Calling Exhibit Cards Experts - Ted #9 Shows

[rschisler]

I recently acquired what I believed was a really nice Ted Williams Salutations #9 Shows. I have a fairly robust collection of the 1939-46 and 47-66 HOFers so I know what to look for. This Ted has a whiter back than others in my collection, which I knew going in, but I also know how tough this card is to get and many of the examples I see that are certified by SGC or PSA on major auction sites have white backs as opposed to cream also. (example: https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...?itemid=126467)

Mine went to ebay authenticators and it came back from them as being mislabeled so they couldn't render authenticity... which I'm still not really sure what that meant. Could anyone provide any insight as to authenticity on this particular card or why if it is authentic that it has atypical coloring on the back?

Thanks in advance!

[Brian]

This is my all-time favorite exhibit card from this series, if not my favorite exhibit card period. So much so that I have this card signed and unsigned. The one shown here has a much more tan back. The back of your card seems more off-white than white to my eyes. So I think it looks fine, but I cannot tell about the cropping of the bat at the top based on the scan.

I have mainly seen reprints of the 1947-66 series, not the earlier Salutations from 1939. The former definitely can be identified by differences in cropping and the color of the backs.

[JollyElm]

I have no knowledge of this set, but have this to offer in case it helps.

I placed one scan on top of the other and made Ted the same size. In doing so, the ungraded one has more room on both sides (very obvious on the left, and easiest to see on the right by noting how slightly farther (further?) away from the border the "Made in U.S.A." verbiage is), as well as being cropped differently at bottom, with much more of the shoe's tongue appearing.


Here they are placed side by side...

1939-Salutations-Exhibit-T.-Williams-#9.jpg

[rschisler]

Thanks Brian & Darren. Great thought to compare them Darren. I hadn't considered that. I do know that it would have been produced multiple years during that 1939-46 span, thus the cropping often is slightly different from year to year as they were reissued. Of course, if that's the only case here no big deal.

I know that the 47-66 set is easier to spot the reproductions, but didn't know much about any being done for 39-46 and what to look for.

[samosa4u]

I believe ESCO remade many of them in the later years and these ones had white backs. The earlier examples have cream-colored backs. So, whenever I would buy ESCO cards, I would always avoid the white-backs.

[rschisler]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I believe ESCO remade many of them in the later years and these ones had white backs. The earlier examples have cream-colored backs. So, whenever I would buy ESCO cards, I would always avoid the white-backs.

I agree with you there. However, this is not like the 70s reprints that had white or gray backs that ESCO put out. It does not show light through from the backside like those do.

The piece with the SGC and PSA examples of this particular card with a whiter-than-normal back on multiple auction houses like REA and Heritage leads me to believe this is something different than those typical, easily spotted reproductions. Not saying you're wrong at all, it just seems there are more pieces to the puzzle on this particular card than avoid the white back. I would say that even the example Brian posted above has quite a bit whiter back than most of the 39-46s I have in my collection, but it is certainly a little more off-white, cream than the raw card I have.

[Brian]

FWIW, I took a look at several different examples from REA, LOTG, and Lelands, all graded examples (I told you I like this card -- it really captures the attitude of the cocky young rookie).

There were all sorts of shades and cropping represented--creamy and tan, bat more closely/less closely cropped, etc. All were graded. So I believe the one posted is the real deal. I have a lot of exhibits, but I would not consider myself an expert (on this or any other subject).

Brian