Diamond Stars release schedule...maybe!

[jason.1969]

Hey, y'all. The 1934-36 Diamond Stars sets is one of my favorites ever. If you've studied this set, you probably already know the release schedule by year.

1934: Cards 1-24
1935: Cards 1-84
1936: Cards 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 22, 26, 30, 31, and 73-108

But if you really want to go down a rabbit hole, I've attempted to breakdown the 1935 release more or less by month.

https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2021/...stars-release/

Comments and corrections very welcome.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Hey, y'all. The 1934-36 Diamond Stars sets is one of my favorites ever. If you've studied this set, you probably already know the release schedule by year.

1934: Cards 1-24
1935: Cards 1-84
1936: Cards 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 22, 26, 30, 31, and 73-108

But if you really want to go down a rabbit hole, I've attempted to breakdown the 1935 release more or less by month.

https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2021/...stars-release/

Comments and corrections very welcome.

Great Job Jason and many thanks

It looks like you spent alot of time both researching this and putting it all together.

Very well written

[keating3620]

Jason,
Fascinating info. I completed the set a few years ago.

I have a Bill Dickey blank back. Do you think it is a test print or mis print?

It was graded as a 1936 but without the back info I'm not sure how to determine the year. Have you come across any other blank backs?

Any idea of value compared to a regular back card?

John

[FrankWakefield]

Thank you, Jason. I appreciate your analysis, inferences, and conclusions. Over the years I've puzzled about the Diamond Stars. At one point I decided to focus (to the extent that I put effort on gathering Diamond Stars) on cards 1-72. I now think I'll focus on 1-84. And yes, I did make it to the end.

I look forward to your posts as you continue with your card research.


Blanked back Diamond Stars... I've not seen one before. Some folks would value them more, and some collectors less.

[SAllen2556]

Fun stuff - enjoyed the article. It backs my theory that the first 24 cards are rarely found in excellent condition or better and should be valued much higher than the supposedly rare "blue backs" of 1936. A 1934 version of Dick Bartell in PSA 6 is way rarer than a 1936 version, yet the "blue back" is typically considered rarer, and priced higher, than the "green back".

I've also noticed how frequently PSA mis-labels the cards. They tag the cards with a specific year like "1934 Diamond Stars" but then the back will be a 1935 version. A way too large percentage of PSA Diamond Stars on ebay are mis-labeled. SGC calls it "1934-36 Diamond Stars" then below that they label the specific year - which is often incorrect.

[toppcat]

Nice job Jason! I'm not sure if this will add anything except reading enjoyment but here's an old SCD article about the Diamond Stars (Can't load first two pages of it which are photos and a short intro that doesn't need to be read anyway):

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by keating3620

Jason,
Fascinating info. I completed the set a few years ago.

I have a Bill Dickey blank back. Do you think it is a test print or mis print?

It was graded as a 1936 but without the back info I'm not sure how to determine the year. Have you come across any other blank backs?

Any idea of value compared to a regular back card?

John

I have not come across other blank backs! You may recall from the article that there was an uncut sheet with the fronts blank, but that's the closest I've seen. And as you say, I don't know how the year could be determined. For that matter, I'm not even sure how a grader would distinguish cards 11 vs 103 for Dickey with no card back to offer guidance. At least to my eye the fronts are identical for his 1934-11, 1935-11, and 1936-103.

Regarding value, my gut would be that your card would carry a premium, but I wouldn't have a guess how much.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Thank you, Jason. I appreciate your analysis, inferences, and conclusions. Over the years I've puzzled about the Diamond Stars. At one point I decided to focus (to the extent that I put effort on gathering Diamond Stars) on cards 1-72. I now think I'll focus on 1-84. And yes, I did make it to the end.

I look forward to your posts as you continue with your card research.


Blanked back Diamond Stars... I've not seen one before. Some folks would value them more, and some collectors less.

Thanks, Frank. Am working on similar for 1934 and 1936. At the moment, there is little to go on with the relatively small 1934 release of cards 1-24. 1936 has some interesting things but at least so far the cards don't sort themselves out in quite the way they seemed to with 1935. Will probably publish the sequels in a few days.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Fun stuff - enjoyed the article. It backs my theory that the first 24 cards are rarely found in excellent condition or better and should be valued much higher than the supposedly rare "blue backs" of 1936. A 1934 version of Dick Bartell in PSA 6 is way rarer than a 1936 version, yet the "blue back" is typically considered rarer, and priced higher, than the "green back".

I've also noticed how frequently PSA mis-labels the cards. They tag the cards with a specific year like "1934 Diamond Stars" but then the back will be a 1935 version. A way too large percentage of PSA Diamond Stars on ebay are mis-labeled. SGC calls it "1934-36 Diamond Stars" then below that they label the specific year - which is often incorrect.

I agree on the relative scarcity. And DEFINITELY with regards to the classification and grading by PSA. For example, there are cards from the 1935 release only where PSA has labeled a small percentage as 1936. There is also the case of Lew Fonseca where PSA has graded nearly all of his 1935 cards as 1934 (age 35). For the most part I just rolled with the PSA pops for 1935 but I did have to add in those Fonseca cards for the data to be sensible.

If all the cards were just labeled 1934-36 it wouldn't bother me as much as the current case where a year is specified but may be incorrect.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Nice job Jason! I'm not sure if this will add anything except reading enjoyment but here's an old SCD article about the Diamond Stars (Can't load first two pages of it which are photos and a short intro that doesn't need to be read anyway):

Thanks for sharing this excellent article. Will add regarding the "Fonseca mystery" that there are two easier ways to distinguish 1934 from 1935. His age is updated from 34 to 35 across the two years, as was standard with other players in the set multiple years. Additionally, he is referred to in 1934 as the Sox 1B-MGR but in 1935 only as "formerly first baseman of the Chicago White Sox."

[Mutton Chop Yaz]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

I agree on the relative scarcity. And DEFINITELY with regards to the classification and grading by PSA. For example, there are cards from the 1935 release only where PSA has labeled a small percentage as 1936. There is also the case of Lew Fonseca where PSA has graded nearly all of his 1935 cards as 1934 (age 35). For the most part I just rolled with the PSA pops for 1935 but I did have to add in those Fonseca cards for the data to be sensible.

If all the cards were just labeled 1934-36 it wouldn't bother me as much as the current case where a year is specified but may be incorrect.

I've run into a similar issue with my Dixie Walker. It's very clearly the 1936 because the back is blue, but because it has no stats and the copyright says 1934, SGC kept labeling it 1934.

Conversely, my 1934 Fonseca is labeled correctly, but probably for the wrong reasons.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Mutton Chop Yaz

I've run into a similar issue with my Dixie Walker. It's very clearly the 1936 because the back is blue, but because it has no stats and the copyright says 1934, SGC kept labeling it 1934.

Conversely, my 1934 Fonseca is labeled correctly, but probably for the wrong reasons.

Yep, the PSA pop report for 1936 Dixie Walker makes it evident that they whiffed more than they hit on getting that card right. My brand new article on the 1936 release spills some ink over that point. https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2021/...stars-release/

[Mutton Chop Yaz]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Yep, the PSA pop report for 1936 Dixie Walker makes it evident that they whiffed more than they hit on getting that card right. My brand new article on the 1936 release spills some ink over that point. https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2021/...stars-release/

Very cool, and great analysis. Thank you!