[Exhibitman]

One of the problems inherent in this sort of analysis is that it is inductive: we generalize from specific items to the entire issue. That works to a limited extent when there are limited options. Ted's logic on the issues can be broken down as follows:

I collected the rounded corner, glossier, thicker cards from bags of bread in 1947.

I did not collect the square cornered cards on thinner stock from bags of bread in 1947.

Therefore, the latter were not produced in 1947.

You see the error? Putting it in a different context, I didn't collect 1972 Topps high numbers in 1972, not because they were not produced in 1972 but because I was seven and they weren't available in the two or three candy stores where my parents took me to buy cards in 1972. I got my first ones in 1977 when my aunt in DC sent me a shoebox full of cards she found in an antique store, and they were mostly 1972 Topps and mostly final series 1972 Topps (having multiple Carew, Traded and Awards cards in 1977 in my neighborhood in Encino CA in 1977, not a bad thing).

One thing I like about the hypothesis that Bond licensed the cards from Aarco rather than owning the IP on them is that it fits with the physical evidence that allows for other issues and variations that Aarco licensed, like the 2x sided perforated sheets that were made under the Elgee name. Similar to the many brand variations on the Mendelsohn cards in the 'teens.

Among the variations is the possibility that Bond specified what it wanted for its cards: rounded corners and a specific card stock and finish. My very first books were self-published before on-demand publishing existed, so I had to have them printed and then sell them myself at retail. I sat down with the printer and decided on the parameters of the product: the binding, the paper, etc. That's how printers know what to print. They produce proofs (the uncut cover proof from my first printed book is in a frame at my office), have the customers review them, and nail down the approved specs before they run the items. Printers can handle different stocks and finishes, so it seems reasonable that Aarco could make both cards that are intended for the bread bags and cards that are not, at the same approximate time, depending in the customer's desires. It also allows for the stock variation in the Festberg find: different specs. Rather than allowing for this possibility, Ted went with the exclusive conclusion he favored.

The Cooper thing is another inductive leap that never sat well with me. Cooper with Cincy, that's an anachronism for a 1947 card, but Cooper with NYG is not. An earlier potential does not rule out a later one, only vice versa does.

Also, I brought to Ted's attention that there are movie stars with the same rounded corner-different stock. He was surprised to hear this. Again, he never saw them so he was unaware of them. Understandable since we were just kids when we got our various product cards out of the bags. I never knew there were two editions of the Kellogg's ATG 3D cards, because I got mine from Danish Go Rounds (my mother's idea of a breakfast) in 1972 and had never seen the 1970 Rold Gold pretzel cards. Why? Because we didn't buy Rold Gold pretzels in 1970. Visual Panographics made both sets using the Xograph technology and licensed them to different companies at different times with just the copyright dates changed.

Now, before anyone leaps to Ted's defense because he isn't here to defend his positions himself and I didn't challenge him when he was alive, a word of explanation is in order. Ted was aggressively adamant about his analysis, and I (and other collectors who discussed it back in the day) did not consider it to be a worthwhile use of time and energy to battle with him over these rather arcane issues. When dealing with Ted, the least disruptive course was to inject facts when possible and not engage in the melees that invariably followed flat-out telling him he was wrong.

On the issue of the Standard Catalog, a bit of context may be useful. The catalog was put together by Bob Lemke using the work product of "principal contributors". Like me. Around 20 years ago, I got sick of the same BS in the Exhibit card listings year after year and Bob offered to let me try to fix it. The way Bob did it, pre-digital, was to send out a printout of the listing and you would annotate it and send it back. I fixed a lot of problems with the listings and added in a lot of variations, but my work was incomplete and sometimes inaccurate. That's the nature of the beast: we all try to build on and refine the work of our predecessors (shout out to Elwood "Woody" Scharf here). There was also a limit to what the editors of the catalog would or could fit into the header, so the catalog was not a place for nuanced discussions. Nobody who was willing to do the work knew anything more, so my version got into print and stayed in print. My work with the issues in my Exhibit book was partly done to better document and explain these cards. In other words, what has become 'canon' with collectors via the Standard Catalog is merely the collective work of collectors like me. It isn't fixed, it isn't divinely inspired, so it isn't the final word on any subject. There is only one final word on a subject, and we all know who has it: our wives.