The 1930 ruth goudey calendar makes another appearance!!

[Archive]

Posted By: sean

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320288909029&_trksid=p3907.m32&_trkparms=tab%3DWatching

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...the size of a standard baseball card with the calendar on the reverse?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Visit http://www.t206collector.com for signed deadball card galleries, articles and more!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

What did Verkman ever do w/ the one he eventually bought back?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

The seller has two other calendars (non-baseball) in similar style but very different years.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

All you have to know is for two different companies, one calendar from "1901" and one from "1930," the fonts and styles of the calendar parts are identical.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

David, they have one dating all the way back to 1883, pretty popular calender style to be used from 1883 to 1930!

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Is it possible these are legitimate calendars printed many years later (at the same time), say in the 50s or 60s for sale as novelty items? If they were printed to fool buyers, it wouldn't make sense that they found their way to the same seller.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

The one in the ebay auction is different then the one that Verkman sold.

Prolly made around the same time.....whenever that was.



Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

cmoking, I don't think so, as why in 1955 would anyone want the 1901 or 1930 calendar year attached to a novelty. If it was a made-up novelty for honest fun and display, they'd want a 1955 calendar attached to the pic of Ruth (ala Brown and Bigelow calendars-- Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb on current calendars). In 2002 I had a calendar of 1800s Renoir paintings on my cork board, but the listed days and months were from 2002. I had no need or desire to know that January 2th 1874 was a Tuesday. The novelty of referring to the days and months of 1874 would wear off about January 3rd-- especially considering I wanted the calendar to know my dentists appointments in 2002. I doubt there were collectors or manufacturers of reprinted calendars in the 1950s, as the originals were dirt cheap to free and there was no need to save money on reprinted versions. In 1955, an original 1925 Babe Ruth calendar in mint condition mint have cost a nickel, or your elderly neighbor might have given it to you for free. Even if you were a collector and baseball fan in the 1950s, what would you want a reprinted version for? Heck, a mint factory sealed reprint from the drug store might have cost more than an original.

I firmly believe that if the "1901" calendar was an honest 1955 Brown & Bigelow-style retro-subject novelty for stores and catalogs, it would have the months and days from 1955 not 1901. From a purely marketing and sales standpoint, 99.9 percent of the calendar buying public wanted calendars that listed the months of the current and upcoming year. If you told people on the street that you were chief of marketing and your company was coming out with a brand new 1956 calendar that lists only the days and months of 1901, they'd look at you as if you were insane.

If in 1955, you were honestly trying to make money marketing interesting retro-prints of Hair Tonic ads and collectible old time-style jumbo picture cards of Babe Ruth, you would omit the out dated calendar part, as approximately none of the potential buyers had any interest in out dated calendar text.

Besides, even your theory says that the 1901 calendar is not from 1901.

[Archive]

Posted By: D. Bergin

To add to what cmoking was saying. I imagine it could be a "Year you were born" type novelty. The calenders are so small they're not really usable anyways.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

In the 1950s-60s, there was no market for brand new calendars containing old dates. It would make no sense to the public, much less be something they'd want to purchase. Who wants to read the 365 days of 1901, even if he was born in 1901? At the supermarket and drug store, out of date calendars would be about as popular as out of date milk and out of date movie tickets. In 1955, if you wanted your shinny new Babe Ruth picture calendar to sell, you attached the 1955-6 dates.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

yes, this is not the SAME item as before but obviously the same Ruth picture.

 

martyOgelvie

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Interesting. If you look at her ended auctions this lady does not sell fake items, but for some reason she has 4 or 5 calendars that are clearly fake up for sale right now. She probably found them in an antique mall or something and thought they were real.

[Archive]

Posted By: G. Maines

How many different calendars are there really?
I mean: Monday has to start between the 1st and 7th day of the year, right?
Once that is decided, everything else falls into place.
Ok, there has to be accomodation for Leap Years.
But still - that is what? 14 different calendars - so you can possibly use a 1935, 1967, 1902, 1988, 1925, etc. just as well as a 2008. They (could be) all the same.

So what does this mean?
I dunno, why did you ask?

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

and, more specifically, 1901 calendars reflected accurate day-date alignment for 1957

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

David, you're making a good case why this would be a bad business decision. But other than that, how does anyone know these are real, fake, printed in 1975, 1950 or 2008? It went for $200ish, could be $200 down the drain, but there were people who were interested (or fooled depending on how you look at it). Additionally, if they were fake or created to fool someone, how much did the creator get out of it based on the time/effort it would take to make it? Throwing out the morality of frauding the collecting public for a sec - was it a good business decision to spend the time to concoct a scheme and produce an unknown calendar? Add in the risk of the originator getting caught and being a pariah in the hobby or worse yet caught by the authorities on some charge. Maybe the Verkman one was since that seemed to go for decent money...but what about this one? Maybe that's a poor decision too...but if it is a fake, it didn't stop someone from trying a poor business decision. In short, a probable poor business decision alone is not grounds to throw out the legitimacy of this card/calendar.


I don't remember the finalization of the "Verkman calendar" thread clearly. Were there any obvious signs it was a fake or was it a case of "it doesn't look right, no one knows anything about it, highly likely to be not what the auction describes it to be"? If that's the case, I have no problem with that, none at all. But now we've seen two similar ones, but slightly different. What's the story now? If these are fake, shouldn't we see more? And if there are more fakes out there, how does one go about definitively saying when it was printed and/or why its a fake...and additionally, a fake of what? Heck, even if they are real (from the 60s or whenever), shouldn't we see more too?

I was tempted to bid on it to win just to get it in my hands to show people to get their opinions. But I wasn't willing to part with $200 for curiosity alone. I also think there's a chance we'll see another one show up again.


Adding: Please note that I am not arguing it is legit. I am simply asking questions. If I really thought it was legit, I would definitely be the winning bidder, but I wasn't.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Cmoking, when the "1883," "1901" and "1930" calendars share the exact same calendar text font and line style, it's not wild speculation to guess they aren't really from 1883, 1901 and 1930. That the matching-font calendars are being offered on eBay on the same day by the same seller doesn't make it look better.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

David, where in my post does it say I think these were printed in 1930? You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm asking whether it is possible they were printed in the 50s or 60s (or whenever) as a novelty item.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I understand you didn't say the calendars are from the advertised years.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

"That the matching-font calendars are being offered on eBay on the same day by the same seller doesn't make it look better."

Does it make it look worse? I don't think it looks better or worse.