Jackie postcard question

[doug.goodman]

Hi all -

I have seen various variations of this postcard mentioned on other threads, but I'm wondering if anyone knows of a thread with a deep dive into the printings, reprintings and counterfeits of this and similar postcards?

OR

Can anybody tell me what I have here?

Oh, and in case it matters, the back scan is flipped on it's vertical axis, and it measures 5 7/16 X 3 1/2 inches.

Thanx in advance for any help,
Doug

[Exhibitman]

1950-56 JJK Copyart. Very well known catalogued issue. Per Heritage: "The J.J.K. Copyart Postcards were issued from 1950 until 1956 out of New York City. The real photo postcards feature a black and white portrait of the player above a facsimile autograph. Several Braves, Giants, and Phillies players are known, but only one Brooklyn Dodger has been seen: Jackie Robinson. The exact manner of distribution for these cards is unknown; however, it has been surmised that they may have been ordered by the players to honor autograph requests. "

[doug.goodman]

Thank you Adam

[Lucas00]

From what has been said in a thread I made asking about jjk copyart post cards, the ones that look exactly the same but don't have the words written on the back are not jjk copyart. Not saying they're not vintage, but psa grades Jackies with no jjk branding as the real thing and they just aren't.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Not saying they're not vintage, but psa grades Jackies with no jjk branding as the real thing and they just aren't.

Are you telling us that the opinion sellers "occasionally" don't have a clue what they are doing?

Oh the humanity!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

From what has been said in a thread I made asking about jjk copyart post cards, the ones that look exactly the same but don't have the words written on the back are not jjk copyart.

The thread in question is one collector's opinion, very forcefully stated multiple times as though it was fact, but with zero evidence. No one can know for sure w/o confirmation from JJK. Flatly declaring that the ones without the back printing are not JJK products is inductive reasoning at its worst. Just because we have JJK products stamped JJK on the back does not mean that all JJK products are stamped JJK. if the cards were offered on a wholesale basis, maybe the people ordering the cards had the option to skip the back printing for a cheaper price? If the cards were to be used as mail response cards for people requesting photos, for example. To my way of thinking, if the card front shows the same as the JJK card and the paper is the same, my suspicion is that the same printer made both cards but for different uses. That certainly is the case with the Felix Mendelsohn-produced set of 200 cards that was custom printed for 21 different businesses as well as released blank backed.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The thread in question is one collector's opinion, very forcefully stated multiple times as though it was fact, but with zero evidence. No one can know for sure w/o confirmation from JJK. Flatly declaring that the ones without the back printing are not JJK products is inductive reasoning at its worst. Just because we have JJK products stamped JJK on the back does not mean that all JJK products are stamped JJK. if the cards were offered on a wholesale basis, maybe the people ordering the cards had the option to skip the back printing for a cheaper price? If the cards were to be used as mail response cards for people requesting photos, for example. To my way of thinking, if the card front shows the same as the JJK card and the paper is the same, my suspicion is that the same printer made both cards but for different uses. That certainly is the case with the Felix Mendelsohn-produced set of 200 cards that was custom printed for 21 different businesses as well as released blank backed.

I agree, they definitely all could be printed by the same company possibly only for jjk. However jjk decided to brand their own and the others did not. Maybe even jjk stopped stamping their own, who knows. All you can really do with the historical information we have is make assumptions. If one has jjk on the back and one doesn’t I have to agree the one that doesn’t shouldn’t be considered jjk copyart. Imagine if somebody found a box of dads cookies exhibits but only half of them had the branding on the back, Would the other half be considered dads cookies? I personally don’t think so.

[Exhibitman]

The example is inaccurate because we don't know whether JJK made both forms of cards, but we do know that ESCO made the Dad's cards. Expressed as a syllogism, the actual Dad's situation flows from general to specific:

ESCO made all Exhibit cards
Some Exhibit cards are Dad's cards
Therefore, all Dad's cards are Exhibit cards

The logic moves from general to specific because we know the general proposition. Without the general proposition, the next steps fall apart. We don't know whether JJK also made the blank backs or whether someone made the imprinted cards for JJK and also used the art to make additional cards for another customer. I suspect the former because JJK Copyart Photographers were a NYC based photographer that made other cards too. Here is one the company made that is clearly a promo for a circus act:



It has the imprinted back, but odds are that any customer who wanted a blank back could have ordered it

[todeen]

This situation sounds similar to the 1947 Bond Bread problem. Square Corner vs Round Corner. On the square corner two different papers were used; and some came with perforated edges. Everything was being called 47 Bond Bread by TPG when in fact we knew that many were issued as sets. It screwed everything up.

However, Im not disagreeing with you Adam. I'm not certain the decision to end grading square corner was the best decision. It has created issues in and of itself. I think the best way forward is to assign a catalog number (like W999) and then create the variations (like w999-1, and w999-2, and w999-3). At least that would be orderly.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by todeen

This situation sounds similar to the 1947 Bond Bread problem. Square Corner vs Round Corner. On the square corner two different papers were used; and some came with perforated edges. Everything was being called 47 Bond Bread by TPG when in fact we knew that many were issued as sets. It screwed everything up.

However, Im not disagreeing with you Adam. I'm not certain the decision to end grading square corner was the best decision. It has created issues in and of itself. I think the best way forward is to assign a catalog number (like W999) and then create the variations (like w999-1, and w999-2, and w999-3). At least that would be orderly.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

I think this is a great idea. Well thought out.