Originally Posted by Rare Stuff (Post 2361310)

Proof of the Leaf being a 1949 issue. Check out my interview, he opened packs in 1949. Written in his diary, cards shown and premiums are pack fresh.
https://youtu.be/GJWWsd4VZQw

Originally Posted by ullmandds (Post 2361316)

very cool

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2288383)

Speaking of the uncut sheet, if it is real, it confirms the wholesale changes that were made to update the cards. The only one that is a little bit of a head scratcher is the population of the Aberson sleeve variations.

In the image, it shows the 3 "accepted" variations:
Aberson - Short Sleeve PSA/SGC Pop: 95/29 - 124 total
Peterson - Dark Cap PSA/SGC Pop: 144/16 - 160 total
Hermanski* - Full Name PSA/SGC Pop: 231/97 - 328 total

The Variation populations on these:
Aberson - Long Sleeve PSA/SGC Pop: 154/24 - 178 total
Peterson - Red Cap PSA/SGC Pop: 86/24 - 110 total
Hermansk* - Missing I PSA/SGC Pop: 97/4 - 101 total

In theory the total number of Aberson short sleeve cards should be higher than the long sleeve, but from the looks of it, older grades did not delineate between the two versions for both grading houses. I put the * on Hermanski as it really falls into the category of "inking error" to me. If the numbers tell the story, there is a slightly smaller population of the second printing, but if you search the bigger cards, the variations seem to be much more rare than 30%. On a quick visual search of Heritage past sales, 156 Jackie Robinson's sold (not accounting for doubles) only 17 are from the second printing (no hat detail, color bar connecting background to name plate). That to me shows rarity in variation.

The research continues.

Originally Posted by jaisonline (Post 2387805)

Just picked up my first Leaf Jackie Robinson after researching over a year. Looked at many past auctions. I also saw the 2nd plate version (no cap detail / color bright blue) far less than the 1st

Originally Posted by ngrow9 (Post 2428685)

Bumping this thread as I am in the process of reviewing the original court documents from the Bowman v. Leaf lawsuit filed in 1949 in Chicago. Leaf's filings in the case shed definitive light on some of the questions raised here.

For instance, the company conclusively states in court filings that its baseball product was first released to the public in March 1949. So the cards were not released in 1948 despite copyright dates to the contrary. Moreover, they were first released in Boston, and by May had reached roughly 80% of the 48 states. So this was a national, not regional, release.

Leaf released its first football set in fall of 1948. It used the same wrappers for its initial run of 1949 baseball cards. So the "All Star Pictures" wrapper Ted Z. posted earlier in the thread is the original baseball wrapper. The company specifically noted it used the same wrapper for both football and baseball cards in its March 1949 case filing. The wrapper with the "All Star Baseball" wording must have come later. While the wording of the wrappers do not appear to have been directly at issue in the litigation, Bowman did contest the similar manner in which Leaf generally marketed its product (both sold packs of 5 cards and 3 sticks of gum for 5 cents each).

Leaf released its Knock Out boxing set in early 1949, followed shortly after by a basketball set.

Leaf originally publicized its intent to release a 300 card baseball set in 1949.

Bowman eventually filed a second case in Philadelphia after failing to secure an injunction stopping Leaf from distributing its product in the Chicago case. This is the court order some have referenced here. Leaf was actually not a party to that case, it was filed only against Philadelphia area distributors and sellers of the Leaf product. So reports that Leaf cards have been disproportionately found in the Midwest likely suggest that east coast distribution was curtailed by the second lawsuit. But cards were distributed on the east coast initially.

Leaf and Bowman continued to litigate in Chicago through 1949, eventually culminating in the aforementioned settlement agreement in March 1950, under which Leaf agreed to leave the field through at least 1951.

I'm reviewing these materials as research for a book on the legal history of the baseball card industry, one that will hopefully be of interest to many here.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2428687)

Well, sign me up to order a copy of this book once its available :)

The boxing set has long been said to have been released twice, once in 1948 and once in 1949 (reflecting the two backs), but the source for this claim seems to be memories rather than evidentiary material.

Originally Posted by ngrow9 (Post 2428694)

Thanks! The book is still probably at least a couple years away, but I'll be sure to post about it when it's available.

The 1949 boxing release date came from Leaf's answer filed in court in March 1949, signed under oath by Marshall Leaf himself. So I would place a pretty high degree of confidence on that, although I guess it's always possible he was mistaken if the product actually came out in late December 48.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2428697)

In general, we really need more document based research; there's a ton of hobby myths that just are accepted as true because that's what X authority or Y authority said.

In my similar projects for pre-war boxing cards, I have found that what is said is usually not supported by documents from the period when they surface and something else is actually true. I have a lot more faith in primary source evidence than what people say at great remove from the events - I am not arguing against your finding here at all, just pointing out that it does not align with the longstanding hobby story about the boxing set. That's precisely why I love genuine primary source research being shared - it points to the truth instead.

Originally Posted by ngrow9 (Post 2428694)

Thanks! The book is still probably at least a couple years away, but I'll be sure to post about it when it's available.

The 1949 boxing release date came from Leaf's answer filed in court in March 1949, signed under oath by Marshall Leaf himself. So I would place a pretty high degree of confidence on that, although I guess it's always possible he was mistaken if the product actually came out in late December 48.

Originally Posted by ngrow9 (Post 2428685)

Bumping this thread as I am in the process of reviewing the original court documents from the Bowman v. Leaf lawsuit filed in 1949 in Chicago. Leaf's filings in the case shed definitive light on some of the questions raised here.

For instance, the company conclusively states in court filings that its baseball product was first released to the public in March 1949. So the cards were not released in 1948 despite copyright dates to the contrary. Moreover, they were first released in Boston, and by May had reached roughly 80% of the 48 states. So this was a national, not regional, release.

Leaf released its first football set in fall of 1948. It used the same wrappers for its initial run of 1949 baseball cards. So the "All Star Pictures" wrapper Ted Z. posted earlier in the thread is the original baseball wrapper. The company specifically noted it used the same wrapper for both football and baseball cards in its March 1949 case filing. The wrapper with the "All Star Baseball" wording must have come later. While the wording of the wrappers do not appear to have been directly at issue in the litigation, Bowman did contest the similar manner in which Leaf generally marketed its product (both sold packs of 5 cards and 3 sticks of gum for 5 cents each).

Leaf released its Knock Out boxing set in early 1949, followed shortly after by a basketball set.

Leaf originally publicized its intent to release a 300 card baseball set in 1949.

Bowman eventually filed a second case in Philadelphia after failing to secure an injunction stopping Leaf from distributing its product in the Chicago case. This is the court order some have referenced here. Leaf was actually not a party to that case, it was filed only against Philadelphia area distributors and sellers of the Leaf product. So reports that Leaf cards have been disproportionately found in the Midwest likely suggest that east coast distribution was curtailed by the second lawsuit. But cards were distributed on the east coast initially.

Leaf and Bowman continued to litigate in Chicago through 1949, eventually culminating in the aforementioned settlement agreement in March 1950, under which Leaf agreed to leave the field through at least 1951.

I'm reviewing these materials as research for a book on the legal history of the baseball card industry, one that will hopefully be of interest to many here.

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 2428715)

In an earlier post in this thread I posted a newspaper clipping from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle showing that the boxing cards came out in that area in mid December 1948 here it is again.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...bble%20Gum.jpg[/IMG]

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2428737)

Where were you able to find the court filings/litigation records? I am wrapping up a book specifically on Leaf and I wasn't able to find documentation on the Bowman suit? Most of the things that I found alluded to the fact that it was settled out of court.

It's interesting that Marshall was involved at all, being that he had just come back from the war, and Sol and Harry were still very much in charge of the company. If you are comfortable sharing any of your findings around the suit, I definitely would love to update that chapter to be accurate.

What I found to be the release order of the cards put Pirates first, Unnumbered, then Numbered (TedZ corroborated this), then Boxing as cited in the article, followed by the 1948 Football Issue, a March release of the Baseball cards carrying '48 and '49 copyrights, and then the 1949 issue of football and the smaller short print issue which was limited in it's distribution after the May injunction shutting down east coast distribution.

Any info you have, I would love to check out! Thanks for chiming in!

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2428737)

Where were you able to find the court filings/litigation records? I am wrapping up a book specifically on Leaf and I wasn't able to find documentation on the Bowman suit? Most of the things that I found alluded to the fact that it was settled out of court.

It's interesting that Marshall was involved at all, being that he had just come back from the war, and Sol and Harry were still very much in charge of the company. If you are comfortable sharing any of your findings around the suit, I definitely would love to update that chapter to be accurate.

What I found to be the release order of the cards put Pirates first, Unnumbered, then Numbered (TedZ corroborated this), then Boxing as cited in the article, followed by the 1948 Football Issue, a March release of the Baseball cards carrying '48 and '49 copyrights, and then the 1949 issue of football and the smaller short print issue which was limited in it's distribution after the May injunction shutting down east coast distribution.

Any info you have, I would love to check out! Thanks for chiming in!

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2428687)

Well, sign me up to order a copy of this book once its available :)

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 2428789)

The mention of a basketball set is interesting.
Maybe planned but never released because of the cost of the lawsuit or them getting out entirely.

I wonder if the copyright office would have anything on a planned but never released set?

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2428858)

I think the collecting community may need to give Nathaniel a HUGE pat on the back for uncovering definitive proof on the distribution of Leaf cards (listed in the complaint as March of 1949) as well as the outline of the settlement.

WELL DONE. This is the start of debunking some of the myths around this set, and checking the boxes of verifiable data.

I am STOKED.

Originally Posted by yanks87 (Post 2435071)

I wanted to take a minute and wrap up a couple things on this thread that I started 2 years ago.

Before I dive too far in, I do want to say thank you to all the folks who chimed in and collaborated with me on my research. It helped me finish up my reference book (re: LEAF - available on Amazon.com) as well as put to bed many of the myths around this iconic set. Specifically Nathaniel Grow for the last minute Hail Mary of a research Rosetta Stone, Steve Birmingham for his color insights and process thoughts, and of course the Legendary TedZ, as Han Solo said in The Force Awakens, "It's true, all of it." Thanks Ted for letting me pick your brain, and hopefully this will all get a heavenly thumbs up!

* 1949 Leaf Baseball Cards came out in early March of 1949, with the first truck leaving for Boston on or around March 12, 1949. Placing the Leaf cards in market before Bowman, but still very much in 1949.

* Leaf cards, all of them, were printed in house and there was at least 3 printings which yielded variations to the early printing. Kent Peterson is an example of this change, but it extends to more than 80% of the "Non-Short Print" 49 card series.

* There is a difference between printing plate variations and color variations. Leaf was printing on a press used for printing their candy packaging, since standardized ink colors didn't emerge until the late 1950's, the color variations are tied to the inks, not to the plates. Plate changes yield trackable differences in the cards that are not printing issues/errors.

* The agreement between Leaf and Bowman ensured Leaf would not produce cards until 1951, the next time they pushed out cards was 1960, and they were packaged with marbles, in order to avoid legal attention from Topps.

I go much deeper in the book, as well as side by side images of the variations, but I thought it would be good to go on the record as it were to tie off some of the loose ends. It is a fascinating set, and it has been an amazing research journey!

Originally Posted by JollyElm (Post 2436166)

That's a cool play on the title!!! Well done!!!

Good luck!!!