1934-36 Batter Up

[judsonhamlin]

The latest Old Cardboard e-newsletter has a nice write up on this (I think) under appreciated 30's set. But I think there are a couple of details that are missing.
- The red and green cards are only found with the first half (1-40) of the low number set. The other four colors are found on all low numbered cards.
-Having never seen an uncut sheet, that leads me to believe that 1-40 and 41-80 were issued on separate sheets, even if issued at the same time.
-The 112 high numbers, being a slight bit smaller, seem to have been issued in two 56 card sheets and were not consecutively numbered on those sheets. Cards with miscuts do not match up.
-It also seems that the high number cards were skip numbered, with two distinct styles of type in the csption boxes, either large or small. The larger font captions seem to generally tougher to find than the others, and may have been issued later based on team changes.

If anyone has additional thoughts or research, I'd be interested. Also, if there are any uncut sheets out there, I'd love to seem them.

[Zan]

There was a thread about the numbering and color variations a few years ago. Let me see if I can dig it up

[judsonhamlin]

I think i started that one. Not the most compelling set to discuss, apparently

[CobbSpikedMe]

So cards 1 -40 have all 6 color variations and they are the only ones with all 6 colors?

Thanks,

AndyH

[judsonhamlin]

Correct. There are no red or green tinted cards from 41-80

[brianp-beme]

Batter-Up cards are as underappreciated as Eddie Collins is as a top tier Hall of Famer. Here are a couple of threads that detail what Net54 was able to pin down 4 years ago about the distribution of colors and possible sheet size.

The first thread:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=batter

The follow up thread:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=batter


It was neat seeing how the color and sheet size theory developed in these threads, something that I had never seen discussed before.

Brian

[Zan]

Picked this one up this year. Will slowly begin upgrading my Batter Ups, but they get pricey in mid grades.

[Spike]

To build on this discussion, one other die-cut 1930s set appears to have used 40-card sheets, 1937 O-Pee-Chee V300 baseball.

With National Chicle in financial distress by 1936, anyone know if they could've sold their design to OPC or otherwise collaborated on that Canadian issue? Would be interesting if Chicle shopped around the relevant printing equipment or know-how to try and stave off bankruptcy, even if it didn't succeed in keeping them afloat.

Since none of the 1930s OPC sets say "printed in Canada," it seems possible they were made outside Canada and imported for sale.

[Brian Van Horn]

Color tone comparison:

[Zan]

Originally Posted by Spike

To build on this discussion, one other die-cut 1930s set appears to have used 40-card sheets, 1937 O-Pee-Chee V300 baseball.

With National Chicle in financial distress by 1936, anyone know if they could've sold their design to OPC or otherwise collaborated on that Canadian issue? Would be interesting if Chicle shopped around the relevant printing equipment or know-how to try and stave off bankruptcy, even if it didn't succeed in keeping them afloat.

Since none of the 1930s OPC sets say "printed in Canada," it seems possible they were made outside Canada and imported for sale.

Interesting idea, as 1936 WWG states that it was printed in Canada

[jason.1969]

I am doing some research on this set for an upcoming article. Thanks to all who posted info in this thread. I definitely did NOT know about cards 41-80 having only four colors. And unfortunately, y'all seem to be confirming my suspicion that no uncut sheets have survived.

I have at least a week to go before I finish my research but an early conclusion I'm considering at the moment is that all of Series One came out in 1934 and none of Series Two came out until 1936. This leaves quite a gap in 1935, which I suspect would have been filled through reissues of select (possibly all) 1934 cards.

Naturally, such a conclusion feels bizarre, and it may be that other information I gather in the next week or so will lead me to reject it. Still, I thought I'd share it here with other folks interested in the set.

[brianp-beme]

Nice Jason, it will really be interesting to see the results of your research/conjecture on this truly underappreciated set.

Good luck, and have fun!

Brian

[jason.1969]

I mentioned a hypothesis last week that all 80 Series One cards came out in 1934 and all 112 Series Two cards came out in 1936. Having now completed my research I have a very high degree of confidence that this is in fact the case. Specifically no new cards at all were issued in 1935.

Kind of a surprising thing. And as you may know, 1935 was a very big year for National Chicle’s Diamond Stars set, which added 60 new cards that same year vs only 24 in 1934 and 12 in 1936.

The Klein/Davis trade was mentioned above. This will factor soon enough into a Part Two of my Batter Up series with SABR.

[Mungo Hungo]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

I mentioned a hypothesis last week that all 80 Series One cards came out in 1934 and all 112 Series Two cards came out in 1936. Having now completed my research I have a very high degree of confidence that this is in fact the case. Specifically no new cards at all were issued in 1935.

Kind of a surprising thing. And as you may know, 1935 was a very big year for National Chicle’s Diamond Stars set, which added 60 new cards that same year vs only 24 in 1934 and 12 in 1936.

The Klein/Davis trade was mentioned above. This will factor soon enough into a Part Two of my Batter Up series with SABR.

Shouldn't that mean that instead of being listed as one 1934-36 Batter Up set, the listings should show a 1934 Batter Up and a separate 1936 Batter Up?

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

Shouldn't that mean that instead of being listed as one 1934-36 Batter Up set, the listings should show a 1934 Batter Up and a separate 1936 Batter Up?

The continuous numbering and fundamentally similar design is probably the reason, but yes, I could see a strong case for regarding the set as two separate ones.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

The continuous numbering and fundamentally similar design is probably the reason, but yes, I could see a strong case for regarding the set as two separate ones.

Yes, there are cases of sequentially numbered cards still being listed as somewhat separate sets, basically in strip cards where they could also have separate types to at least diffentiate different defined sections of an otherwise similar type of card. For example, there is the W-519 numbered cards shown as two separate issues (types) in the old SCD catalogs bacause of some style and font differences between the two different card types, despite consecutive numbering.

Then there are the W-522 cards, that are numbered 30 - 50, which seem to clearly indicate an extension or continuation of an earlier issued set. These cards share the same players and drawings as the W-520 card set which is numbered from 1 - 20, and issued about the same time time as the W-522 set, around 1920. These two separately listed W sets are also slightly different in size and use different fonts as well.

So though there isn't an exact set of circumstances/differences in other separately issued sets/types that perfectly mimics the differences between the 1934 Batter-Up low card series and the 1936 Batter-Up high card series, there are other set/type examples that would point to the Batter-Ups as maybe being better shown or listed as two different sets or types after all.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

Shouldn't that mean that instead of being listed as one 1934-36 Batter Up set, the listings should show a 1934 Batter Up and a separate 1936 Batter Up?

Already mentioned in post #24.