W555 Date of Issue (a hypothesis)

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff S

Right on the heels of E102 being re-dated from 1908 to 1910, I believe that the same ought to be done with W555.

First of all, I'd like to note that I have very little information about team identification, which was a major issue in the E102 re-dating. If anyone has any of these cards with teams that might contradict or confirm what I suggest, please let me know. (And thanks to FKW, whose page has some of the cards listed with team names.)

W555 should be considered a 1909-1910 issue. I am assuming that most of the players, if not all, are included as major leaguers (again--if I'm wrong, I've love to hear about it). There are several players listed in SCD 2003 who make 1907 an impossible date:

• Jimmy Austin -- began ML career in 1909
  
• Bob Bescher -- began ML career in Sept. 1908
  
• Ed Cicotte -- except for 3 appearances in 1905, began career in 1908
  
• Harry Coveleski -- pitched 4 games and 6 games in 1907 and 1908, respectively; was a regular in 1909
  
• Jim Delehanty -- the card says Detroit, but he wasn't traded there until half-way through the 1909 season.
  
• Josh Devore -- had 6 ABs in 1908, 28 in '09, was not a regular until 1910.
  
• Bull Durham -- odd case: pitched a total of 29 innings in his career; my guess is that whatever got him into the T206 set as a Giant probably got him into this set, too. Team confirmation as NY-N would indicate 1908-1909.
  
• Russ Ford -- pitched three innings in 1909, otherwise was not a regular until 1910.
  
• Joe Lake -- began ML career in 1908 (he was 9-22!)
  
• Amby McConnell -- began ML career in 1908
  
• Chief Meyers -- began ML career in 1909
  
• Fred Snodgrass -- played only 6 games in '08, 28 games in '09, regular in 1910.
  
• Hippo Vaughn -- aside from 2.1 innings in 1908, didn't begin career until 1910.
  

On or two of these guys might be explained by some odd circumstance (got injured or sent down unexpectedly before the season started), but that list makes up 20% of the known players.

Thanks to FKW's site, I can confirm Devore & McConnell are listed with teams they did not play with until 1908.

Several players (Bransfield, Dygert, Hartsel, Kleinow, Nicholls, Pastorius, Phillippe) did not play (or barely played) beyond the end of the 1910 season. (As is the case, of course, with Addie Joss, though he could've appeared in a post-1910 set.) Nicholls is listed in SCD as "Nichols," with no first name--I'm assuming it's Simon Nicholls, who was also in the T206 set, and was a regular in '07 and '08, and played sparingly in '09.

Both Pastorius and Nicholls suggest it is a 1909 set: Nicholls did not have an at-bat in 1910; Pastorius didn't play in 1910 after a disappointing 1909 season.

Furthermore, Hinchman is listed with Cleveland, with whom he played from 1907-1909. He did not play in the majors from 1910-1914.

An added piece of evidence--much less solid--the Cobb is pictured in the SCD guide, and is the same image as in the E98 set. To me, he looks older in the E98 image than he does on the A.C. Dietsche Postcards, which are copyrighted 1907.

So, you HOF rookie collectors: chaos has struck again! Now if you want a Ty Cobb rookie (and postcards won't do), you can choose from any number of cards. Same goes for Eddie Collins.

Interestingly, I just noticed that Brett Domue's HOF checklist page lists some (but not all) of the W555's as "1907-1910" W555s.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

That's all very interesting, but I only asked for directions to the rest room.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Williams

Thanks for the info!

[Archive]

Posted By: jeff s

you just go back to your photographs. you can take them with you to the restroom, i'm sure.

oh, and it's down the hall, second door on your left.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Hey Jeff,
That is great work. Very commendable !! Thank You. I really like the fact that there is still credible evidence that can change the hobby, if only a little bit, after all of the years of collecting. Good job..I wonder if Mr.Lemke is reading this and what a response to this might be. If it is definitive, and team changes etc..are, then I feel the catalogue/price guides/reference manuals should be changed in future editions...such as is with the M101's too..(thanks Andy)..do I see a grass roots thing going here? .......best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Wayne Grove

The Beckett Almanac of Baseball Cards and Collectibles #7 has this set (W555) listed as 1910 and has for a few years know. With the information given above it is possible that it could have been issued in 1909, however our research had indicated 1910 as the most probable year or issue. It is possible that it was issued over a two year span of 1909-1910. Keep digging, these kind of posts and the one about the T231 are what keeps me reading this board.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Wayne,

Are you planning to change the dates of the Sporting News issues to 1916 & 1917?

[Archive]

Posted By: Wayne Grove

Yes, we have already changed it in our data base.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

Andy is right about the issue date of the m101-5s, as was discussed in another thread some time back. Still, I believe there is evidence that the m101-4s may also have been issued in 1916, perhaps later in the year as an "update" set. I do not have my catalogues/ "big books" with me at work, but I believe the Bucyreus (sp?) sheet contains the entire m101-4 set on one sheet that is plainly and expressly marked 1916. I have not seen that sheet to verify whether it does in fact show m101-4s or 5s, but if the former, then doesn't that imply an issue date of 1916 for m101-4?
regards...........Todd

[Archive]

Posted By: Wayne Grove

If anyone has a scan or photo of the sheet please send it. Our research is never finished so any theories or evidence is always welcome not only with this set put any others that might be in question.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Eichelkraut (goudeyhunter)

I did the same homework you did a couple of days ago, and came up with similar results.
This set has the two following possibilities:

1. The set was issued during multiple years, possibly beginning in 1907. Because certain players did not appear in the majors until 1909 however (Austin, Ford, and Meyers), the cards would have had to have been distributed in 1909 or later as well. In a timeframe infamous for releasing sets over a multi-year length, this set possibly ranges from 1907-1909 or 1910. I would give this theory a low probability of having occured.

2. The more likely date of issue here is mid to late 1909, and possibly early 1910. As two players in this set only appeared until 1909 (Durham and Pastorius) and three players began their careers the same year (Austin, Ford, Meyers), this seems to be a popular choice. The popularity of baseball card distribution amongst products in 1909 also supports this date, and not the multi-year distribution theory, for which hardly any baseball cards of this size were produced in 1907 or 1908. I'd put a vey high probability that this set was produced in late 1909, possibly early 1910.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

Thanks for the research presentations on W555; we'll make appropriate changes to the 2004 Standard Catalog. I'm not as inclined to make a move on M101-4, M101-5, however. Our microfilms of TSN go back only to June, 1916, so I can't check 1915, but in the Aug. 31, 1916, issue, there begins a series of coupons to mail in for 10-card series (for 5 cents in stamps). The checklists are clearly (has H.D. Baird, doesn't have Frank Chance) for M101-4, NOT M101-5. I guess perusal of 1915 TSNs would be in order.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Bob,

How could the M101-5 set be from 1915 if:

1.) There are no Federal League players in the Set
2.) Mordecai Brown and Ed Roush are in the set
3.) Both players were in the Federal League in 1915

Maybe I am missing something. Based on your last post, and others, I would guess that both sets are 1916; maybe during the season, then after the season?

[Archive]

Posted By: harry

for some reason, I have always thought that the sets were issued at the end of their respective seasons. 1915 for M1015 and 1916 for M1014. I would think this would help explain most questions including the bucyrus sheet, which is definitely m1014 and states 1916 on it.

I believe that Joe Jackson is listed as a White Sox on both cards and he was not traded from Cleveland until the end of the 1915 season. I bet further research of team changes could help pinpoint it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

I have researched several of the players in M101-5, and there is no doubt that the set was not issued in 1915. Andy Baran pointed out several players who played in the federal league in 1915 yet who show up in M101-5 as playing for A.L. or N.L. teams that, research shows, they did not play for until 1916. Most of the movement from the federal league appears to have taken place in the early months of 1916, so it's not as though the Sporting News had knowledge of where the federal leaguers were going at the end of the 1915 season.
There are at least 10 cards from M101-5 that, because of their team designations, could not have been issued in 1915. Case in point--Germany Schaeffer, who is captioned as playing for "New York Amer". The Baseball Encyclopedia says he was acquired by the Yankees for cash from Newark of the Fed League on February 10, 1916. So no way was that card issued in 1915. Curiously, Schaeffer played in exactly one game for the Yanks- that in 1916 and he either did not get an AB or was hit by pitch (batting record shows 0 ABs). He is not found in the M101-4 set, which Mr. Lemke states would have been available in August, 1916. So somewhere between February and August, 1916, a change was made in the sets to replace certain players with others. The "why then?" remains a mystery to me.
regards...........Todd

[Archive]

Posted By: harry

that there is no way that the set was done in 1915.

Now, the only scenario that makes sense to me is an initial issue at the beginning of 1916 (M1015) and a follow up set in mid season to update (M1014). Seems odd, what other explanation could there be?

[Archive]

Posted By: John Wojak

If the M101-5 set is redated to 1916, then does that mean that the 1916 Collins-McCarthy could now be condsidered a rookie card for the Babe along with the M101-4 or 5 card?

[Archive]

Posted By: harry

It would seem that both would be rookie cards. I do remember seeing someone refer to the E135 set as being from 1917, but I do not know if they did any research on this date.

Any help out there?

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

Collins-McCarthy appears to have been issued in 1917 and is now listed as such by Beckett.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=153652&messageid=1029216286&lp=1032619651

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Mark Macrae has done research that unquestionable dates the E135 set to 1917.

[Archive]

Posted By: John Wojak

Sorry, I missed that - if Mark has dated the e135 set to 1917, not 1916, then you guys are absolutely right, it still would fall after M101-4/5.