Cleveland Indians Team Issues: The Satchel Paige Era

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

Arthur, can you clarify if you are referring to the same 4-in-1's that are mentioned in the Standard Catalog 2009 Update blog (http://boblemke.blogspot.com/2009/07...indians.html)? Are the fakes 6 1/2 X 9 like the other issues (the blog mentions the 4-in-1's being 5X7)? I have a set in my safe deposit box like those mentioned in the Update blog. Haven't looked at them in awhile but my recollection is that they are the post-season set mentioned (I have the same "World Champs" envelope) and these 4-in-1's are not poorly cut.

Yes, those are the ones I'm referring to. I don't know Bill Atkinson but if he had Bob Lemke's ear then he must have been an educated collector. All I can tell you is what I've seen in my research.

All of the envelopes are basically the same. They all look like they were soaked in water and left to dry before being printed on. They all have small tears on the edges of the top fold. They've all got deep, rich blacks that are solid under magnification, no dots. They all look like they were printed yesterday.



It should be noted that there was no Greenberg in Civies or Al Lopez in the '48 set, which Lemke said there was. The entire '48 set is accounted for in the 4-in-1s, they just also included a 2nd Feller and a card of Cleveland's Stadium.

Is it possible there's a genuine, from-the-period version of these that are just so rare that a copy hasn't surfaced in years? Sure, possible. But based on the amount of '48 and '49 Picture Packs sets that are up on eBay all the time I would think a set commemorating their World Series win would have been just as popular. Because every one I've seen in the last few years is faker than Sweet 'n Low.

It's ironic that Adam responded already. If I were still in LA I'd have him look at the 4-in-1s. He's forgotten more about printing processes and paper stock than I'll ever know.

Next time you're at the bank I'd pull them out and give them another once over. Hopefully, for your sake, I'm wrong.

Arthur