Net54baseball.com Forums

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)
-   -   1948 Jackie Old Gold ... or is it '47?? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=356267)

Brent G. 12-18-2024 12:00 PM

1948 Jackie Old Gold ... or is it '47??
 
2 Attachment(s)
I just picked up this piece that I'd coveted since first seeing it a few months back. The fact that one of the best all-around athletes of all time was hocking cigs just fascinates me.

I'm new to this history, but while this item is considered a '48 by the graders, because Jackie's age is listed on the back as 28, and as he was born on 1/31/19, I've seen it theorized that this actually came out in '47.

Any experts care to provide your thoughts? Thank you!

nolemmings 12-18-2024 01:00 PM

They were released in 1947
 
https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1601622

Brent G. 12-18-2024 01:03 PM

Outstanding info -- thanks, Todd!

nolemmings 12-18-2024 01:17 PM

Further evidence
 
Although perhaps not an actual ad, this blurb from the Omaha Star on 10/31/1947 contains the exact same text found on the card and a cropped version of the photo:
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...47_10_31_3.jpg

Brent G. 12-18-2024 02:55 PM

Todd, your response led me to that same member's research on the Bond Bread cards, which indicates most of those came out 1948-50, after that first portrait/facsimile auto card. It seems this Old Gold was Jackie's second-ever card? Were there ever any estimated production figures?

Bored5000 12-18-2024 09:41 PM

With how much everything Jackie has gone up in recent years, the two Old Gold card still seem so undervalued.

Snowman 12-19-2024 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bored5000 (Post 2482222)
With how much everything Jackie has gone up in recent years, the two Old Gold card still seem so undervalued.

That's because most collectors consider it to be a novelty item, not a baseball card.

Lucas00 12-19-2024 02:35 AM

No doubt wearing a zipper uniform on the card. According to several uniform Databases, zippers weren't worn in 1947. But a few photos I've found from 47 look like zippers while many look like buttons. So I'm really not sure.

I also think the wording would likely be different if it was from 1947. It reads as "Brach Rickey signed Jackie to the dodgers in early 1947". You would think they wouldn't use a year in the past tense if it was from the same year, they would "just say early/earlier this year".

My two cents. But I think the key lyes with proper uniform research.

Brent G. 12-19-2024 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucas00 (Post 2482235)
No doubt wearing a zipper uniform on the card. According to several uniform Databases, zippers weren't worn in 1947. But a few photos I've found from 47 look like zippers while many look like buttons. So I'm really not sure.

I also think the wording would likely be different if it was from 1947. It reads as "Brach Rickey signed Jackie to the dodgers in early 1947". You would think they wouldn't use a year in the past tense if it was from the same year, they would "just say early/earlier this year".

My two cents. But I think the key lyes with proper uniform research.

There's some weird writing overall. They also said he went to Cal but he went to UCLA; "President Rickey" was an interesting choice.

nolemmings 12-19-2024 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucas00 (Post 2482235)
No doubt wearing a zipper uniform on the card. According to several uniform Databases, zippers weren't worn in 1947. But a few photos I've found from 47 look like zippers while many look like buttons. So I'm really not sure.

I also think the wording would likely be different if it was from 1947. It reads as "Brach Rickey signed Jackie to the dodgers in early 1947". You would think they wouldn't use a year in the past tense if it was from the same year, they would "just say early/earlier this year".

My two cents. But I think the key lyes with proper uniform research.

Given that we have a newspaper entry from 1947 that uses the exact same language and shows the same uniform, it seems clear the cards were at least ready for printing in that year, and it is not a stretch they would have been issued around the time of the Dodgers' World series appearance that season.

Brent G. 12-19-2024 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482230)
That's because most collectors consider it to be a novelty item, not a baseball card.

That's an interesting stance -- small rectangular cardboard, photo of athlete, bio on back ... not sure what else to call it.

Snapolit1 12-19-2024 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent G. (Post 2482263)
That's an interesting stance -- small rectangular cardboard, photo of athlete, bio on back ... not sure what else to call it.

Translation: if it's not the sort of thing I collect, it's not a card.

Brent G. 12-19-2024 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snapolit1 (Post 2482290)
Translation: if it's not the sort of thing I collect, it's not a card.

Well said, sir.

Bored5000 12-19-2024 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2482230)
That's because most collectors consider it to be a novelty item, not a baseball card.

How do you know what "most collectors" consider it to be? Lots of postcards and similar items go for huge money.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:21 PM.