1915 W-Unc cards- Redux

[Leon]

It's no secret that I recently acquired some of the 1915 W-unc strip cards from Lipset's last auction. I think they are really neat and couldn't be happier with them. I ended up winning (paying more than anyone else) 3 individual cards and a group of 4, and have since sold that group lot. In Lew's write up he states that he believes them being called "strip" cards is far from the truth. Lew knows far more than I do so I will acquiesce on that issue. I don't know if they were strip cards or not but many of them do look handcut. I already had the more commonly seen card of the Phili Team issue that has tiny player images, as my type for the set. That made a total of 8 cards I had in hand. Two of those cards were noted by Lew as being larger than the others and were at the end of that run of them. He noted they could possibly be a different series altogether. I decided to do a little comparison myself. I had 6 of the "regular" sized cards and 2 of the "larger" cards. Here are the measurements of all 8 cards I had, with the *2 from the potentially different set listed last. I didn't reduce the numbers so it is easier to see the size differences. All of these are in inches, of course:

Phili Team card small players ................. 2 45/64h x 1 46/64w
Jim Thorpe ......................................... 2 48/64 x 1 42/64
Joe Wood .......................................... 2 48/64 x 1 39/64
Fred Maisel ........................................ 2 48/64 x 1 42/64
Nap Rucker ........................................ 2 48/64 x 1 47/64
Joe Doyle .......................................... 2 49/64 x 1 42/64
* Mathewson ..................................... 2 48/64 x 1 44/64
* Phili Team composite ........................ 2 49/64 x 1 42/64

If we look at the type 2's, as I call them, you will see they are in fact the same size as the rest of the cards, in general. As for measuring I was very, very careful and used a magnifying glass and took an inordinate (addicted collector) amount of time as to not make a mistake. So what is my theory as to the "type 2s"? I don't think they were from a different set. I think they were only cropped differently and ALL of the cards were cut the same size, in general, with some variances, but those variances don't have to do with a different set. Just my 2 cents......

[Exhibitman]

Interesting info. Well cut side-by-side strip cards certainly seems to be indicated from the measurements. Did you/can you analyze the edges to see whether any of them exhibit varied cutting characteristics?

BTW, you have too much time.

[Leon]

Every 1915 W-Unc I have ever seen has been fairly heavily worn and all exhibited the same kind of natural wear to their edges. IN other words I could not see any differences. Yes, I have way too much time.

edited to add- I have seen a few that were very obviously trimmed after the fact and those exhibited regular trimming characteristics (clean, sharp cuts).

[nolemmings]

the Irwin/Erwin and Lobert cards definitely looked different to me than the others--the photo area was much wider with no side borders. Maybe Lew thought there would be no reason for there to be two team pictures/composites, and/or the cropping of that card and the Matty was different, irrespective of size, and that's why he thought those two you won were from a different set.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

the Irwin/Erwin and Lobert cards definitely looked different to me than the others--the photo area was much wider with no side borders. Maybe Lew thought there would be no reason for there to be two team pictures/composites, and/or the cropping of that card and the Matty was different, irrespective of size, and that's why he thought those two you won were from a different set.

If you look at the team composite that was in the 2nd grouping (above), it also has the wide-picture look. Just as the two type 2's I acquired were the same size as the other cards, so are the Lobert/Erwin cards, I would venture to guess. It's sort of an optical illusion that makes them look wider but it's really their cropping of the photo's...all imnsho (in my not so humble opinion), except for my 8 cards shown. Those sizes are fact.

here is a link to the auction

http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/very-rare-w-cards/

[nolemmings]

unless Lew played with the scans, the Irwin and Lobert are clearly wider in the size of their photos than the cards you showed:

[Leon]

Until I see exact measurements from someone that has them then I will respectfully disagree. I could be wrong but I don't think so. Thanks for the debate, regardless

[nolemmings]

unless Irwin and Lobert are narrower, and I doubt they are, then the cards are clearly different. It's not a question of cropping, it's a question of image area. Far more of it is available side to side on Irwin and Lobert, unless Lew changed the aspect ratio when he made the scans. Put differently, I believe the Irwin and Lobert cards measure the same if not wider than the others, and even if they measure the same, if you were to add any kind of side borders they would be wider. IMO, they were either trimmed close because little/no border was intended by the issuer, or because of a bad cut. Either way, they look much different to me.

[Brian Van Horn]

I hate to disagree with Lew, but the Lobert is, in my opinion, undoubtedly a strip card. I have a Rucker which is the same size:

[Brian Van Horn]

One clarification:

The Lobert and the Rucker cards are the same size, but the picture for the Lobert is sizably larger side to side, but matches top to bottom.

[nolemmings]

The Lobert and the Rucker cards are the same size, but the picture for the Lobert is sizably larger side to side, but matches top to bottom.

This is why I don't believe they are form the same set, although I admit they have similarities.

BTW, even if the same size, why do you believe these are strip cards? The edges are so badly worn that it is impossible to tell if they were hand-cut, IMO, but to my eye they at least appear evenly cut along the edges, if you don't consider centering.

[Leon]

My guess is the the Irwin and Lobert are the same size as the others, give or take a 64th, just like the other 2 that Lew said he thought were from the same set (and there is no debating their size). I am going with same set. Maybe more information will be found in the future. This kind of stuff keeps it interesting for me....thanks again

also, the 2 cards of Lobert and Irwin have the same cropping of the photo like the team composite I showed. I would bet their physical sizes are similar, which has been my main point.

[Brian Van Horn]

Todd,

The reasons I think they are strip cards is the variance of the sizes of the cards. Admittedly, the Lobert and the Rucker are the same top to bottom and side to side. Am I contradicting my previous post? No.

Also, the cut on the cards. The Lobert and the Rucker as well as the other cards I have posted have the same right border (of course, you have to stand up the Maranville), but the left border is gone from the Lobert. Finally, based on the samples from both sets listed by Lipset, and from the cards of Leon and myself, the borders and size vary.

Now, you can make the same argument for overall size of the E121s, but that is for another day....

[nolemmings]

Leon, I guess we're just talking past each other. The Lobert and Irwin might be the same size, but I can make an Exhibit the same size as a Topps card, and that doesn't make them the same. There is no side border on the Irwin and Lobert. The area comprised by the photo is larger on those cards--that is not cropping. If indeed they were hand-cut, then someone cut the borders off just so they would be the same size--not unlike how some pre-war cards were allegedly trimmed so that the collector's cards would all be uniform. If so, they came from different sets, IMHO.

Brian, you completely lost me when you say the cards you posted have the same right border.

[Leon]

I might be using the wrong terminology. I believe the composite team card, and the Irwin and Lobert cards, all are similar in size (maybe not exact but very close) and have the same photo size, with respect to the card. All 3 have similar borders. To me, that makes them all similar. ALL of the whole group of 25+ cards, in the auction, had very similar characteristics overall too. So, to me, until I see more than what was stated I am going with the same set theory. I could be wrong but the evidence is weighted towards them being the same set, imo. It's a good debate. Maybe I am just longing for more good debate on the board and less negativity? regards


edited to add- I think the borders were in fact cut off in order for them all to be the same size, but I think it was done at time of mfg.....again, another theory

[Brian Van Horn]

Todd,

Just to clarify, the right side has a black border on the edge of the picture on all the cards I posted. The cutting of the Lobert doesn't have a defined left border unlike the other four cards.

[nolemmings]

maybe Lew will chime in and clarify this more. Brian says he thinks these are strip cards because of the size variance and Leon says the fact they're all basically the same size makes them from the same set. Which is it--size variance or same size? Frankly, I've seen much wider size variance, both in degree and frequency, in the m101-4 and m101-5 cards than what I've been shown here, and those are clearly not strip cards.

As for the borders, are you saying that the similarity in the black frame surrounding the photo makes you think they belong together? Do you really notice any difference in the black frames surrounding m101-4s and those on E135 Collins McCarthy the following year? A basic black line of essentially the same thickness?

In my experience, there are very very few card issues that have the same card size but different sizes for the images within the borders of the card. That is clearly the case here, and that is why I believe they are not from the same set.

[JamesGallo]

I have a lot of these cards as well but I am out of town and can't post details right now.

However I did some comparisons as well and for the most part the cards all seemed to share on dimension, either l-t or t-b.

I have 2 ruckers and they match size wise and cut wise.

As a result I feel it is impossible that these are strip cards.

I will post the further details after I get home on Sunday.

James G

[Brian Van Horn]

Gentlemen,

I believe the cards are strip cards. Do I believe the Lobert maybe from another strip card set? If we are basing it on the size of the picture, yes. If we base it on bordering and typeset at the bottom of the card then this makes things a bit more murky. If I were to give an opinion, I would say the Lobert is from another set, but it could be possible the cards are from the same manufacturer. The cards could possibly have been produced at different times, but I would say within a year of each of other.

Todd, I am glad you brought up the M101-4/5 reference because this could be something along similar lines in respect to production runs.

[Jantz]

Great information Leon. Thanks for sharing. I really like the black & white images on this set.

I have a question about this set that maybe you or another board member can answer.

As with most pre-war sets, images were sometimes used on other sets.

Have you ever seen these same images used in another pre-war set?


Jantz

[nolemmings]

Have you ever seen these same images used in another pre-war set?

They are also seen in the m101-5 set or on the Police Gazette premiums.

[Jantz]

Thanks Todd for answering my question.


Jantz

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

maybe Lew will chime in and clarify this more. Brian says he thinks these are strip cards because of the size variance and Leon says the fact they're all basically the same size makes them from the same set. Which is it--size variance or same size? Frankly, I've seen much wider size variance, both in degree and frequency, in the m101-4 and m101-5 cards than what I've been shown here, and those are clearly not strip cards.

As for the borders, are you saying that the similarity in the black frame surrounding the photo makes you think they belong together? Do you really notice any difference in the black frames surrounding m101-4s and those on E135 Collins McCarthy the following year? A basic black line of essentially the same thickness?

In my experience, there are very very few card issues that have the same card size but different sizes for the images within the borders of the card. That is clearly the case here, and that is why I believe they are not from the same set.

Todd- your statement in the first paragraph about variance and size do not have to be mutually exclusive imo. I never said whether I thought they are strip cards or not. I don't know. I said some of them look to be handcut, and they do. I said I would go with Lew's thought on that part of it and he stated he doesn't think they are strip cards. Lew and I have a pretty good rapport and I did ask him, on the phone, if he had any other info at all. He said he described all that he knew (I believe). Regardless, there was no other information to be gleaned. I did try. Also, Lew reads the board, as we have emailed this morning about something board related, so has seen this and is probably amused at us. If he knew something completely different/more he would probably email and say so. He's always been a pretty good sport about helping me and it's always appreciated.

Your other statement about size of photo's within certain sets makes some sense but there are definitely some that are as you described...different photo size within a set.....here is one that comes to mind as an example, N48. best regards (I don't own these but used to)

[JamesGallo]

Another thing that came to me today is that a lot of these cards have diamond cuts.

I don't see diamond cuts to often on strips.

There are no lines so how would cards measure the same if they were strips.

Brian you said you think they are strips based on what factors?

James G

[fkw]

When I first saw these cards about 15 years ago I though they were strip cards, but now that Ive seen maybe 30 of them total, Id NOW say they are machine cut.

Strip cards were collected and originally cut/ripped by kids, and a good % will be screwed up by them like the other strip cards and candy box cut outs of the Era.

Even though most have heavy wear, I have yet to see a badly cut or torn 1915 W-Unc.

They are probably candy cards like the other misnamed strips cards W503, W555 etc.

[JamesGallo]

[QUOTE=Leon;807896] All of these are in inches, of course:

Phili Team card small players ................. 2 45/64h x 1 46/64w
Jim Thorpe ......................................... 2 48/64 x 1 42/64
Joe Wood .......................................... 2 48/64 x 1 39/64
Fred Maisel ........................................ 2 48/64 x 1 42/64
Nap Rucker ........................................ 2 48/64 x 1 47/64
Joe Doyle .......................................... 2 49/64 x 1 42/64
* Mathewson ..................................... 2 48/64 x 1 44/64
* Phili Team composite ........................ 2 49/64 x 1 42/64

QUOTE]

I got the 4 card lot from Leon and also won 2 other cards from Lew. I already had a Jackson, Rucker and Phily team card. I sat down and compared them, although not to the extent that Leon did. This is what I came up with.

I used the Maisel as the standard and this is what I found.


Maisel and Doyle almost exact in size even though the bottom of the Doyle card looks cut off.

Wood matched top to bottom, but short Left to right

Rucker matches top to bottom, but much wider left to right.

Both my Ruckers have a print dot and are cut very close at the top. The both match size wise.

Athletics team matches top to bottom but is wide left to right, however the width matches the Rucker cards

Marquard is a bit wider both left to right and top to bottom but was very close top to bottom (tough to tell as it is in a SGC holder)

Maranville is a lot longer top to bottom but matches left to right.

Based on both Ruckers matching and many of the other cards being the exact same size, there just is no way these could be strip cards in my opinion. There are just way to many cards that are uniform and share characteristics. Plus seeing as both Ruckers are near identical in cut is pretty much enough proof for me.

I would love to hear what anyone's basis for these being strip is other then that is what they were cataloged as....

James G

[Leon]

I was just reading this thread again and have given this set some more thought recently. I am certainly in the camp of them being a set of candy cards rather than strip cards now as Lew Lipset (hi Lew) had stated. I still don't know about the two varieties being two different sets though. Anything is possible and hopefully we will learn more about this set in the future. There has to be something about it in some old ad or something, you would think?

Interesting set. I especially like the team cards.

[amazingheroes]

I have one of these not on any checklist I have seen. I just got a Grover Alexander back from SGC.

Steve
Amazing Heroes
Union NJ 07083

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by amazingheroes

I have one of these not on any checklist I have seen. I just got a Grover Alexander back from SGC.

Steve
Amazing Heroes
Union NJ 07083

Steve,

May we see the Alexander?

[danmckee]

I have the WaJo from this issue, killer card!

[amazingheroes]

Here is a scan of my Grover Cleveland Alexander (If I uploaded it correctly) It walked into my store with a handfull of cards from the same era, all in poor shape. I did not even know what set it was until I really started digging for information.

Steve
Amazing Heroes

[Leon]

That is a really neat card. I have never seen any that miscut before (that I remember). Thanks for sharing.

Originally Posted by amazingheroes

Here is a scan of my Grover Cleveland Alexander (If I uploaded it correctly) It walked into my store with a handfull of cards from the same era, all in poor shape. I did not even know what set it was until I really started digging for information.

Steve
Amazing Heroes

[Exhibitman]

Looks like it was on the left side of a sheet.

BTW, are these half-tones or photo-engraved?

[murphy8276]

Any chance this is real? I cannot find any reprints anywhere, but that doesn't mean this rarity hasn't been recreated before. Fwiw, magnification reveals print like an authentic card, but image is not great due to wear.

[JamesGallo]

No its far too washed out and the stock looks wrong. There have been fakes on ebay though i have no idea why you would fake such an obscure card.

James G

[JamesGallo]

So I just got a few cards in from REA a Mathewson that does not match the one in Leon's original post as well as an upgrade on my doyle (old one is Authentic). Figured I would share an image. Seems there are 28 graded by SGC and 5 by PSA




I would love to trade my extra doyle for a card I don't have and would be happy to add cash or other cards if there is a difference in value.

James G

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

So I just got a few cards in from REA a Mathewson that does not match the one in Leon's original post as well as an upgrade on my doyle (old one is Authentic). Figured I would share an image. Seems there are 28 graded by SGC and 5 by PSA




I would love to trade my extra doyle for a card I don't have and would be happy to add cash or other cards if there is a difference in value.

James G

Great Stuff!!!!

[Bigdaddy]

Seeing this thread pop up again reminded me that I have the following Philadelphia A's card available for trade. Well-loved shape.

Looking for T206 SLers (Virginia League) or a few '57s and/or '65s to finish up a couple sets. Offers welcome, PM me. Really doesn't fit in my collection.

If this should be in the BST section, I'll delete and move it there. Just thought it might find a better home in this thread.

[Leon]

Great cards. There are 2 Matty poses known.

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

So I just got a few cards in from REA a Mathewson that does not match the one in Leon's original post as well as an upgrade on my doyle (old one is Authentic). Figured I would share an image. Seems there are 28 graded by SGC and 5 by PSA




I would love to trade my extra doyle for a card I don't have and would be happy to add cash or other cards if there is a difference in value.

James G

[JamesGallo]

Leon

I wonder if the 2nd Matty is from the same set though. It does not have the team noted and if i recall most of the images are from the sporting news set while the other matty you showed is not. I cant recall if that first Matty was part of lews auction or not.

The lobert and composite cards are odd as well. I wonder if maybe it was two series...

Man this sure is a puzzling set. If anyone has any cards i dont lmk 😁 as i would be curious as to what is on the boards vs out there.

James G

[Leon]

Both Matty's were part of Lew's auction. I feel both are from the same set but different poses. The one I used to own is also his M128 rookie pose.

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Leon

I wonder if the 2nd Matty is from the same set though. It does not have the team noted and if i recall most of the images are from the sporting news set while the other matty you showed is not. I cant recall if that first Matty was part of lews auction or not.

The lobert and composite cards are odd as well. I wonder if maybe it was two series...

Man this sure is a puzzling set. If anyone has any cards i dont lmk 😁 as i would be curious as to what is on the boards vs out there.

James G