Net54baseball.com Forums - New York Times Leaf Article
Net54baseball.com Forums
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   New York Times Leaf Article (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=356268)

G1911 12-20-2024 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2482112)

It had been widely accepted but never officially proven that the 1948 Leaf cards were mostly issued in 1949. One grading company, SGC, labels the Leaf cards “1948-49,” even on its old labels/grading system that ended in 2018. But the biggest grader, Professional Sports Authenticator (PSA), labels them “1948,” period. The rationale has been that some cards, including the Robinson and the Musial, carry a 1948 copyright.
I am amused that direct primary source evidence and even the text of the back write-ups on the cards themselves is not "official", but the proclamation of incompetent self-proclaimed expert authorities is "official". It has been clear to anyone that read the backs that this is not a 1948 release.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2482112)
“We will always consider new information and facts to make sure we’re recognizing cards appropriately, whether that’s the year manufactured or variations,” PSA president Ryan Hoge said. PSA added that it has “nothing new to announce with this particular set right now regarding our labels.”
If PSA "will always consider new information and facts to make sure we’re recognizing cards appropriately, whether that’s the year manufactured or variations" then they would stop lying about the 1948 date. The two statements by PSA for the article are directly contradictory. If they are considering facts, they would change the label. If they are not changing the label, they obviously are not considering demonstrable facts.

BioCRN 12-20-2024 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2482538)
If PSA "will always consider new information and facts to make sure we’re recognizing cards appropriately, whether that’s the year manufactured or variations" then they would stop lying about the 1948 date.
They will consider new information for cards that have a low population or not graded before, but they have 30,800+ reasons to ignore this one as long as possible.

That said, a money printing machine like PSA should suck it up and deal with it...imo...

G1911 12-20-2024 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BioCRN (Post 2482542)
They will consider new information for cards that have a low population or not graded before, but they have 30,800+ reasons to ignore this one as long as possible.

That said, a money printing machine like PSA should suck it up and deal with it...imo...
I would have some respect for PSA if they instead announced that they don’t care about facts, because what matters is juicing the investment and the 1948 date lends itself to better investment gains than the truth, and that they are happy to lie because customers will never hold them responsible or expect them to be honest or competent, as in their desire to profit the customers will continue to submit to PSA no matter what PSA does and how transparently incompetent or unknowledgeable about the items they sell their alleged expertise on they are. Probably wouldn’t even hurt their business! At least it wouldn’t be an incredibly obvious lie.

samosa4u 12-20-2024 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kutcher55 (Post 2482181)
What a trivial debate. On a more interesting subject (at least to me), can anyone tell me just how “short” the SPs are for 1948-9 Leaf? They seem to get a massive premium suggesting they are much more than twice as rare as their non SP counterparts. Relative pop counts suggest the same. Is there an old net54 thread someone can direct me to that helps answer this question? Why are these SPs so dang short?
I just looked through my book here called TRUE MINT by the late great Alan Rosen (Mr. Mint) and he mentions how he found four sealed boxes of the second series down in Tampa, and after opening three of them (432 cards), he only got one Satch Paige card! This led him to believe that the Paige was one of the hardest postwar cards to find.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2482284)
The two baseball series were produced the same way, 4X49 cards per sheet. So from a production standpoint, all short prints were produced at the same number. What survived the years, that is another story. The big names always hang around, the lesser knowns sometimes don't as few care about the commons.
Yeah, so this is the part that's obviously confusing. If Rosen pulled only one Paige card after opening three boxes, then how could they have been produced at the same number ?? Very strange!

Peter_Spaeth 12-20-2024 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2482588)
I just looked through my book here called TRUE MINT by the late great Alan Rosen (Mr. Mint) and he mentions how he found four sealed boxes of the second series down in Tampa, and after opening three of them (432 cards), he only got one Satch Paige card! This led him to believe that the Paige was one of the hardest postwar cards to find.



Yeah, so this is the part that's obviously confusing. If Rosen pulled only one Paige card after opening three boxes, then how could they have been produced at the same number ?? Very strange!
If they were in fact printed in equal numbers the company must have destroyed lots of them before releasing them. Aren't these also skip numbered?

Pat R 12-20-2024 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2482588)
I just looked through my book here called TRUE MINT by the late great Alan Rosen (Mr. Mint) and he mentions how he found four sealed boxes of the second series down in Tampa, and after opening three of them (432 cards), he only got one Satch Paige card! This led him to believe that the Paige was one of the hardest postwar cards to find.



Yeah, so this is the part that's obviously confusing. If Rosen pulled only one Paige card after opening three boxes, then how could they have been produced at the same number ?? Very strange!
It depends which story you believe the one that has been told a few times is that there were 7 boxes of which he opened 3 and there were 3 Paige cards. He found the cards in Florida but they originated in Michigan.

yanks87 12-20-2024 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2482592)
If they were in fact printed in equal numbers the company must have destroyed lots of them before releasing them. Aren't these also skip numbered?
This is the legend and lore that I love around this set. First off, yes, skip numbered, all LEAF sets were except for the 1948 Football offering.

As far as the pack assortment and distribution of cards. This was not modern printing, there was not an order that things came off the press, these cards were printed, cut, and placed into packs by hand. Then the boxes were packed randomly by hand. It would be like taking 40 decks of cards, throwing them in the air and trying to play blackjack guessing when you would hit 21.

Brent G. 12-20-2024 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by conor912 (Post 2482524)
I’ll admit, I’ve never totally understood this phenomenon. I would take Jackie‘s ‘52 or 55T over his Leaf card any day of the week.
Let’s be honest — the Leaf photo/image is absolutely hideous.

Snowman 12-20-2024 09:03 PM
The surviving pop counts of 1948/49 Leaf Short Prints is likely somewhere between 200-250 total copies of each card. Each SP was printed on the same 7x7 sheets, so the original pop counts were identical for all SPs.

The PSA pop counts for most SPs range from about 90 to 110 each. But those aren't graded often enough to get an idea of the true total population obviously. With the Paige being worth $20k+ even in low grade, nearly all copies have been graded at least once, with many of them having been graded multiple times. Are there still a handful of raw copies sitting in someone's attic that have never been graded? Sure, of course. But there probably aren't dozens of them floating around unaccounted for. The combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts for the Paige is currently 279 (193 PSA, 74 SGC, 12 BVG). It's safe to assume that each of the 12 BVG copies was sent to both PSA and SGC before being sent to BVG, so we can safely remove at least 24 from that pop report. Minus however many of the remaining PSA & SGC copies that were also cracked and resubmitted. Far more have been cracked and resubmitted than raw copies exist in Grandpa's attic today without question though. I would estimate that the true total remaining pop report today for the Paige is somewhere between 200 to 250 copies. And the remaining pop report for the other short prints is likely slightly less due to them being tossed in the trash at higher rates than the HOFers over the years.

The data suggests that there is approximately a 10 to 1 ratio for the full print run cards to the short printed cards. See counts below.

Notable combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts from the set:

Short Prints:
Satchel Paige 279 (193 PSA)
Bob Feller 199 (156 PSA)
George Kell 148 (111 PSA)
Dom DiMaggio 171 (124 PSA)
Larry Doby 215 (162 PSA)

Non-SPs
Ted Williams 2202 (1471 PSA)
Babe Ruth 2328 (1595 PSA)
Joe DiMaggio 2246 (1501 PSA)
Jackie Robinson 2676 (1849 PSA)
Stan Musial 1968 (1339 PSA)

Aquarian Sports Cards 12-20-2024 09:09 PM
I would argue there are a LOT more ungraded copies than people think. We've graded two Paige cards from original owner collections in 5 years and we're pretty small potatoes.

Snowman 12-20-2024 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2482645)
I would argue there are a LOT more ungraded copies than people think. We've graded two Paige cards from original owner collections in 5 years and we're pretty small potatoes.
I would argue that getting two raw Paiges to grade graduates to you at least medium potatoes land.

dealme 12-20-2024 09:43 PM
Delete.

I'm not sure what happened to my response, but it looked like absolute nonsense when posted.

Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yanks87 12-20-2024 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482644)
The surviving pop counts of 1948/49 Leaf Short Prints is likely somewhere between 200-250 total copies of each card. Each SP was printed on the same 7x7 sheets, so the original pop counts were identical for all SPs.

The PSA pop counts for most SPs range from about 90 to 110 each. But those aren't graded often enough to get an idea of the true total population obviously. With the Paige being worth $20k+ even in low grade, nearly all copies have been graded at least once, with many of them having been graded multiple times. Are there still a handful of raw copies sitting in someone's attic that have never been graded? Sure, of course. But there probably aren't dozens of them floating around unaccounted for. The combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts for the Paige is currently 279 (193 PSA, 74 SGC, 12 BVG). It's safe to assume that each of the 12 BVG copies was sent to both PSA and SGC before being sent to BVG, so we can safely remove at least 24 from that pop report. Minus however many of the remaining PSA & SGC copies that were also cracked and resubmitted. Far more have been cracked and resubmitted than raw copies exist in Grandpa's attic today without question though. I would estimate that the true total remaining pop report today for the Paige is somewhere between 200 to 250 copies. And the remaining pop report for the other short prints is likely slightly less due to them being tossed in the trash at higher rates than the HOFers over the years.

The data suggests that there is approximately a 10 to 1 ratio for the full print run cards to the short printed cards. See counts below.

Notable combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts from the set:

Short Prints:
Satchel Paige 279 (193 PSA)
Bob Feller 199 (156 PSA)
George Kell 148 (111 PSA)
Dom DiMaggio 171 (124 PSA)
Larry Doby 215 (162 PSA)

Non-SPs
Ted Williams 2202 (1471 PSA)
Babe Ruth 2328 (1595 PSA)
Joe DiMaggio 2246 (1501 PSA)
Jackie Robinson 2676 (1849 PSA)
Stan Musial 1968 (1339 PSA)
This is great data to have. I geeked out WAY too much on this. Now if I can get you to “run the numbers” on the Kent Peterson variation, we can have an idea of how rare the plate variation second printings are.

Snowman 12-20-2024 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2482653)
This is great data to have. I geeked out WAY too much on this. Now if I can get you to “run the numbers” on the Kent Peterson variation, we can have an idea of how rare the plate variation second printings are.
Kent Peterson wasn't short printed, so his print runs should be in line with the other non-sp cards above with ~2500 +/- total in circulation today. But the ratios of Red Cap to Black Cap variations that we see in the pop reports should be fairly close to the true ratios. We could also sample Cliff Aberson and pool their ratios to get a more accurate estimate, assuming both variations were created together on the second print run.

Kent Peterson Black Cap = 246 (62.4%)
Kent Peterson Red Cap = 148 (37.6%)

Cliff Aberson Full Sleeves = 249 (61.3%)
Cliff Aberson Short Sleeves = 157 (38.7%)

That gives us ~62%, or ~1550 out of ~2500, Black Cap Petersons and 38%, or ~950 out of ~2500 Red Cap Petersons.

Balticfox 12-20-2024 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2482147)
However, this is different because New York Times is writing about it!
The New York Times? :rolleyes: Big deal. Were it the Wall Street Journal writing about it, I might then pay attention.

;)

yanks87 12-20-2024 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482656)
Kent Peterson wasn't short printed, so his print runs should be in line with the other non-sp cards above with ~2500 +/- total in circulation today. But the ratios of Red Cap to Black Cap variations that we see in the pop reports should be fairly close to the true ratios. We could also sample Cliff Aberson and pool their ratios to get a more accurate estimate, assuming both variations were created together on the second print run.

Kent Peterson Black Cap = 246 (62.4%)
Kent Peterson Red Cap = 148 (37.6%)

Cliff Aberson Full Sleeves = 249 (61.3%)
Cliff Aberson Short Sleeves = 157 (38.7%)

That gives us ~62%, or ~1550 out of ~2500, Black Cap Petersons and 38%, or ~950 out of ~2500 Red Cap Petersons.
100% right, Peterson was not short printed, but, that variation represents a 2nd printing of the first run of cards that had changes made to the printing plates making them true variations. I have side by side comparisons in my book but essentially the late printing of the main 49 card have both subtractions and additions to the printing plates which create a variant version of those non short printed cards. For those who run down the rabbit hole, like I did, this variation would equate to higher value on a lower population of variant cards. SO, a blue hat DiMaggio should be worth more than a black hat, same for a red hat Musial or a blue hat Jackie. But that is probably an argument for another thread! Thanks for the numbers!

yanks87 12-20-2024 10:59 PM
6 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2482658)
100% right, Peterson was not short printed, but, that variation represents a 2nd printing of the first run of cards that had changes made to the printing plates making them true variations. I have side by side comparisons in my book but essentially the late printing of the main 49 card have both subtractions and additions to the printing plates which create a variant version of those non short printed cards. For those who run down the rabbit hole, like I did, this variation would equate to higher value on a lower population of variant cards. SO, a blue hat DiMaggio should be worth more than a black hat, same for a red hat Musial or a blue hat Jackie. But that is probably an argument for another thread! Thanks for the numbers!
34/49 of the main run of cards had some change made to the printing plate.

Tabe 12-20-2024 11:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent G. (Post 2482621)
Let’s be honest — the Leaf photo/image is absolutely hideous.
Graig Kreindler's version of it is 10000x as good.

Balticfox 12-21-2024 12:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482476)
That's a long way of saying, "I don't actually have any evidence to back up my assertion."
I brought out Adam Smith and P.T. Barnum. Who more do you want? Taylor Swift? I'm happier to leave her in your corner.

And had not my contention been intrinsically sound, you wouldn't have been immediately compelled to simply obfuscate by calling upon my "sources".

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482476)
For someone so verbose, you sure lack logical substance. Comparing collecting mentality to broader consume markets is asinine. They are literally the opposite. Consumers, by definition, are buying to consume. Collectors are buying to keep/hoard/curate/build a collection.
Oh?! Here. Let me give you a quick lesson in both logic and set theory. Only some consumers are also collectors. But all collectors are nonetheless consumers. Therefore collectors are a subset of the set of consumers. Collectors therefore share the traits of consumers.

My apologies though for venturing into set theory which is a subset of mathematics. I know many of you individuals in the legal field went into law because math isn't your strong point. But numbers very often intrude into the real world, they really do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482478)
...every single collectibles market, be it art, comics, beenie babies, guns, antiques, or sports cards, prefers and values older and earlier to newer. It's been that way for centuries. Card dealers didn't come up with it, as it predates cards. There is obviously more to it than marketing.

If your position is true, that high number cards' perceived scarcity was the reason for collectors preferring the earliest, then this phenomenon would be limited to sports cards. But it's not. It is universal in collecting. If your argument about collecting mentality is based solely on a scenario unique to baseball cards, and begins in 1952, you have already missed the mark. Collectors preferring the earliest pre-dates the very existence of sports cards.
I won't ask you for your "source" because that's absolute, unmitigated nonsense that can be dismissed with one or two quick counter examples.

The very oldest semi-organized field of collecting may be that for coins. Coin collecting predates the Roman Empire. The coins most prized by collectors are those which best combine scarcity and aesthetic appeal. Those coins are rarely the oldest. For example, coins picturing the Emperor Decius postdate those picturing the Emperor Tiberius by nearly 250 years but Decius coins are more highly prized because they're rarer.

And in the art world it's not a painter's earliest pictures that fetch the biggest bucks; it's his best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482478)
Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first cards were more rare, or was it because idiot collectors were told they should cost more? You can't have it both ways.
Actually he can. It may come as a surprise to you, but those two factors can go hand-in-hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482478)
Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first caAll you are doing is trying to rationize why you prefer the cards you do. And you have to do it by denigrating the way others collect.
After your long-winded characterizing of collectors as those who inherently prize the old, you now have the gall to accuse another poster of denigrating the way others collect? What about all those collectors snapping up the new 2025 releases of sports cards? You've implied that they're not proper collectors because they're not going after the oldest.

Incidentally the word is "rationalize". Yes, yes, I make mistakes too. But at least I have sufficient consideration for my fellow posters to read over my posts with a view to editing out any mistakes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482478)
Further, as I explained to the not-so-sly fox....
Hey, despite your many and varied personal deficiencies, you too can have an impact (at least on this board)! How do you like my "new" old avatar which I'm resurrecting to better showcase the sly side of my character?

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...0fa17e98fe.jpg

;)

Balticfox 12-21-2024 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2482645)
I would argue there are a LOT more ungraded copies than people think.
I agree. I believe the number of ungraded cards in private collections still dwarves the number of graded specimens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482644)
Notable combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts from the set:

Short Prints:
Satchel Paige 279 (193 PSA)
Bob Feller 199 (156 PSA)
George Kell 148 (111 PSA)
Dom DiMaggio 171 (124 PSA)
Larry Doby 215 (162 PSA)

Non-SPs
Ted Williams 2202 (1471 PSA)
Babe Ruth 2328 (1595 PSA)
Joe DiMaggio 2246 (1501 PSA)
Jackie Robinson 2676 (1849 PSA)
Stan Musial 1968 (1339 PSA)
Actually, could you provide comparative numbers for the topps 1952 Mickey Mantle card to put the above figures into perspective?

:confused:

Snowman 12-21-2024 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2482667)
I agree. I believe the number of ungraded cards in private collections still dwarves the number of graded specimens.
Sure, for something like 1962 Topps Sandy Koufax, that's obviously true. But it's certainly not true for T206 Eddie Plank or even 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson.

The percentage of graded vs ungraded copies of any particular card is largely a function of its value. The number of ungraded T206 Wagners still floating around is likely very close to zero these days. Perhaps there are one or three yet to be discovered, but the likelihood that there are dozens of them sitting around in attics is almost certainly zero.

There are still some collectors out there who, as a point of pride or preference, like to keep their prized cards like 52 Mantles and 48 Leaf Paiges raw, but there aren't very many of them left in terms of percentage of the population. And every time those cards come to market, they still get graded (or regraded). And any time you have a vintage card that is so valuable that it must be graded regardless of condition in order for it to be transactable on the market for anything other than pennies on the dollar of its true value, you can be pretty sure that the pop reports for that card reflect something close to it's true population, if not slightly exaggerating it due to resubmissions (which are MUCH higher than most people here realize). So this would work for something like estimating the true population for 52 Mantles, but definitely not for estimating the 53 Mantle population (there are other sampling techniques we could use to estimate that, but that's another discussion and one I'd prefer not to get into here).

And while yes, I agree with those who say there are still plenty of 52 Mantles out there to be graded, the reality is that those numbers are dwarfed by the number of copies that are/were cracked and resubmitted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2482667)
Actually, could you provide comparative numbers for the topps 1952 Mickey Mantle card to put the above figures into perspective?

:confused:
1952 Topps Mickey Mantle = 2863 total pop (2040 PSA, 673 SGC, 147 BVG, 3 CGC)

The 52 Topps Mantle likely has a very similar print run as the 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson. Maybe 10% or so higher at most.

OhioLawyerF5 12-21-2024 07:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2482665)
I brought out Adam Smith and P.T. Barnum. Who more do you want? Taylor Swift? I'm happier to leave her in your corner.

And had not my contention been intrinsically sound, you wouldn't have been immediately compelled to simply obfuscate by calling upon my "sources".



Oh?! Here. Let me give you a quick lesson in both logic and set theory. Only some consumers are also collectors. But all collectors are nonetheless consumers. Therefore collectors are a subset of the set of consumers. Collectors therefore share the traits of consumers.

My apologies though for venturing into set theory which is a subset of mathematics. I know many of you individuals in the legal field went into law because math isn't your strong point. But numbers very often intrude into the real world, they really do.



I won't ask you for your "source" because that's absolute, unmitigated nonsense that can be dismissed with one or two quick counter examples.

The very oldest semi-organized field of collecting may be that for coins. Coin collecting predates the Roman Empire. The coins most prized by collectors are those which best combine scarcity and aesthetic appeal. Those coins are rarely the oldest. For example, coins picturing the Emperor Decius postdate those picturing the Emperor Tiberius by nearly 250 years but Decius coins are more highly prized because they're rarer.

And in the art world it's not a painter's earliest pictures that fetch the biggest bucks, it's his best.



Actually he can. It may come as a surprise to you, but those two factors can go hand-in-hand.



After your long-winded characterizing of collectors as those who inherently prize the old, you now have the gall to accuse another poster of denigrating the way others collect? What about all those collectors snapping up the new 2025 releases of sports cards? You've implied that they're not proper collectors because they're not going after the oldest.

Incidentally the word is "rationalize". Yes, yes, I make mistakes too. But at least I have sufficient consideration for my fellow posters to read over my posts with a view to editing out any mistakes.



Hey, despite your many and varied personal deficiencies, you too can have an impact (at least on this board)! How do you like my "new" old avatar which I'm resurrecting to better showcase the sly side of my character?

https://hosting.photobucket.com/85c5...0fa17e98fe.jpg

;)
404 Error: Logic not found

Case in point, I never denigrated people who do not collect the earliest. If you knew anything about me, you'd know I don't collect the earliest. My argument was just that you can't support your assertion that collectors like rookies because dealers duped them into it. And I've been right all along. In all your walls of text, you've yet to even attempt to prove that claim. You keep making irrelevant arguments using poor logic about statements I made, all while missing the point.

I guess I'll just wait for you to produce literally any evidence to support your claim. But I won't hold my breath.

By the way, since it's clear it went over your head, "[citation needed]" is a meme based in wikipedia, meaning you have posted something without supporting evidence.

Peter_Spaeth 12-21-2024 09:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482676)
Sure, for something like 1962 Topps Sandy Koufax, that's obviously true. But it's certainly not true for T206 Eddie Plank or even 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson.

The percentage of graded vs ungraded copies of any particular card is largely a function of its value. The number of ungraded T206 Wagners still floating around is likely very close to zero these days. Perhaps there are one or three yet to be discovered, but the likelihood that there are dozens of them sitting around in attics is almost certainly zero.

There are still some collectors out there who, as a point of pride or preference, like to keep their prized cards like 52 Mantles and 48 Leaf Paiges raw, but there aren't very many of them left in terms of percentage of the population. And every time those cards come to market, they still get graded (or regraded). And any time you have a vintage card that is so valuable that it must be graded regardless of condition in order for it to be transactable on the market for anything other than pennies on the dollar of its true value, you can be pretty sure that the pop reports for that card reflect something close to it's true population, if not slightly exaggerating it due to resubmissions (which are MUCH higher than most people here realize). So this would work for something like estimating the true population for 52 Mantles, but definitely not for estimating the 53 Mantle population (there are other sampling techniques we could use to estimate that, but that's another discussion and one I'd prefer not to get into here).

And while yes, I agree with those who say there are still plenty of 52 Mantles out there to be graded, the reality is that those numbers are dwarfed by the number of copies that are/were cracked and resubmitted.



1952 Topps Mickey Mantle = 2863 total pop (2040 PSA, 673 SGC, 147 BVG, 3 CGC)

The 52 Topps Mantle likely has a very similar print run as the 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson. Maybe 10% or so higher at most.
After three and a half decades of grading, IMO this romantic notion of countless pristine raw collections in the hands of mostly unknown old timers is largely a myth.

Pat R 12-21-2024 09:40 AM
1 Attachment(s)
All of the factual evidence that I've seen shows the short print distribution in states that border Canada west of Pennsylvania.

I have posted this ad before from a May 12 1949 Spokane Washington newspaper. The ad states 6 cards in a pack and that's how many cards were in the packs in the Rosen short print find from Michigan all of the evidence on the first series is 5 cards in a pack.

Attachment 644469

tjisonline 12-21-2024 04:46 PM
My guess..

Taking all the crack and resubs into account, more likely the true number of graded 1952T Mick's are closer to the number of 52T Jackie graded (1968) than the current 2862. …and the true number of 1952 T jackie cards graded are prob closer to Bobby Thompson's 1175 than 1968 (as his card isn’t being cracked much).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482676)
Sure, for something like 1962 Topps Sandy Koufax, that's obviously true. But it's certainly not true for T206 Eddie Plank or even 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson.

The percentage of graded vs ungraded copies of any particular card is largely a function of its value.

And while yes, I agree with those who say there are still plenty of 52 Mantles out there to be graded, the reality is that those numbers are dwarfed by the number of copies that are/were cracked and resubmitted.



1952 Topps Mickey Mantle = 2863 total pop (2040 PSA, 673 SGC, 147 BVG, 3 CGC)

The 52 Topps Mantle likely has a very similar print run as the 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson. Maybe 10% or so higher at most.

Aquarian Sports Cards 12-21-2024 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482646)
I would argue that getting two raw Paiges to grade graduates to you at least medium potatoes land.

LOL so I got that going for me, which is nice.

raulus 12-21-2024 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2482861)
LOL so I got that going for me, which is nice.
Time to put this testimonial on your marketing materials. “Certified medium potatoes!”

Aquarian Sports Cards 12-21-2024 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raulus (Post 2482870)
Time to put this testimonial on your marketing materials. “Certified medium potatoes!”
I actually laughed out loud.

Balticfox 12-22-2024 01:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482687)
404 Error: Logic not found
Neither is common sense in your case. Have you ever even opened a Logic textbook? You know, one with basic syllogisms such as (-A ----> A) ----> A .

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482687)
Case in point, I never denigrated people who do not collect the earliest.
But you did say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482415)
Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers.... It's literally human nature.
And now you're even offering yourself up as yet another counter example!

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482415)
If you knew anything about me, you'd know I don't collect the earliest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482415)
My argument was just that you can't support your assertion that collectors like rookies because dealers duped them into it.
My support comes from the fact that both the man on the street and newbie collectors are bewildered at all the fuss regarding rookie cards. Even my old childhood collecting buddy wondered decades later why rookie cards fetched more collecting interest than say the card from the player's best year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482415)
And I've been right all along.
Only in your dreams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482415)
In all your walls of text, you've yet to even attempt to prove that claim. You keep making irrelevant arguments using poor logic about statements I made....
Were you any kind of logician, you'd know that positive assertions border on impossible to prove. But negative assertions can be disproven with one simple counter example.

For example, I provided not just one but several counter examples to your assertion that collectors naturally prefer the old.

Moreover you argued that collectors are a set distinct from consumers. This is nonsense since collectors are nonetheless a subset of consumers (and thus influenced by marketing).

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5 (Post 2482415)
By the way, since it's clear it went over your head, "[citation needed]" is a meme based in wikipedia, meaning you have posted something without supporting evidence.
Sorry. I never claimed omniscience. Only common sense.

:p

samosa4u 12-22-2024 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2482608)
This is the legend and lore that I love around this set. First off, yes, skip numbered, all LEAF sets were except for the 1948 Football offering.

As far as the pack assortment and distribution of cards. This was not modern printing, there was not an order that things came off the press, these cards were printed, cut, and placed into packs by hand. Then the boxes were packed randomly by hand. It would be like taking 40 decks of cards, throwing them in the air and trying to play blackjack guessing when you would hit 21.
Makes sense. This was a product of the 40s and everything back then was so different. A person could've purchased five boxes and pulled maybe one Paige and another guy could've pulled five Paiges in one box!! Rosen was lucky to have even found those boxes, however, they were obviously not the best ones!

Quote:
Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2482658)
100% right, Peterson was not short printed, but, that variation represents a 2nd printing of the first run of cards that had changes made to the printing plates making them true variations. I have side by side comparisons in my book but essentially the late printing of the main 49 card have both subtractions and additions to the printing plates which create a variant version of those non short printed cards. For those who run down the rabbit hole, like I did, this variation would equate to higher value on a lower population of variant cards. SO, a blue hat DiMaggio should be worth more than a black hat, same for a red hat Musial or a blue hat Jackie. But that is probably an argument for another thread! Thanks for the numbers!
This is interesting and I remember having a few discussions on here about this subject during the pandemic. How do you know that the blue hats were not a first printing instead ?? Also, do you have any idea why Leaf decided to make these changes ?? I was never in the printing industry, but I do have a basic understanding of CMYK printing. If they had rolled the black ink on top of the blue hat, then it would've given it its 3D shaded look (like the way most of them look like), but for some reason, Leaf decided to leave the black ink off the hat during that particular print-run, and again, I have no idea why they did this. Aesthetic reasons ?? Maybe trying to save black ink ?? :D

And I gotta' get your book, man !! :cool:

yanks87 12-22-2024 06:22 PM
This is interesting and I remember having a few discussions on here about this subject during the pandemic. How do you know that the blue hats were not a first printing instead ?? Also, do you have any idea why Leaf decided to make these changes ?? I was never in the printing industry, but I do have a basic understanding of CMYK printing. If they had rolled the black ink on top of the blue hat, then it would've given it its 3D shaded look (like the way most of them look like), but for some reason, Leaf decided to leave the black ink off the hat during that particular print-run, and again, I have no idea why they did this. Aesthetic reasons ?? Maybe trying to save black ink ?? :D

And I gotta' get your book, man !! :cool:[/QUOTE]

Several factors pointed at the BLACK HATS being first. The strongest voice was that of the collectors that were alive during the first run and buying the cards. TedZ was the Rosetta Stone on this and so many others. Also if you look at the cards from the Antique Roadshow link, those were collected in Massachusetts, which is where the cards were first distributed. All of those cards, and all of Ted's had black hats, the removal of the black plate details made the cards brighter, and I am guessing that was direct feedback from sales or consumers. They also added color bars to close off the backgrounds, so it was a multiple plate change, making it truly a variation! Exciting stuff, I can talk about it all day long.

samosa4u 12-23-2024 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482676)
Sure, for something like 1962 Topps Sandy Koufax, that's obviously true. But it's certainly not true for T206 Eddie Plank or even 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson.

The percentage of graded vs ungraded copies of any particular card is largely a function of its value. The number of ungraded T206 Wagners still floating around is likely very close to zero these days. Perhaps there are one or three yet to be discovered, but the likelihood that there are dozens of them sitting around in attics is almost certainly zero.

There are still some collectors out there who, as a point of pride or preference, like to keep their prized cards like 52 Mantles and 48 Leaf Paiges raw, but there aren't very many of them left in terms of percentage of the population. And every time those cards come to market, they still get graded (or regraded). And any time you have a vintage card that is so valuable that it must be graded regardless of condition in order for it to be transactable on the market for anything other than pennies on the dollar of its true value, you can be pretty sure that the pop reports for that card reflect something close to it's true population, if not slightly exaggerating it due to resubmissions (which are MUCH higher than most people here realize). So this would work for something like estimating the true population for 52 Mantles, but definitely not for estimating the 53 Mantle population (there are other sampling techniques we could use to estimate that, but that's another discussion and one I'd prefer not to get into here).

And while yes, I agree with those who say there are still plenty of 52 Mantles out there to be graded, the reality is that those numbers are dwarfed by the number of copies that are/were cracked and resubmitted.



1952 Topps Mickey Mantle = 2863 total pop (2040 PSA, 673 SGC, 147 BVG, 3 CGC)

The 52 Topps Mantle likely has a very similar print run as the 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson. Maybe 10% or so higher at most.
First of all, mad props to you for posting all this data. It's very helpful. Thank you.

Everything that you wrote above is a very interesting topic and worthy of its own thread. Here in Toronto, we have the biggest card show in the country twice a year. I have these American buddies of mine that always come down, and whenever they do, they ALWAYS get a 52T Mantle ... or two. I also have some dealer buddies who live in Quebec and they find this card every now and then as well. And this is just Canada I'm talking about !! Imagine the US ?? Wayyy bigger population and wayyy more cards !! In the next ten years or so, I believe that we’re gonna’ see hundreds and hundreds of these cards come outta’ boomer collections. It's gonna' be wild, bro.

Oh, and in the last REA auction, I was checking out the Leaf Jackies and noticed how most of the PSA-graded examples had new serial numbers. It's starting ... lol

samosa4u 12-23-2024 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent G. (Post 2482621)
Let’s be honest — the Leaf photo/image is absolutely hideous.
The set just screams Andy Warhol and I love it !! But the Paige card is fugly !! What the hell was Leaf thinking choosing this image below to make his card ?? The Bowman blows it outta' the water !!

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/7~wAA...yo/s-l1200.jpg

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/c...8/images/1.jpg

Balticfox 12-23-2024 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2483360)
Here in Toronto, we have the biggest card show in the country twice a year. I have these American buddies of mine that always come down, and whenever they do, they ALWAYS get a 52T Mantle ... or two. I also have some dealer buddies who live in Quebec and they find this card every now and then as well. And this is just Canada I'm talking about !! Imagine the US ?? Wayyy bigger population and wayyy more cards !! In the next ten years or so, I believe that we’re gonna’ see hundreds and hundreds of these cards come outta’ boomer collections. It's gonna' be wild, bro.

Oh, and in the last REA auction, I was checking out the Leaf Jackies and noticed how most of the PSA-graded examples had new serial numbers. It's starting ... lol
I agree! It's all about the demographics. Boomers fuelled both the card and comic collecting hobbies, and they've now begun to cash in before they cash out.

;)

LincolnVT 12-25-2024 08:56 AM
Leaf
 
1 Attachment(s)
Regardless, it’s a pretty cool set with some great cards.

Exhibitman 12-25-2024 09:17 AM
The first American Musial was the 1946 Sears postcard.

Peter_Spaeth 12-25-2024 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2483615)
The first American Musial was the 1946 Sears postcard.
I've seen mentions of it over the years but I don't think anyone has ever posted an image?

Brent G. 12-25-2024 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2483364)
The set just screams Andy Warhol and I love it !! But the Paige card is fugly !! What the hell was Leaf thinking choosing this image below to make his card ?? The Bowman blows it outta' the water !!

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/7~wAA...yo/s-l1200.jpg

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/c...8/images/1.jpg
Yeah pretty sure the subject shouldn’t have their eyes closed, and to me, the shading on the Jackie makes him look deformed.

samosa4u 12-25-2024 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LincolnVT (Post 2483613)
Regardless, it’s a pretty cool set with some great cards.
Wow !! Is that Jackie yours ??? Full-sized example with great centering !! Must be worth like 100k Usd.

I've seen some high-grade examples that are a bit "short" and it always scares me considering that Gary Moser used to love chopping these up (and maybe still does !!) :eek::eek:

GeoPoto 12-25-2024 01:39 PM
Thank you to Samosa for showing the Paige. Ugly, or not, beautiful example of a hard-to-get card. I'm guessing they had the right to use that image and Paige was a tough negotiator. Or hard to find.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

jason.1969 12-25-2024 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoPoto (Post 2483651)
Thank you to Samosa for showing the Paige. Ugly, or not, beautiful example of a hard-to-get card. I'm guessing they had the right to use that image and Paige was a tough negotiator. Or hard to find.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

Leaf had zero agreements in place with players or teams. You can read a ton about their approach to photos and images here. https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2024/...leaf-us-alone/

jason.1969 12-25-2024 03:15 PM
The discussions of Robinson, Musial, Spahn, and others only emphasize the fact that there is no universal definition of rookie card. In truth, there is not even a universal definition of “baseball card.” On one hand, the inherent subjectivity of it all creates ambiguity and chaos. On the other hand, it creates freedom and choice.

bbcard1 12-25-2024 05:42 PM
Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but having heard all the arguments, I think I would lean toward the Swell Gum Robinson.

Snowman 12-25-2024 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LincolnVT (Post 2483613)
Regardless, it’s a pretty cool set with some great cards.
That's a beautiful copy! Someone did a really nice job cleaning/conserving that one! Looks great.

Snowman 12-25-2024 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason.1969 (Post 2483675)
The discussions of Robinson, Musial, Spahn, and others only emphasize the fact that there is no universal definition of rookie card. In truth, there is not even a universal definition of “baseball card.” On one hand, the inherent subjectivity of it all creates ambiguity and chaos. On the other hand, it creates freedom and choice.
Well said. For me, a player's "rookie card" is the first card printed of a player that I'd actually want to own. So for Musial, that's the 48/49 Leaf, and for Pete Rose, that's the 1964 Topps.

LincolnVT 12-25-2024 08:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2483733)
That's a beautiful copy! Someone did a really nice job cleaning/conserving that one! Looks great.
Haha! It’s really sharp and nice to look at. Thanks. Nicer than most 7s, some 8s and even a 9 or 2 in my opinion. Tough condition card…like many in the set.

Snowman 12-26-2024 02:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LincolnVT (Post 2483743)
Haha! It’s really sharp and nice to look at. Thanks. Nicer than most 7s, some 8s and even a 9 or 2 in my opinion. Tough condition card…like many in the set.
I'd say it's nicer than most 8s and 9s. It's certainly nicer than every 8 or 9 with a cert number that starts with a 1 or 0, which probably accounts for 90% of the 8s and 9s out there. Almost all of which would probably regrade as 6s, 7s, or trimmed today.

samosa4u 12-26-2024 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2483733)
That's a beautiful copy! Someone did a really nice job cleaning/conserving that one! Looks great.
The scan is just very bright and so it looks that way. Here is a better one on the PSA website:

https://d1htnxwo4o0jhw.cloudfront.ne...4TLa6KqgaA.jpg

If you zoom in then you can see the oxidation, especially the top border.

It looks good.

BigfootIsReal 12-26-2024 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2483842)
The scan is just very bright and so it looks that way. Here is a better one on the PSA website:

https://d1htnxwo4o0jhw.cloudfront.ne...4TLa6KqgaA.jpg

If you zoom in then you can see the oxidation, especially the top border.

It looks good.
I might regret it, but I would trade straight across for my BB Portrait in a 5.5

calvindog 12-26-2024 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigfootIsReal (Post 2483859)
I might regret it, but I would trade straight across for my BB Portrait in a 5.5
That's very generous of you!

BigfootIsReal 12-26-2024 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by calvindog (Post 2483860)
That's very generous of you!
I think so too. A Rook for a second year card

calvindog 12-26-2024 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigfootIsReal (Post 2483863)
I think so too. A Rook for a second year card
Wait. I thought you sold that card on the BST?

BigfootIsReal 12-26-2024 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by calvindog (Post 2483871)
Wait. I thought you sold that card on the BST?
No one wants it

Gary Dunaier 12-28-2024 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 2483113)
This was a product of the 40s and everything back then was so different. A person could've purchased five boxes and pulled maybe one Paige and another guy could've pulled five Paiges in one box!!
It's like the famous Peanuts comic strip where Charlie Brown buys 500 packs of baseball cards in an unsuccessful quest to get his favorite player, Joe Shlabotnik, then Lucy buys one pack...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...94e79a61_c.jpg

Don Carpenter 08-17-2025 05:39 PM
1948-1949 LEAF Baseball Cards
 
The Leaf Baseball Card set, most often referred to as the 1948 Leaf Baseball Cards, has always befuddled me for the most part as why it is considered a 1948 issue in the first place and not a 1949 issue. Is this designation a Misnomer?
I just read the book “re:LEAF written by Brian Kappel. Who support this Premise.
Many wonder why the series is “skip numbered” listing the 1st series (49 cards) as well as the 2nd series (49 cards) (SP) referred to as “Single Print”, as its distribution was much less than the 1st series, in a quantity of 98 total with numbers skipping from 1 thru 168.
I believe the cards are a 1949 issue. I have looked and read all the backs of these 98 cards and 96 of them all reference player records inclusive of the 1948 season. 1948 is either called out or implied as statistics mentioned are for the 1948 season. There are 66 cards showing a copyright date of 1948 and 32 showing the date of 1949. Both the 1948 and 1949 dates appear on the 1st and 2nd series cards. My thinking is they started writing the narratives for the card backs after the 1948 season and about 2/3rds were written in 1948 while the remaining got written in early 1949 before going to printing and distribution in spring of 1949. The two cards that don’t reference the 1948 season are the #3 Babe Ruth and #70 Honus Wagner, both of whom were retired and in the Hall of Fame well before 1948.
So why on earth this is considered a 1948 issue is beyond my reasoning. I have a copy of the first “Card Collector’s Company of Franklin Square N.Y. Checklist book issued inclusive if the 1962 Topps set and in it, they refer to these cards as 1948 but their checklist only includes the 1st (49) cards and mentioned more cards had just been found. The second series single print cards. As Leaf was a Chicago company, I guess it took awhile for them to end up in New York state. Perhaps The Card Collectors Company set the direction for all others to follow calling the cards as a 1948 issue.
I think the fact that there are only (98) cards not counting the 3 variations within the 1-168 numbering from Joe DiMaggio to Phil Cavaretta means there were initially planned 4 series of (49) cards each for what would have been a total of 196 cards. The 7x7=49 sheets would have produced this if it was not for what appears to have been many quality problems and what is mentioned by the Card Collector’s company as legal difficulties. The set is the only issue that Joe DiMaggio ever appeared as an active player post WWII except for the Callahan Hall of Fame series issued from 1950-56. There were no Bowman or early Topps issues so I bet Leaf had some exclusive rights to his gum card that may have carried as far as the 1960/61 Fleer Baseball Greats that never had Mr. DiMaggio. Leaf was still around at the time and did their 1960 set with two marbles in each pack instead of gum.
Some 20% of these cards are for the Chicago based White sox and Cubs and their card back narratives seem to have been written by a salty Chicago newspaper sportswriter most all in the same direct style. In would be interesting to somehow uncover who that was.
I believe the Leaf football issue of 98 cards was indeed a complete 1-98, 1948 issue as a summary review of their backs show reference to either NFL or college seasons of 1947 or before with card #91 of Leon Hart referencing a spring 1948 practice. I have not reviewed the backs of all 98 cards, however, like I have done with baseball issue. It is obvious to me that this football series of complete 98 cards proceeded with the baseball offering. The 1949 version of football cards look to end with skip numbers like baseball offering possibly with original plan for 196 cards that was cut short.
Lastly, I remember reading a long time ago that Leaf found that the album they offered on the back of some cards for 25 cents did not have the slots quite fit the cards and that they cut the width of later produced cards to allow them to better fit. Fact or myth it would be interesting to know how many of the cards were given the “A” for authentic but altered classification. I have two of these cards that are a little lean on published width too. There is such album that has been on eBay for some time now for about $4,000. The seller has told me there are 98 slots and they look to be the right size for the established card dimensions In any case the location of the Leaf Gum Company located at 1155 North Cicero Avenue in Chicago is long gone.
Don Carpente

yanks87 08-17-2025 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Carpenter (Post 2533456)
The Leaf Baseball Card set, most often referred to as the 1948 Leaf Baseball Cards, has always befuddled me for the most part as why it is considered a 1948 issue in the first place and not a 1949 issue. Is this designation a Misnomer?
I just read the book “re:LEAF written by Brian Kappel. Who support this Premise.
Many wonder why the series is “skip numbered” listing the 1st series (49 cards) as well as the 2nd series (49 cards) (SP) referred to as “Single Print”, as its distribution was much less than the 1st series, in a quantity of 98 total with numbers skipping from 1 thru 168.
I believe the cards are a 1949 issue. I have looked and read all the backs of these 98 cards and 96 of them all reference player records inclusive of the 1948 season. 1948 is either called out or implied as statistics mentioned are for the 1948 season. There are 66 cards showing a copyright date of 1948 and 32 showing the date of 1949. Both the 1948 and 1949 dates appear on the 1st and 2nd series cards. My thinking is they started writing the narratives for the card backs after the 1948 season and about 2/3rds were written in 1948 while the remaining got written in early 1949 before going to printing and distribution in spring of 1949. The two cards that don’t reference the 1948 season are the #3 Babe Ruth and #70 Honus Wagner, both of whom were retired and in the Hall of Fame well before 1948.
So why on earth this is considered a 1948 issue is beyond my reasoning. I have a copy of the first “Card Collector’s Company of Franklin Square N.Y. Checklist book issued inclusive if the 1962 Topps set and in it, they refer to these cards as 1948 but their checklist only includes the 1st (49) cards and mentioned more cards had just been found. The second series single print cards. As Leaf was a Chicago company, I guess it took awhile for them to end up in New York state. Perhaps The Card Collectors Company set the direction for all others to follow calling the cards as a 1948 issue.
I think the fact that there are only (98) cards not counting the 3 variations within the 1-168 numbering from Joe DiMaggio to Phil Cavaretta means there were initially planned 4 series of (49) cards each for what would have been a total of 196 cards. The 7x7=49 sheets would have produced this if it was not for what appears to have been many quality problems and what is mentioned by the Card Collector’s company as legal difficulties. The set is the only issue that Joe DiMaggio ever appeared as an active player post WWII except for the Callahan Hall of Fame series issued from 1950-56. There were no Bowman or early Topps issues so I bet Leaf had some exclusive rights to his gum card that may have carried as far as the 1960/61 Fleer Baseball Greats that never had Mr. DiMaggio. Leaf was still around at the time and did their 1960 set with two marbles in each pack instead of gum.
Some 20% of these cards are for the Chicago based White sox and Cubs and their card back narratives seem to have been written by a salty Chicago newspaper sportswriter most all in the same direct style. In would be interesting to somehow uncover who that was.
I believe the Leaf football issue of 98 cards was indeed a complete 1-98, 1948 issue as a summary review of their backs show reference to either NFL or college seasons of 1947 or before with card #91 of Leon Hart referencing a spring 1948 practice. I have not reviewed the backs of all 98 cards, however, like I have done with baseball issue. It is obvious to me that this football series of complete 98 cards proceeded with the baseball offering. The 1949 version of football cards look to end with skip numbers like baseball offering possibly with original plan for 196 cards that was cut short.
Lastly, I remember reading a long time ago that Leaf found that the album they offered on the back of some cards for 25 cents did not have the slots quite fit the cards and that they cut the width of later produced cards to allow them to better fit. Fact or myth it would be interesting to know how many of the cards were given the “A” for authentic but altered classification. I have two of these cards that are a little lean on published width too. There is such album that has been on eBay for some time now for about $4,000. The seller has told me there are 98 slots and they look to be the right size for the established card dimensions In any case the location of the Leaf Gum Company located at 1155 North Cicero Avenue in Chicago is long gone.
Don Carpente
Don, glad you read the book! If you reference back to the sales flyer that I included from the lawsuit is confirms that the backs were written by sports writers, and it also says that the set was initially intended to be over 300 cards. Sol Leaf didn't believe in paying athletes for use of their likeness, so DiMaggio's presence in the set was nothing more than putting a "name" in there to be a draw to legitimize the offering. You are correct about the 1948 football being "true" numbered, as the 1949 set also has 98 cards, though they are skip numbered. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line, I love talking LEAF!

Jewish-collector 08-17-2025 08:18 PM
Good discussion !!!

Exhibitman 08-17-2025 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Carpenter (Post 2533456)
The set is the only issue that Joe DiMaggio ever appeared as an active player post WWII except for the Callahan Hall of Fame series issued from 1950-56.
--Exhibit salutations (and 1947-51 regular issue)
--1947-49 Aarco issues (Bond Bread, square corners, 'exhibit')
--Sports Exchange W603
--R346 Blue Tint
--Swell Sports Thrills
--R302-2 MP & Co.
--1951 Berk Ross

And his Callahan was issued in 1954 as part of that year's update, and is a SP.

But other than that...

yanks87 08-17-2025 08:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2533497)
--Exhibit salutations (and 1947-51 regular issue)
--1947-49 Aarco issues (Bond Bread, square corners, 'exhibit')
--Sports Exchange W603
--R346 Blue Tint
--Swell Sports Thrills
--R302-2 MP & Co.
--1951 Berk Ross

And his Callahan was issued in 1954 as part of that year's update, and is a SP.

But other than that...
1952 Berk Ross as well right?!

whiteymet 08-18-2025 02:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2533497)
--Exhibit salutations (and 1947-51 regular issue)
--1947-49 Aarco issues (Bond Bread, square corners, 'exhibit')
--Sports Exchange W603
--R346 Blue Tint
--Swell Sports Thrills
--R302-2 MP & Co.
--1951 Berk Ross

And his Callahan was issued in 1954 as part of that year's update, and is a SP.

But other than that...
Adam:

Don't forget the 1955 Canadian Exhibits. DiMaggio is in that set also,

Yoda 08-18-2025 12:31 PM
If you buy into the Leaf being a '49 issue, I suppose that makes the '49 Bowman Jackie's rookie card as well. Maybe?

Exhibitman 08-18-2025 10:22 PM
Cards as an active player, guys.

John, yes it does.

premiercardcollectors 08-19-2025 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2533497)
--Exhibit salutations (and 1947-51 regular issue)
--1947-49 Aarco issues (Bond Bread, square corners, 'exhibit')
--Sports Exchange W603
--R346 Blue Tint
--Swell Sports Thrills
--R302-2 MP & Co.
--1951 Berk Ross

And his Callahan was issued in 1954 as part of that year's update, and is a SP.

But other than that...
DiMaggio is also in the 46-47 Propogandas Montiel set


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:48 PM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page