Are 1948 Leaf's Considered Vintage?

[Archive]

Posted By: DeanoCards

Well.....are they?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Goldner

In my humble opinion, yes, although i suspect that a number of other board members might disagree. Timelines for what is considered Vintage, vary from Collector to Collector. I believe that a common Vintage timeline to many, might be when the U.S. became involved in WWII. To a major extent, i agree with that point of view, but my timeline, which is directly tied to baseball, is 1957, the last season that the Dodgers played in Brooklyn, and the Giants in New York. However, it is acknowledged that only a small percentage of cards issued in the 1948-1957 time period, would be considered desirable, by the majority of collectors who post in this forum.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

I guess most collectors consider pre-war to be pre
WW II but I consider pre-war cards to be before the end of the War to End All Wars, WW I and therefore collect only cards issued prior to 1919. On the other hand I know a few collectors who consider 1973 Topps cards to be vintage because that was the last year they were issued in series. To each his own...

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

from www.beckett.com

'Cards produced earlier than 1981 are generally recognized as
“vintage” cards by most dealers and collectors.'

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I think that's only becuase Beckett never heard of baseball cards before then

Seriously, since WW2 is the line for vintage in terms of this board, 1948 doesn't make. It's 3 years too late.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

The year Topps stopped issuing in series.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

Are "vintage". 1941 and back are "pre-war" IMO.

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

1st of all, didn't we just have an extensive debate that this set
is a 1949 set? Beckett, since 1998, has correctly identified this
BaseBall set as a 1949 issue.
OK, finally will you please drop the "HYPHENATION"; it is not a
Football set, nor a Basketball set; it is a BASEBALL set, period !
And, this Forum has proven this without a doubt, by very well stated
and logical arguments, by many that it is indeed a 1949 set.

So, can we call this a VINTAGE set ? In the Antiques world, an
item is usually considered an antique if it is 100 years old.
If this classification was applied to the Sports Card hobby,
then only 19th Century cards and early 20th Century Tobacco
cards would presently fall in this category.

We seem to use WWII as the cut-over point, but then there are
many classic card sets between WWI & WWII. The point I am trying to
make here, is where do you draw the lines ? It seems to me the definition
of "Vintage" is based on artificially drawn events.

To me, a 66 year old, who has been in the hobby for 30 years,
and as a 10 year old enthusiastically collected these BB Leaf cards,
I classify this set as Vintage. Let's get real, this set is the
last major issue that includes Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Stan
Musial, Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Bob Feller, Johnny Mize,
many more All Star players of the pre-WWII era. Add HOFers
Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby, Satchell Paige, Ralph Kiner; and,
the informative bios on the backs of these cards certainly does
it for me. But, I must admit I am somewhat biased.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Almost all thos players appeared on Topps cards in the early 70s when they did the all-time record holders subset. That subset is probably responsible for my interest in early baseball, along with the team records on the backs of team cards. The names and those records made me want to read more about those players.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

"Let's get real, this set is the last major issue that includes Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Bob Feller, Johnny Mize, many more All Star players of the pre-WWII era. Add HOFers Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby, Satchell Paige, Ralph Kiner..."

Musial had Topps active player cards all the way to 1963
Williams to 1958 (then Fleer)
Feller to 1956
Mize to 1953
Dimaggio to 1951 (Berk Ross)
Robinson to 1956
Doby to the late 50's
Paige to 1953
Kiner to 1954
Ruth was a tribute card to the dying or dead sultan of swat; he was long out of baseball already by that time
Wagner is the only one listed that is really his last major active issue--he was still a coach.

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Moraine

In My opinion, YES, 1948 Leaf's ARE considered vintage. ANY card pre- 1973 are considered vintage, by Dr. James Beckett's standards, and by the standards of MOST collectors. Myself included.

Best Regards,

Adam J. Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Unfortunately for your summation is the fact that most collectors on this board don't go by Beckett standards. Beckett is a great company.....just not up to par in our space. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Moraine

Fellow Members:

With all due respect, to EVERYONE who participates on this board, and in ALL apologies. I have NOTHING against pre WW2 cards. In fact, personally, I absolutely LOVE T- 206 tobacco cards. As well as, cards, and memorabilia from that time period. I have about a dozen T- 206 cards in my collection. As well as vintage memorabilia from this time period. Here's the thing, I enjoy collecting cards from the 1950's because for one thing, As a 24 (nearly 25) year old, single parent raising my daughter,Abby alone it is all that I can afford.I love Mantle, Mays, and Aaron. IF I could afford an O/J Anson (from my state of Iowa) or a 1933 Goudey Ruth or Gehrig, or a T- 206 Cobb (red port) BELIEVE YOU ME, I would go for these cards in a heartbeat. I do have 1934 Batter up cards of Mickey Cochrane, and Rogers Hornsby.As well as a 1941 Playball Mel Ott. I absolutely love these cards! I have complete and total distain for cards manufactured today.

Best regards,

Adam J. Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I'm not going to express my opinion of what is vintage. But I think the vast majority of baseball card collectors consider vintage to include cards later than WWII. This board is in the minority in its definition.

I am conscious that by some of the definitions I am vintage and by others I am not.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

No one has anything against you and you are to be commended for taking responsibility for your little girl. All I was saying is just don't quote our good friends at Beckett so much. Again, nothing against them, but in our space you would do better to quote Bob Lemke from Krause.....I don't think anyone on here has a problem with what you collect...It's just not a good idea to quote standards based on a company that does more of the newer stuff and less of the stuff we collect.........and btw, a lot of older folks (like myself) can barely afford to collect pre-wwII anymore.....as mentioned in other threads..regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

OK, going with vintage being pre-WWII (which started in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland.) Therefore Doubleplays, R303 & 1941 Goudeys, all Playballs, and a few others were all issued during the war, obviously preventing them from being pre-war. Should we change the description to "pre-US involvement in WWII"?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The US was not at War until late 1941. Before the War declaration, cards were made and collected on soil not at war.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Goldner

please read my earlier post. That is precisely why i defined it as i did. my point obviously being that the pre-WWII era ended with the issues released in 1941.

with regard to the copyright issue, i added 1949 to accomodate, rather than to antagonize anyone. from a personal perspective, i'm interested in the set, but just not to the point of being concerned about whether the copyright date is 1948 or 1949. however, for those who see it differently, i certainly respect your opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

warshawlaw,

I don't understand your reply; or perhaps you do not understand
my comments regarding the 1949 LEAF BB set. For I simply stated
that this LEAF set is the last BB set ever issued that has all
these great players within just one set. There are 19 HOFers in
this set which is probably the highest ratio of HOF players per
total cards, than in any other major set in the hobby.

Have you tried collecting all 98 cards in this set ?

Over the years I have completed 2 N162 Goodwin Champs sets (my
favorite), a T206 set (minus Wagner & Plank), T205 & T207 sets,
the Goudey sets, a Diamond Star set, the 3 PlayBall sets, all
the Bowman sets, and a 1952 Topps set, before I was able to
finally complete my 1949 Leaf set.

Please forgive me folks if it appears that I am bragging, but
the point I am trying to impress upon you is that this is just
about the toughest set in the hobby to complete. It took me
almost 20 years to do it. Does this set deserve to be called
a "Vintage set"; you bet it does. If for no other reason than
the great challenge it presents to any serious collector, who
dares to complete it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Mayer

i have always considered this year my drop dead date for what I consider vintage in my mind, and close to not being vintage for me...and just a touch newer than what i personally collect and like

thats said when i make case and do shows...the 49 Leaf cards go in with my case with my 50's cards and I pitch them to the customers that like those types of cards,,,and to me usually they aren't the same guys that collect the tobacco and that type of stuff...
i don't think they look good in my case with my e cards and tobacco either ,,,

but I don't sell much, and just sell as a goof and hobby, so maybe I am off base

i do think it has to do with the collectors perception, as I think of 40's and 50's cards as my dad's type of cards, and not vintage truly to me,,,,
<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

The 1948/49 Leaf is a set that I dabble in and I think it is great. With eighteen HOFers including rookies of Robinson, Musial and Paige and half the cards are shortprints, there is no question that the set is a challenge to complete.

Nonetheless, the moderators have to draw the line somewhere and WW2 appears to be where the line is drawn. It has always been understood that this board is for prewar baseball cards discussion. If that is still the case, discussion about a 1948 or later set may not be a perfect fit for this board.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

WESLEY!!!

A slap on the wrist to you for even mentioning the "1948" and "Leaf" in the same sentence!

The set must be deemed as "1949 Leaf Baseball" from this day hence, or our work and research will all be for naught!

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

Although I am a little younger than Ted, I also clearly remenber collecting these cards in 1949. I was in the second grade and on the way to and from school would go to Cashman's store to get my Leaf cards - had a tolerant teacher who put up with the cards - Miss Mahoney. The area we lived in 15 miles from Boston was in a post war building boom, although our house had been built just before the war began and the developement stopped during the war and resumed shortly after the war ended. I could always find pop bottles at the construction sites and turn them into Leafs at Cashman's. I had my small bedroom decorated with these cards scotch taped to the walls. I loved the cards which were comic book like in appearance. When we moved my mother carefully removed the cards and put them away. A year ago I had all of these cards graded 1 to 3 depending on the degree of tape stain the cards look very nice, sharp corners and clean backs. There are a high percentage of Boston cards, but also many short prints that were supposidly distributed in the midwest. Maybe Mr. Cashman ordered more cards late in the year for the kids in our collecting mad neighborhood. About 15 years ago I started to collect the cards again and now have a compete set (100 cards)except for the Peterson red cap vairation. These cards seem similar in appearance to many of the secondary sets of the teens and the bright colors like many E cards. Are they vintage? I'm not sure, but at my age they sure feel like it as many of them have been in my possession for 56 years.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Hi PETER,

Thanx for a great story from your youth. And, you are the first
collector of these cards, to my knowledge, that was able to buy
the "Scarce" Leaf cards in the North East. We never saw them in
our neighborhood (in NJ); and, my cousins (in NY) with whom I
traded with never had any. And, believe me, just like you we
used to return many soda bottles for pennies to purchase these
cards. Fortunately, my Aunt saved all my cards while I was in
the Air Force (my Aunt overruled my Mom, who started disposing
of the cards).

My comments on midwest sources of the scarce series cards come
from inputs from many hobby veterans (or dealers), who have
bought Leaf collections over the years.

Like you, I have the 98 basic cards + the Hermanski error + the
Aberson "short-sleeve". Also, I have the Kent Peterson Red Cap.
In fact, I am almost sure I have a duplicate one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

If you do have a dup Peterson red cap maybe we could work out something for its transfer to Florida, where it could join a new band of 100 brothers.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

PETER,

I tried emailing you, but its not getting thru the Princeton
server. Can you try emailing me by clicking onto my name.

Ted Z.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Who am I to speak for the general understanding of baseball card collectors? But who is anybody to do that? So, here goes nothing.

I believe that the general perception is that vintage includes cards issued sometime before 1980. Old vintage cards can go back into the '50s.

These cards are actively collected and many command high prices, as evidenced by most auctions.

Cards earlier than the fifties portray players that few know much about. There are several individual superstars who are recognizable to most fans but subtelties such as the difference between Tris Speaker and Hank Greenberg are less clear to most.

Players from the pre-WWI period with very few exceptions are essentially unknown to most collectors.

Because of this lack of awareness, pre-war collectors enjoy the ability to purchase cards at prices well below our perception of their value. However, all cards are priced nominally in accordance with their availability and demand.

So what do we conclude? Everything is of some vintage. Recently issued cards are of recent vintage, Older cards are of older vintage, etc. This Forum focuses our attention on cards of pre-war vintage, while some of us specialize in cards of pre-WWI, or 19th century vintage.

If subsequent generations of collectors are not aware of pre-war players, then interest in these cards will drop, along with prices. So: thank you Topps for your retro, reprint and buyback activities. And thanks to Fritsch, Dover and all the others who spread the awareness with their reprints. We just have to be smart enough to not be fooled into thinking new is vintage.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

Collecting pop bottles brought back memories. I seem to remember that 60 returned pop bottles would buy a complete box of Topps cards back in 1958, the first year I collected as a wee tyke in Minneapolis at Wyberg's drugstore.
I also remember that although Topps packaged 8 cards for a nickle, if you bought the 1 cent packs, you got more of that wonderful pink slab gum with the white powder on top.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Must have been quite an adventure!