WG2 mystery?

[Archive]

Posted By: Butch7999 & Co.

Greetings all! By way of introduction, we run a tangentially-related website/forum (URLs below sig) and we've been lurking silently here on this amazing forum for a couple of years. What an education and encyclopedia of factoids you guys have provided for us in that time! Many thanks for all the expertise and information. We'll also add -- positioning ourselves "politically" -- that we were tempted to finally chime in to side with the majority opinion on the "Greatest Card Ever?" thread, but were certain our sentiments on the subject wouldn't conform to this forum's guidelines for civil discourse...

At any rate, to the question that at last prompts us to speak up here. A member of our group was recently inquiring as to details in the WG2 Fan Craze AL "Art Series," which he plans to sell fairly soon. As we're sure you're all aware, there are quite a number of errors and inconsistencies in the names attached to the player portraits on the cards in that set. The most troubling -- and here's where we're hoping for your assistance -- is the "Billy Owen" card, which apparently is presumed (or has been unequivocally determined) in the card hobby to actually represent Frank Owens (Frank Walter "Yip" Owens, and not Frank Malcolm "Yip" Owen). Perhaps -- probably -- sufficient research has long since been done on this to establish that as the case. But lacking that information ourselves, and given the magnitude of the errors on other names in the set, and given Owens' career record, it seems to us highly unlikely Owens is the guy labelled "Billy Owen." Billy O'Neill, in fact, strikes us as a much more likely candidate, but we can't find any other photographic examples of "Owen," Owens, or O'Neill with which to compare the WG2 portrait.

Any information, photo evidence, random thoughts, or casual guesses on this from you fellers would be greatly appreciated.

Best wishes --
Butch & Co.
Baseball Games
http://members.aol.com/Butch7999/Baseball.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/baseballgames/

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am not sure most of us have the exact cards in question. Can you post scans and let us do some detective work? There were indeed quite a few sets where the players weren't who the cards said they were....Maybe Brian H. or Dave V. can help us on this one? best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

It is not uncommon for players to be misidentified on a baseball card, particularly when two or more share the same last name. The fact that both Joe and Larry Doyle played at the same time for two different NY teams created one of the most famous examples of mistaken identity we have in the hobby.

[Archive]

Posted By: Butch7999 & Co.

Hi fellers, thanks for the replies! Yes, we're very aware of the vast number of errors in older sets, even though this isn't exactly our area of expertise (actually, we'd never go so far as to claim we have an area of "expertise"!). We do know there are at least nine errors among the 54 names in the 1904 WG2 Fan Craze AL set and at least ten in the 1906 WG3 NL set -- some of them just one-letter typos, others with guys flat-out misidentified. Among the WG2s, "Fred Stone," ferinstance, is George Stone, "Roy Turner" is Terry Turner, "Pat Donovan" is Wild Bill Donovan; the WG3 errors include two players mis-ID'd as their brothers. We also noticed that there had been been some very light discussion of this topic in here about a year ago, but nothing conclusive.

Anyway, that sort of scrupulous attention to detail a hundred years ago is what throws the "Owen" card into a cocked hat for us. We're working on the dubious twin assumptions that the Fan Craze folks would have wanted better, bigger-name players for their game, and that they at least got the team right (this "Owen" played for Boston's AL club). Of course, there never was any "Billy Owen"; the assumption (or perhaps scholarly conclusion) in the hobby seems to be that the portrait is of Frank Owens. Owens, however, played but a single game for Boston in 1905 (his major league debut) and didn't reappear in the majors 'til 1909. Pitcher Frank Owen was with the White Stockings at the time. Red Owens re-emerged in 1905 with Brooklyn after a six-year absence. And those are all the Owens and Owenses of the era.

It seems reasonable that a lot of the confusion stemmed from inaccurate transcriptions of handwritten notes (the same process that created "phantom" players from handwritten scorecards of the day) -- so you could see, ferinstance, how a smudge or tear could turn "Terry Turner" into "-rry Turner" into "Roy Turner." In just the same way, we're thinking "Billy O'Neill," who pitched for Boston in '04, could have, with sufficiently scribbly handwriting, been turned into "Billy Owen."

A comparison of the WG2 "Billy Owen" portrait with any contemporary photo of Frank Owens or Billy O'Neill should confirm which guy it actually is, and we'll try to post a scan of the Owen card tonight or tomorrow -- unless, of course, there's been sufficient research and scholarship done on this previously that's already irrefutably identified who "Owen" really is.

Thanks again for your interest and assistance! We'll be back.
-- Butch & Co.

[Archive]

Posted By: Butch7999 & Co.

Here ya go. Is it Frank Owens, or is it Billy O'Neill, or is it yet somebody else? Many thanks for any insights on the matter.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

Both sets were aparently produced sometime after the 1905 season based on my understanding. WIth that in mind I would have to vote for it being Frank Owens because he was with Boston in 1905 (barely, but enough for this set).
http://www.baseball-reference.com/o/owensfr01.shtml

[Archive]

Posted By: Butch7999 & Co.

Brian, thanks very much for the response. One vote for Owens, then. However... don't wish to disagree, and we certainly stand ready to be corrected on this, but most everything we've read over the course of several years about the Fan Craze sets is that the AL edition (WG2) and the non-portrait "generic" editions were produced in 1904, and the NL edition (WG3) in 1906. Again, maybe we've been consistently misled on that all along, but most every other player in both sets corresponds with the team he should have been with in the appropriate season, so we'll need a little convincing that we've got the '04 and '06 dates wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

I don't remember the "proof" but I think if you do a search someone went through this in detail on this site. The give away is some players who weren't on the teams listed until late '05 as I recall.
I think a cross-check with the baseball reference site pretty much establishes this...

The Fan Craze have been one of my favorite sets so at some point I think I looked into this myself as well. (I could still be wrong and I certainly do not take any offense to your disagreement)

[Archive]

Posted By: Butch7999 & Co.

Brian, thanks again. We should check in here more often. There was indeed a thread in here over a year and a half ago that we totally whiffed on, discussing whether the WG2 AL set (like the generic editions) debuted in 1904 or was produced simultaneously with the WG3 NL set in 1906. The evidence Hal Lewis presented for 1906 is pretty convincing -- although we recall (hafta check deep into our notes) seeing similar arguments in favor of 1904 based on the team affiliations of still other players in the set. So it's pretty confusing, but fine, we'll update our records to call 'em both 1906 issues.

Still, that doesn't quite settle the Owen-Owens-O'Neill question (although if 1906 is right, it does make O'Neill a lot less likely since he'd moved from Boston to Washington to Chicago by then). There's gotta be another picture of Owens or O'Neill out there *somewhere,* eh?

[Archive]

Posted By: David Ayer

Hello to all and a special thanks to Steven for the reply to my post concerning some mysteries surrounding our set of WG2 American League Art Series Fan Craze.

Butch & Co… has also posted concerning my set and I appreciate the feedback that has been generated because of their posts.

While I realize that the “Billy Owen” identification is still somewhat dubious, I do have an observation as to the date controversy. The box that I have has a Registered Trade Mark No. 11358 and has printing that says, “Copyrighted Sept. 1904 Patent pending.” Now, I realize that logic doesn’t have a lot to do with early baseball cards and games however, it seems to me that if the box has a Copyright of 1904, it would be doubtful they would have made the boxes two years before releasing the game. Of course I could always be wrong. I have been many, many times before, just ask my wife!

Perhaps someone with the WG3 National League Fan Craze could chime in and let us know if their box has a Copyright of 1904 or 1906. My money is on the WG2 set being made in 1904. In addition, while I did look up all the players in the Baseball Encyclopedia; I was mostly looking to confirm that they did indeed play for the team listed on their card in the year 1904. Other than the exceptions previously mentioned I didn’t notice any other discrepancies but then I really wasn’t considering the possibility of the set being from 1906 either. I would need to go back and take a closer look to be sure.

Thanks again to all!
David

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

says copyrighted Sept. 2004 (Nat. League set was inside of it) most of that set is part of my NL set on PSA's registry -- my AL set is incomplete and was put together the "hard way".

-- The copyright was the reason that both sets were considered '04 for many years. Sometime in the 1990's the prevailing wisdom switched on the NL set -- largely based on a piece in the VBC, if my memory serves me correctly.
The AL set is still listed at '04.

Personally I found Hal's reasoning dispositive of the issue although I would date the set at "sometime after the '05 season" just to be safe.

[Archive]

Posted By: Butch & Co.

Hi Brian, thanks very much for the reply. We thought maybe our question would have generated somewhat broader interest among the highly knowledgeable regulars here, but at any rate your own attention to our investigation is very much appreciated.

The real question, of course, isn't so much a precise date for the WG2 set, as it is whether there's any other photographic evidence of Frank Owens (or Billy O'Neill, or any other candidate for the phantom "Billy Owen") with which to compare the portrait on the "Owen" card and thereby conclusively establish his true identity (Owens being a highly peculiar selection no matter what year the cards were made). We'll probably have to network our way to someone in SABR who might have that sort of thing.

In any event, here's an additional thought our lentil-sized brains combined to concoct, in light of the somewhat contradictory evidence presented by the player-team affiliations noted on the WG2 set: what if -- and is this really at all unlikely? -- various delays in obtaining player photographs, in selection of players and photos for the card set, in having the hand-lettering done, in printing, in arranging for advertising and distribution, combined to make the production of the cards not a matter of a couple of weeks but of a year or more? That could possibly explain why some guys are listed with their 1904 teams -- arranged for and pre-press readied early, then left uncorrected -- while others, photographed or pre-press prepared later in the whole process, are with their 1905 or 1906 teams. Hmm? Hmm?

Butch & Co.
Baseball Games
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/baseballgames/

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

May be the only set with photos of Owen and O'Neill to compare to.
Neither are in E107. I don't have either. Perhaps Scott or Jerry could help?

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

the player is yip owen who was a member of the 1906 white sox. he also appears to be wearing the 1906 white sox uniform which was dark. i am basing this on a pic of the 1906 champion white sox. if i can get my scanner to work i will post pic. but i know someone here has that pic he is in the top row far rt.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

The thrust of this conversation appears to be an attempt to force an identification on the "obviously" mistaken identification termed Billy Owen.

A low priority portion of my collection focuses on players who made it to the Big Leagues, but once there did not get the opportunity to pitch, hit or even field a ball in a game. In this assembly of players I encounter mispellings, misidentifications, and all other varieties of mistaken identities. I also encounter players who fit the selection criteria.

At all times it is difficult to be certain which players are carried on a team's roster. And it is also uncertain why so many (well its not really "so many") cards exist for players who never played. I recall our initial discussion of this player, and I was, perhaps with a little wishful thinking, considering him as a candidate for my card group. However, I have made no attempt to pursue research on him.

The point of my post, then is: that not every player who is not easily identified, is necessarilly a mistake. I have and am seeking cards from that era including OJs and t207s, who are verified rookie cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Butch & Co.

Hello again fellers -- pardon our delay in replying to the most recent responses. They're greatly appreciated.

First, Dennis, thanks heaps for the pic of Frank Owen. The notion of correlating "Billy Owen's" dark (black? navy?) shirt to a particular team hadn't occurred to us. Were Chicago in fact the only major-league team to wear dark in the 1904-06 timeframe? Only thing is -- hey, please don't take this the wrong way, the Frank Owen photo is a huge contribution to this little investigation, really the only photographic evidence we've got so far -- but to our eyes, the two Owens look nothing alike. Now granted, we're the bifocals-&-cataracts set, but aside from the dark hair, dark shirt, and approximate age, we don't see a resemblance. Shape of the head, set of the ears, angle of the eyebrows, size and shape of the chin... anybody else think they're the same guy?

Second, Gil, thanks for following us back to our own forum -- as we said there, we were glad to read that you're not irritated! Hope you took no offense -- we just thought we heard some exasperation in your voice in your much appreciated posting here. We don't think we nor anyone else said the "Billy Owen" label was "obviously" mistaken -- you make an excellent point is suggesting that "Billy Owen" may indeed be some guy in fact named Billy Owen, who never made it into a major-league game even at the Moonlight Graham level. For the moment, it's as valid a guess as any that's so far been put forth.

You are correct, though, in that we are trying to "force an identification" of Owen, but not as this guy or that. We kind of wish Dennis' pic of Frank Owen really looked like "Billy Owen," but it actually tends to persuade us that "Billy Owen" isn't Frank Owen. We'd be perfectly happy to know for certain that "Billy Owen" is indeed Billy Owen -- or Frank Owen, or Frank Owens, or Billy O'Neill, or somebody else -- as long as we know for certain. That's all. He's driving us nuts! It's hard to believe (possible, but hard to believe) that a guy good enough to be included among the spiffy Carl Horner portraits was never captured on film at any other time. Somewhere, so our childlike faith tells us, there has to be another shot of him, maybe not an individual portrait for a card set or anything, but posed (and identified) with his teammates in a photo of the White Stockings, or the Boston Pilgrims, or the Zanesville Flood Sufferers or some other club. And when we find it, we can jump up and go "Hey! It's that guy!" And our wizened hearts will be content.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Butch: is your interest in Owen simply a curiousity, or is there a game oriented reason to know his identity.

And I do not take offense easily, in part because I know how lovable I am. But also because I recognize the starkness of this medium, and the communication limitations which we are all dealing with.

With regard to my visit to your site, I hope that you do not view that as being tracked down in your lair. Because my tour was focused on determining if I could obtain information regarding how the E.R. Williams and Lawson's games were played. So far, all that I have determined is that it appears that we have the wrong date associated with the Lawson game.

It is neat how you determined the date range for that issue based on the number of balls required for a walk.

In any event, as I was touring the postings, I cane upon the group which led up to your posting here, and thought Id chime in with some comments. I also commented on other posts.

I like your site, and your hobby specialty, and plan to revisit there. And who knows, I could just have a game that I need some help with.

Edited to add:

Why yes, I do have a game which I am curious about. Perhaps from my description, you can help identify it.

It is a baseball game, at least 50 years old.
I have played it for about 12 hours, and it plays as designed.
I do not have a commercial issue of this game.
It has no correlation with any actual players.
It requires no pitching.
Hitting is established by the roll of three dice.
The focus of the game employs chess like strategy and planning to pit fielding against baserunning.
The field consists of a grid containing (I don't know) about less than 1000 boxes, some of which contain three numbers.
The numbers identify whare the batted ball lands - which then "rolls" until fielded.
There are about six lines of instruction comprising less than 50 words which adequately describe game play.

What is this game?

[Archive]

Posted By: Butch & Co.

Hi Gil, thanks again for the responses on both this forum and our own. We're glad all's cool. We try to kid around a bit but we know some folks perceive it as snarky and abrasive.

We were certainly happy to see you check in at "our place" and didn't feel like we were being stalked or anything. There's not an awful lot of overlap in the Venn diagram of the vintage cards that are the focus here and the vintage baseball games that are the main focus of our group, but there's enough that anyone here with an interest in the games thing is welcome to visit our forum as well.

As we mentioned in our original post in this thread, the Billy Owen question was prompted by a new member of our group, who's researching the WG2 set for a friend of his who's planning on selling it. We picked it up and ran with it after that, though, out of purely academic interest. We love a mystery. Or is it that we hate a mystery! Either way. "Must... identify... Billy Owen... arrggh!!"

The Lawson game is universally regarded (if "universally" isn't an inappropriate adverb for use in our very small niche area of collecting) as an 1884 product, but if you've got something that says otherwise, we'd be interested in looking into it. The research on the how-many-balls-constituted-a-walk thing was originally somebody else's -- we merely vetted it -- but that really applied, as we recall, to a different 1884 game, Base Ball ("A Professional & Social Game of Cards"). We're still trying to determine the manufacturer of that one, by the way.

Finally, to the quiz question: sounds like Red Barber's Big League Baseball Game (1950, G & R Anthony). Are we right? What do we win!

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Butch: that was not a quiz question. I did not know the identity of the game until you indicated it. Can I view the Red Barber game on your site?

[Archive]

Posted By: Butch & Co.

Gil, Red Barber is just the best guess off the tops of our pointy heads. But since the game's title is writ large on the gridded playing field, maybe that's not it at all. There aren't many games that use grids, though, and the three-dice mechanic and the three-digit numbers on some of the grid squares seem diagnostic. Drop in at our forum later Friday and we should have a pic of the Barber game posted for you.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I was there last night, Butch. And from the descriptions posted about the Red Barber game, it seems right.

Where the problem appears to lie is that the game which I have is hand made. It is not a commercial version. Although there are several potential explanations for this, the one which I prefer is ... some kid saw his friend's game, wanted one, and his parents said "No". So the resourceful youngster simply copied the game.

Which, of course, leads me to wonder ... did he choose to incorporate features which he perceived as improvements? Therefore, I have a high level of interest in a close comparison of the two. Even if I have to (yikes!) purchase a original.

I do note, however, that there is discussion of more recent similar games. I am also curious how these differ from Red Barbers. The play of these games is a bit like early baseball, I think. With more emphasis on factors other than the pitcher/batter rivalry. Unfortunately, unless you think the pace of a chess match is soothing, you could feel that these games yield tedious play.

Edited to add:

Oh gosh - today is Friday! No work tomorrow! Wake up Gil! I guess that the holiday threw me off (I know - what holiday). I will be there in a bit.

[Archive]

Posted By: Butch & Co.

Hi again Gil, pardon our absence from the thread -- although we're not sure Leon isn't giving us the skunk-eye for taking up bandwidth with a discussion that's running far afield from the pre-war card topic with which it began. Better, probably, we continue this aspect of it over at our own forum, although, before we retreat, we'll again solicit any and all further input from anyone here on the Billy Owen mystery.

Anyhoo, your guess on the homemade board-game is very probably right -- it would hardly be the first time we'd encountered a homebrew version of a commercially-produced game, and the Barber game even in 1950 was (and still is) fairly scarce (a limited production run, although not nearly even close to "the rarest of all baseball board games" as some hyperbolic auction pitch from several years ago convinced a few people it was).

We haven't played all or even most of the grid-based games we named at our site, but your instinct is correct on at least one or two of them, in our game-playing opinion anyway -- they are indeed exasperatingly tedious to play. Well-intended, no question, but the designers were oblivious to the eternal design conflict between detailed realism and ease of play.