1915 W-Unc cards- Redux

[Leon]

It's no secret that I recently acquired some of the 1915 W-unc strip cards from Lipset's last auction. I think they are really neat and couldn't be happier with them. I ended up winning (paying more than anyone else) 3 individual cards and a group of 4, and have since sold that group lot. In Lew's write up he states that he believes them being called "strip" cards is far from the truth. Lew knows far more than I do so I will acquiesce on that issue. I don't know if they were strip cards or not but many of them do look handcut. I already had the more commonly seen card of the Phili Team issue that has tiny player images, as my type for the set. That made a total of 8 cards I had in hand. Two of those cards were noted by Lew as being larger than the others and were at the end of that run of them. He noted they could possibly be a different series altogether. I decided to do a little comparison myself. I had 6 of the "regular" sized cards and 2 of the "larger" cards. Here are the measurements of all 8 cards I had, with the *2 from the potentially different set listed last. I didn't reduce the numbers so it is easier to see the size differences. All of these are in inches, of course:

Phili Team card small players ................. 2 45/64h x 1 46/64w
Jim Thorpe ......................................... 2 48/64 x 1 42/64
Joe Wood .......................................... 2 48/64 x 1 39/64
Fred Maisel ........................................ 2 48/64 x 1 42/64
Nap Rucker ........................................ 2 48/64 x 1 47/64
Joe Doyle .......................................... 2 49/64 x 1 42/64
* Mathewson ..................................... 2 48/64 x 1 44/64
* Phili Team composite ........................ 2 49/64 x 1 42/64

If we look at the type 2's, as I call them, you will see they are in fact the same size as the rest of the cards, in general. As for measuring I was very, very careful and used a magnifying glass and took an inordinate (addicted collector) amount of time as to not make a mistake. So what is my theory as to the "type 2s"? I don't think they were from a different set. I think they were only cropped differently and ALL of the cards were cut the same size, in general, with some variances, but those variances don't have to do with a different set. Just my 2 cents......

[Exhibitman]

Interesting info. Well cut side-by-side strip cards certainly seems to be indicated from the measurements. Did you/can you analyze the edges to see whether any of them exhibit varied cutting characteristics?

BTW, you have too much time.

[Leon]

Every 1915 W-Unc I have ever seen has been fairly heavily worn and all exhibited the same kind of natural wear to their edges. IN other words I could not see any differences. Yes, I have way too much time.

edited to add- I have seen a few that were very obviously trimmed after the fact and those exhibited regular trimming characteristics (clean, sharp cuts).

[nolemmings]

the Irwin/Erwin and Lobert cards definitely looked different to me than the others--the photo area was much wider with no side borders. Maybe Lew thought there would be no reason for there to be two team pictures/composites, and/or the cropping of that card and the Matty was different, irrespective of size, and that's why he thought those two you won were from a different set.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

the Irwin/Erwin and Lobert cards definitely looked different to me than the others--the photo area was much wider with no side borders. Maybe Lew thought there would be no reason for there to be two team pictures/composites, and/or the cropping of that card and the Matty was different, irrespective of size, and that's why he thought those two you won were from a different set.

If you look at the team composite that was in the 2nd grouping (above), it also has the wide-picture look. Just as the two type 2's I acquired were the same size as the other cards, so are the Lobert/Erwin cards, I would venture to guess. It's sort of an optical illusion that makes them look wider but it's really their cropping of the photo's...all imnsho (in my not so humble opinion), except for my 8 cards shown. Those sizes are fact.

here is a link to the auction

http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/very-rare-w-cards/

[nolemmings]

unless Lew played with the scans, the Irwin and Lobert are clearly wider in the size of their photos than the cards you showed:

[JamesGallo]

[QUOTE=Leon;807896] All of these are in inches, of course:

Phili Team card small players ................. 2 45/64h x 1 46/64w
Jim Thorpe ......................................... 2 48/64 x 1 42/64
Joe Wood .......................................... 2 48/64 x 1 39/64
Fred Maisel ........................................ 2 48/64 x 1 42/64
Nap Rucker ........................................ 2 48/64 x 1 47/64
Joe Doyle .......................................... 2 49/64 x 1 42/64
* Mathewson ..................................... 2 48/64 x 1 44/64
* Phili Team composite ........................ 2 49/64 x 1 42/64

QUOTE]

I got the 4 card lot from Leon and also won 2 other cards from Lew. I already had a Jackson, Rucker and Phily team card. I sat down and compared them, although not to the extent that Leon did. This is what I came up with.

I used the Maisel as the standard and this is what I found.


Maisel and Doyle almost exact in size even though the bottom of the Doyle card looks cut off.

Wood matched top to bottom, but short Left to right

Rucker matches top to bottom, but much wider left to right.

Both my Ruckers have a print dot and are cut very close at the top. The both match size wise.

Athletics team matches top to bottom but is wide left to right, however the width matches the Rucker cards

Marquard is a bit wider both left to right and top to bottom but was very close top to bottom (tough to tell as it is in a SGC holder)

Maranville is a lot longer top to bottom but matches left to right.

Based on both Ruckers matching and many of the other cards being the exact same size, there just is no way these could be strip cards in my opinion. There are just way to many cards that are uniform and share characteristics. Plus seeing as both Ruckers are near identical in cut is pretty much enough proof for me.

I would love to hear what anyone's basis for these being strip is other then that is what they were cataloged as....

James G

[Leon]

I was just reading this thread again and have given this set some more thought recently. I am certainly in the camp of them being a set of candy cards rather than strip cards now as Lew Lipset (hi Lew) had stated. I still don't know about the two varieties being two different sets though. Anything is possible and hopefully we will learn more about this set in the future. There has to be something about it in some old ad or something, you would think?

Interesting set. I especially like the team cards.

[amazingheroes]

I have one of these not on any checklist I have seen. I just got a Grover Alexander back from SGC.

Steve
Amazing Heroes
Union NJ 07083

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by amazingheroes

I have one of these not on any checklist I have seen. I just got a Grover Alexander back from SGC.

Steve
Amazing Heroes
Union NJ 07083

Steve,

May we see the Alexander?

[danmckee]

I have the WaJo from this issue, killer card!

[amazingheroes]

Here is a scan of my Grover Cleveland Alexander (If I uploaded it correctly) It walked into my store with a handfull of cards from the same era, all in poor shape. I did not even know what set it was until I really started digging for information.

Steve
Amazing Heroes

[Leon]

That is a really neat card. I have never seen any that miscut before (that I remember). Thanks for sharing.

Originally Posted by amazingheroes

Here is a scan of my Grover Cleveland Alexander (If I uploaded it correctly) It walked into my store with a handfull of cards from the same era, all in poor shape. I did not even know what set it was until I really started digging for information.

Steve
Amazing Heroes

[Exhibitman]

Looks like it was on the left side of a sheet.

BTW, are these half-tones or photo-engraved?

[murphy8276]

Any chance this is real? I cannot find any reprints anywhere, but that doesn't mean this rarity hasn't been recreated before. Fwiw, magnification reveals print like an authentic card, but image is not great due to wear.