

Tiny Osborne was with the Cubs until traded to Brooklyn on May 16, 1924. He was there for the rest of the 1924 season, and for the 1925 season.

Eddie Brown played for Brooklyn only 2 seasons, 1924 and 1925. Same for Johnny Mitchell.

Tommy Griffith was with Brooklyn from the 1919 season until traded May 9th, 1925, when he went to the Cubs.

Bill Doak was with the Cardinals until traded to the Brooklyn Robins on June 14, 1924.

Absent clairvoyance, the Brooklyn card for Doak couldn't have been printed until June of 1924. Given that, and that 1925 was the last year that Brown, Griffith, Mitchell and Osborne played for Brooklyn, I think 1925 is the correct date for this issue.

[marcdelpercio]

Thanks Frank! Yes, I was also very impressed with the quick response and identification. Maybe the card number correspondence with the W575 set is where the 1922 date came from but it appears that is just coincidental so it seems like the 1925 date is probably accurate. Either way, I knew I hadn't seen many of these before so was glad to pick it up. Thanks to everybody for the responses and information!

[fkw]

just wanted to add, that there are known reprints of the W504 Brooklyn cards.

it looks like they are a blue tint, and the card stock is different and looks like it has "reprint" on the backs
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1925-UNIVERS...-/200587698935

here is an image of one of the authentic cards I have so you can see what the backs (and card stock) look like.

[steve B]

Are the blue ones on lighter stock always reprints?

The one I have is that way, and pretty worn. The wear seems real, not like most falsely aged cards.

Steve B

[fkw]

I dont know Steve,

I just remembered I saw reprints of some of them a while back then googled "W504 reprint" and the eBay Larry Fritsch Co. garbage came up...

not even sure if they made the other teams, or if anyone else has reprinted them ??

does yours have a scuff where the word "reprint" is shown? if its the lighter and smoother card stock and blue tint it doesnt sound good to me...

[Brian Van Horn]

Some of many I have:

[steve B]

Here's mine. Brooklyn, blue, light cardboard......hard to tell if it's scuffed where the reprint text would be, but I'm starting to suspect it's been skinned. Assuming it's a reprint, and that the wear was faked they did a beautiful job of it.

Ebay purchase of course, but from maybe 10 years ago?

Steve B

[glchen]

These do come in blue. Here's a past lot from REA: Link

[FrankWakefield]

Steve, let me ask my constant question... have you illuminated that with uv light, does it fluoresce?

[steve B]

No, but I'll be doing that as soon as the new UV light arrives.

The old one stopped working after I dropped it. One of those odd moments of "darn! it's not like I use it all that often" Then the realization that it's more than 20 years old and has probably seen more use than it was designed for.

Steve B

[FrankWakefield]

20 years old... glad to see you're a believer in the use of a black light!!! From your scan I think the card's good, but a little black light would be good.

[steve B]

I bought the blacklight originally for stamps. There are a few varieties from when they started making them flourescent for the facing/cancelling machines. Plus errors where they left the tagging off.

I've found lots of uses for it since then.

The old one did both short and long wave, I don't think the new one does. But the new one is much less expensive. The old one was something like $60 back in the 80's.

Steve B

[nolemmings]

Just saw this thread again when Frank referenced it in another. Yes I agree the correct or at least most likely date is 1925. My prior post of 1922 was purely a typo--knew the set and buzzed in without checking the keys. Sorry if I caused any confusion or consternation.

[steve B]

Interesting, both the cardstock and ink are totally dead under longwave UV.

I'm thinking it's real, but I'll hold off till I figure out fixing my big UV light which does both short and long wave.

Technical stuff follows, if it bores you stop now.

US stamps only react to shortwave UV, while most other things react to longwave. I tried a few other items, and it looks promising, but not conclusive
2011 topps -reacts
2011 Topps allen and Ginter - do not react!
1981 topps - cardboard does not react, yellow ink does.
most envelopes - react
T206, real allen and ginter,e90-1 --Do not react.

Steve B

Originally Posted by steve B

Here's mine. Brooklyn, blue, light cardboard......hard to tell if it's scuffed where the reprint text would be, but I'm starting to suspect it's been skinned. Assuming it's a reprint, and that the wear was faked they did a beautiful job of it.

Ebay purchase of course, but from maybe 10 years ago?

Steve B

[Brian Van Horn]

To celebrate finally recovering my scans from my old computer:

[Brian Van Horn]

.

[Brian Van Horn]

..

[fkw]

some of Brian's Brooklyn cards show blue ones too ...

Those Washington cards are real tough, wow
have they even completed the checklist in the SCD for the Washington players???

My SCD catalog is a few years old and only shows 9 players IDed

cool thanks for posting the scans

[bcbgcbrcb]

Fantastic collection, Brian, thanks for sharing.

[Brian Van Horn]

One more coming in the mail of High.

[Brian Van Horn]

The one I was waiting for just arrived in the mail. Thank You, Eric:

[Brian Van Horn]

One more: