Incorrect Dates attributed to Vintage Sets

[Archive]

Posted By: David Seaborn

Ted's post on another thread got me thinking. I've seen several messages here and there over the years about card sets having the wrong year(s) attributed to them. It would be great to have a thread to list some of these and try to get a general consensus as to which are indeed errors. I'll start with the ne Ted threw out there (thanks Ted)...

N162 Goodwin's set should probably be listed as 1889 instead of 1888.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

1933 Sports Kings is really 1934.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Keith Olbermann wrote an article in VCBC awhile ago - maybe even 10 years now - that made a compelling argument that the Mayo N300 set was issued in 1894 and not 1895 as listed. It was still listed as 1895 at least until a few years ago.

I'm not sure how the years are or were assigned, and even more important, what it would take to get the designation changed. I thought the article was pretty conclusive, myself.

I know Jay B has had a listing changed to add the Hofnlan card - is there a lot involved in that process?

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Hal Lewis had done some exhaustive research with the assistance of others and had conclusive evidence as to these issues:

1) There are no 1904 Fan Craze baseball cards, even though the "game" was copyrighted in 1904. All of the cards in BOTH league sets depict players on their 1906 teams.

2) The N28 Allen & Ginters set should be dated as an 1888 set and NOT an 1887 set, because Clarkson is shown in his Boston uniform, and he was not traded to Boston until 1888.

3) All of the M101-5 and M101-4 cards were printed in 1916, because the former Federal League players from 1915 are shown with their new 1916 teams, and these trades were not completed until 1916. Moreover, since there were constant changes in the M101-5 set and then a shift to printing the M101-4 set with subsequent constant changes, and because a Sporting News ad on April 16, 1916 advertises the M101-4 set (it mentions a player NOT in the M101-5 set)... these two sets had to have been printed within 2 -3 weeks of each other and probably distributed SIMALTANEOUSLY to the public at season's start.

4) Only the first 24 cards from the 1934-36 Diamond Backs set were ever printed with the 1934 date on back.

5) The 1869 Peck & Snyder with the "Ann Street" address had to have been printed before May 1, 1870, when they closed that store and moved to the "Nassau Street" address.

6) The 1899 Reccius Honus Wagner card has an address on it that is consistent with the 1900 census and Louisville register which show "G. Henry Reccius" at that address as a "cigar maker."

7) 1948 -1949 Leaf was issued in 1949 and never in 1948.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

E90-1....when you do the research on the players in this set, you will discover that
it must of been 1st issued in 1908 (instead of 1909.

Dates of Trades, Managerial changes, etc. tell us that the E92 set (and other E-type sets)
could never have been issued in 1908 (as they are erroneouly labelled by the Grading Co).
For example......Germany Schaefer was traded from Detroit to Washington Aug 13, 1909;
and, on all these E sets he is depicted with Washington. That's just one example, there are
several more in these sets.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Getting changes made isn't a simple process. You need to have a good documentation to back up your claim and the support of prominent collectors and dealers also helps. The main thing is good documention.

Jay

Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Hal Lewis had very little to do with the re-dating of Fan Craze, and even less to do with the proper dating of M101-4 and m101-5. On the latter, there has been no conclusive proof that the two sets were released within weeks of each other, although the m101-5s were no doubt printed first, as can be seen from the few player changes that were made in the two sets.

Other sets that long were misdated included E135 and iterations, listed for years as a 1916 issue when in fact it was released after that, and R315, which was certainly issued in 1930, probably in 1929, possibly in 1928 and maybe in 1931--or combinations of those years.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

---NY Kalamazoo Bats were issued in 1886

---Old Judge N172s first issued in late 1886

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Jay,

I don't want to hijack the thread but could you please comment on OJs being issued in 1886. I realize they have an 1886 Browns Champs subset now you have me wondering what cards were issued in that year.

Thanks!

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Jay B

Boy, are you absolutely right....."Getting changes made isn't a simple process".

Botton of the Ninth notes the 1949 Leaf set.....and for years I tried to get Jim Beckett
to correctly identify this set as a 1949 issue. And, somewhere along 1997, the Beckett
Price Guide did indeed drop the "hyphenated" date (1948-49) and designated it 1949
(and I'm sure Rich Klein can be credited for this change).

I think the following year the SCD Guide also designated this set as a 1949 issue. But,
all this was short-lived as PSA, SGC, and others in the Grading Industry (for unknown
reasons) reverted back to labelling these cards as "1948". So, now this "myth" will be
perpetuated for years to come. And, Rookie or 1st Card collectors will be confused
and incorrectly acquiring cards of players that do not really reflect their collections.

And, this not only applies to this Leaf set; but, all the aforementioned card sets that
have "wrong" dates. This is just another criticism of mine regarding the Grading card
service. It is unbelievable how we have allowed PSA, SGC, etc. change dates, that
for the most part, have been established for decades......and now are totally erroneous ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

The first Old Judge photographic cards were the unnumbered script cards. This series was not solely a baseball series. It also, for example, contained many boxers. The spotted ties, cards of 16 players of the New York Mets were part of this issue. Now, Goodwin was excellent at keeping tabs of team changes so I believe that any players who had spotted tie cards were on the Mets at the time of printing which I would assume was very close to the time of issue. Dude Esterbrook was purchased from the Giants by the Mets on October 20, 1886. If these cards were issued in 1887 he would have had a spotted tie. Also, Charlie Reipschlager was purchased by Cleveland from the Mets on December 16, 1886 but he does have a spotted tie. If these cards were printed in 1887 I believe that this card would have been pulled. The dates of these two player's moves provides compelling evidence that the spotted ties, and thus the first Old Judge photographic cards, were issued prior to 1887.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Jay,

If Old Judge followed the practices of modern card companies, it would be very possible that the Spotted Tie pictures were taken in late 1886, but the cards were issued in 1887. Only players who had posed for their photos with spotted ties in 1886 would be shown with spotted ties in their 1887 cards. Do you think this scenario was unlikely back in 1886/7?

Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Paul--Anything is possible but, given how quick Goodwin & Co was to update team changes, I would think that the Reipschlager spotted tie cards would not have been issued in 1887. Also, there would have been plenty of time to add Esterbrook to the spotted ties. I think the most likely scenario was an 1886 issue. Not a certainty but in my mind the most likely scenario.

[Archive]

Posted By: V117Collector

Well, it was manufactured in 1948 and distributed in 1949, the well known post war leaf set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

My understanding on the 1933 Sport Kings is that the low numbers were issued in 1933 and the high numbers in 1934. Presumably the low numbers were sold both years, accounting for the BIG difference in scarcity between the series.

Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

I got the info about the Sports Kings being printed and distributed in 1934 in the recent Mile High auction where they auctioned off the copyright cards and copyright registration cards of the Sports Kings set. Here's the link.

Sports Kings copyright cards in Mile High auction

Here is a selected quote from their description:

"The official affidavit received date (Feb 28, 1934) is found stamped on the back of the Library of Congress stamped Sports Kings card but the publication date is only on the Copyright card. This date is January 5, 1934 which is found on each of the 1934 Sport Kings Goudey patent cards. "

Here is a link to a scan where you can see the #2 Babe Ruth card's copyright registration card with the date of publication as Jan 5, 1934

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

I haven't really looked into it. But when I went to sell my R315 (listed as 1928) of Earl Averill (which showed him in the majors with an Indians uniform) I discovered that he only played his first major league game in 1929. In fact he was still in teh Pacific Coast league that season (he has a zeenut card). I would surmize that this puts the to R315 sets (A and B)in 1929 or later.

I haven't checked into any of the other players in the

http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/hofers.html

http://www.baseballreference.com/a/averiea01.shtml

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

So here is a question. We, after confirming the 1934 production date, chaged our checklists to reflect this information. This got us thinking. Most people will associate these with 1933 (at least for a while), so for now, should we have the 1934 Goudey Gum Co. Sport Kings show up as a 1934 set and also list it in the 1933 sets?

If any of you are so inclined to help us correct some of the misinformation that is rampant in the "bad" dates issue, please let us know.

Edited to add: Since we're on the topic. W514's are dated 1920-21 not 1919-21.