1948 Jackie Old Gold ... or is it '47??

[Brent G.]

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]

https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1601622

[Brent G.]

Outstanding info -- thanks, Todd!

[nolemmings]

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:

[Brent G.]

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]

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

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

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]

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.]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

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]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

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.]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

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.]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

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

Well said, sir.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.