What's with Germany Schaefer?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Todd

Following up on a post from another (unnamed) thread, no, Germany Schaefer wasn't wacko, he was just creative. Yes, he did steal first, but he had a very good reason for it. He was on first, and tried to pull off a delayed double steal with Davy Jones on third. The catcher, Nig Clarke, sensibly decided to hold on to the ball, and Schaefer made it safely to second. Schaefer figured the double steal might work the second time the Tigers tried it, so he stole first on the next pitch to set up the repeat attempt. And by the way, it did work the second time, Jones scoring easily.

Now to the card-related question:

There must have been something about Schaefer, though, that he's the only Washington player in the E92, E101, E102, and E105 sets. Johnson was already a stud by that point in his career, so why was he left out, and Schaefer included? Heck, the mid-E sets (93-98) don't have any Washington players.

Some pics of the Great Schaefer. (Leon or whomever, please feel free to reduce the size of the pics--then let me know how you did it.)

Bill

[Edited for clarity.]

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Schaefer was a fan favorite...I know that doesn't answer why Johnson wasn't included, but it could be why Schaefer was included.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

BILL T

To start with, Schaefer is in the E90-1 set with Washington. Also, he is in the T206 set twice. In the 150-Series
with Detroit; and, the 460-Series with Washington. He was traded to Washington on Aug 13, 1909. And, therein
may lie the answer to your question as to why he wasn't in the mid-E sets. As, these sets were being planned
during Schaefer's transition between the two clubs.

Johnson is an interesting case....as, he is in the E91-c issue but not in many subsequent E-sets. Incidently, his
E91 pix is of someone else as it portrays a left-handed pitcher.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

1907 Dietsche


PC796

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Todd

Ted,

That's kind of my point. In sets that had several Washington players, such as T205/T206/E90-1/M116, of course it makes sense to include Schaefer. When it came down to choosing just one to include in a short set, why Schaefer and not Johnson--or Nick Altrock or Gabby Street, for that matter.

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

BILL T

With respect to E-sets, why Schaefer and not Street....I can't say. But, I have a theory regarding why Walter
Johnson is not in the E-sets (except E91c).

My speculation is that Am. Tobacco (ATC) traded off the rights to portray Plank for Johnson. Am. Caramel (AC)
in their E91 and E90-1 sets (circa 1908) first portrayed Plank. The President of AC, David Lafean, was very close
friends with Connie Mack and Eddie Plank. Eddie Plank went to Gettysburg College when Lafean was the Director
there. And, AC was based in Philadelphia.

So, when ATC issued their T206 set (1909), AC forced ATC to discontinue their Plank (and most of the A's players).
And, in a reciprocal agreement, AC gave up their rights to portray Johnson in all their subsequent E-sets.
I posted this theory on Net54 about 7 months ago.

By 1908 Plank was already a great pitcher, while Johnson was having losing seasons during his early years (1907-09).

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Ted,

That makes a lot of sense, but are there more instances where certain stars appear in one category but not the other, and where similar negotiations may be inferred?

If not, then why just Plank and Johnson? It's a fascinating thing to consider, but I honestly don't know enough about exactly who appears where to be able to mentally make any connections between inclusions and omissions by various industries.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

It's not only Johnson and Plank that were affected, I posted a Thread on this subject back in December of last year.
If you have a chance to read it, here is the link......

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1166484149/last-1170877416/My+T206+Plank+theory

I will be posting a follow-up on this subject sometime soon....for whoever is interested.

TED Z