R318 Batter Up Premiums / R312 Colored Photos

[Cozumeleno]

Wondering about the R318 Batter Up Premiums lately. We know those were issued along with a regular R318 Batter Up card based on the R318 card/gum wrappers. But to date, of the photos (see below for example from Old Cardboard website) of what we are calling the R318 Batter Up Premiums, only a handful have been discovered vs. several thousand of the cards.

Those use the same images as the cards so I believe they are related to Batter Up. However, I am wondering if those are really the same premiums mentioned on the wrappers. It makes little sense as to why so few would be known as opposed to the cards if they were distributed in the same quantities.

Is it possible that the Photo Art mentioned on the wrapper could be a different issue? For example, do we know how something like the R312 Colored Photos set was distributed? That looks more like 'Photo Art' to me & were also created by National Chicle according to the ACC, just as the Batter Up cards were. They also are from 1936, which corresponds with when some of the Batter Up cards were issued. R312 is just an example - if not R312, could another set of premiums possibly be the Batter Up Photo Art premiums instead of what we currently believe they are?

[Webster]

Suggestion from this wrapper sale at LOTG - that the "photo art" may be R313 Fine Pens.

http://loveofthegameauctions.com/lot-7238.aspx

Arguments for:
120 in the series...not 1200, but easily a typo
includes players, as well as "plays" on a number of cards
dimension is almost exactly twice that of the 2nd series batter-ups

Against:
No central fold, therefore unlikely to have been inserted inside the packs (though could have been distributed alongside).

[Cozumeleno]

Thanks - I thought of R313 as a possibility because Burdick also calls R313 a 'Batter Up' issue in the ACC. I just assumed it was probably a different Batter Up product because it didn't strike me as something that would be called "large photo art." But that makes a heck of a lot more sense than the things that are currently called the Batter Up premiums.

[Spike]

National Chicle fine pens (R313) make the most sense to me as the "Photo Art" promo mentioned on Batter Up wrappers. Kids bought the gum, gave the wrapper to the store owner, and got an R313 fine pen. I wouldn't worry about "1200 different" as a misprint, since card makers of the era overestimated their set sizes routinely.

Just like National Chicle added R344 Rabbit Maranville's "How to..." posters to some Batter Up packs, it's possible they used these rare premiums as another wrapper exchange promo in the last days of Batter Up distribution.

On the other hand, because so few exist in the hobby, couldn't they instead be proofs from National Chicle's bankruptcy materials? Goudey bought Chicle's remainders in 1937 and sold them to collectors in the 1960s after Goudey's own failure in 1961. We know that Goudey repurposed Chicle's Maranville booklets onto existing R303 premiums, but wouldn't need to replace R303 itself with these near-identical sepia & brown photos. If Burdick didn't know they existed, it at least hints these photos weren't distributed (and didn't enter the hobby) during the 1930s. Goudey's batch sale to collectors in the 1960s are another possible avenue.

[Chris Counts]

Since the Batter-Up set is essentially two very distinct series — a 1934 series and a 1936 series — can anybody tell me if the second series wrapper is any different from the much more common first series wrapper? What does the 1936 series wrapper say about premiums? The rare premiums of Foxx and Waner are clearly using images from the 1934 series. Also, didn't fine pens come out in 1936? How could the wrappers in 1934 be referring to Fine Pens when they weren't issued until two years later?

[Cozumeleno]

I was of the belief that the wrapper offering the premiums was the high number series issued later while the other wrapper not mentioning them was for the earlier low number cards. That said, I've never researched the dates for the cards so couldn't tell you if that's accurate. These are the two wrappers.

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

Since the Batter-Up set is essentially two very distinct series — a 1934 series and a 1936 series — can anybody tell me if the second series wrapper is any different from the much more common first series wrapper? What does the 1936 series wrapper say about premiums? The rare premiums of Foxx and Waner are clearly using images from the 1934 series. Also, didn't fine pens come out in 1936? How could the wrappers in 1934 be referring to Fine Pens when they weren't issued until two years later?

[Leon]

Maybe not many exist because they are large and on paper so they didn't survive in quantity? I read where the offer was only on the final series wrapper too. Plus a penny was a lot of money back then! Nice thread.

From the past collection.....

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

Wondering about the R318 Batter Up Premiums lately. We know those were issued along with a regular R318 Batter Up card based on the R318 card/gum wrappers. But to date, of the photos (see below for example from Old Cardboard website) of what we are calling the R318 Batter Up Premiums, only a handful have been discovered vs. several thousand of the cards.

Those use the same images as the cards so I believe they are related to Batter Up. However, I am wondering if those are really the same premiums mentioned on the wrappers. It makes little sense as to why so few would be known as opposed to the cards if they were distributed in the same quantities.

Is it possible that the Photo Art mentioned on the wrapper could be a different issue? For example, do we know how something like the R312 Colored Photos set was distributed? That looks more like 'Photo Art' to me & were also created by National Chicle according to the ACC, just as the Batter Up cards were. They also are from 1936, which corresponds with when some of the Batter Up cards were issued. R312 is just an example - if not R312, could another set of premiums possibly be the Batter Up Photo Art premiums instead of what we currently believe they are?