Posted By:
brian pThe points made by Patrick, Pete and Shammus are valid. Long ago I took the hint of Lipset in his article on this set in his Encylopedia and actually tried to find out if the artwork on the cards actually was representative of the the actual player. Because of the repetition of twenty of the same player attributions in the series B set, it makes it possible that 53 of the 99 cards in the set might actually have likenesses that correspond to the player listed on the card. What I found out, using only the Classic Baseball Cards book as a guide, was that about 2/3rd's of these 53 cards utilized artwork based directly (but only the head of the player) upon photographic images as seen in other card sets from the era. And the majority of the rest can be subjectively determined to represent the stated player based upon comparision of the photos and artwork (keeping in mind the consistent stylized renderings that were used throughout the set).
I have actually written an article about this set, but I just haven't gotten around to revising it--it has been sitting around for months. Having the VCBC in such a state of limbo sure hasn't inspired me to get my tookus in motion either.
Brian