topic: why are exhibits so underrated as a set?

[Exhibitman]

Oh boy, where do I start? I wrote a damn book on them, after all. I will stick to the initial question for now. I think the lag in interest in Exhibit cards stems from some early decisions on cataloging. The ACC assigned catalog numbers to cards but Beckett and Eckes put out their much more comprehensive but much narrower guides in the 1980s. Exhibit cards, postcards and quite a few other ACC-catalogued cards were omitted entirely and then lumped together in their baseball collectibles guide with things like pins and coins. That persisted for quite some time until Krause put out its Standard Catalog and folded many more ACC-listed cards into it, including Exhibits. As these cards came back into the main card catalog, collectors began to understand that the earliest major league cards of many players were postcards, Exhibit cards, etc. It was a gradual awareness that really kicked into gear in the 1990s with the 1925 Gehrig. There's also a bit of reluctance to acknowledge them on the part of incumbents who are invested (monetarily and emotionally) in other issues as the earliest or rookie issues. Very similar to the 1949 Leaf supporters who deride the 1947 Bond Bread Robinson when debating rookie cards.

On the issue of counterfeits, once you know what you are looking at, the bad ones stick out like sore thumbs. It is a problem confined to postwar cards. Where people get confused is with the company's late 1960s-last gasp 1970s print runs of a few sets, which were on different stock. Again, when you know what they are, differentiating them is easy.