topic: why are exhibits so underrated as a set?

[Rich Klein]

Size and also some of the most popular players are also printed to the moon (so to speak)

IIRC, The Ted Williams Exhibit was still available until his career completed in 1960 meaning there are a LOT of them in the wild.

But, on the plus side, if you paid attention to Lucky Larry's posts with pictures on Exhibit Variations, doing a master set of Exhibits is a real fun challenge. I enjoyed going through the COMC data base and separating those cards

Rich

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Size and also some of the most popular players are also printed to the moon (so to speak)

IIRC, The Ted Williams Exhibit was still available until his career completed in 1960 meaning there are a LOT of them in the wild.

But, on the plus side, if you paid attention to Lucky Larry's posts with pictures on Exhibit Variations, doing a master set of Exhibits is a real fun challenge. I enjoyed going through the COMC data base and separating those cards

Rich

rich -- i do think there is an essential caveat here which is that different dates of printing are identifiable with research. the williams exhibit can be identified and closely time stamped based on several essential attributes on the card itself. its quite fun detective work with these cards!

they're a great time; i hear you on scarcity. i personally think when there's more of a card, its actually more meaningful in terms of democratic circulation, particularly on very period specific pieces like these. the 39s-46s in particular of crucial players/poses/depictions.

[Chris Counts]

I collect Exhibit cards, but I understand why many don't. They're caught in this no man's land between a card and a postcard, they lack color, it's basically one big set from 1939 to about 1966, and there are a bunch of fakes in the market, along with reprints, to muddy the waters. As a collector, where do you even start?

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

I collect Exhibit cards, but I understand why many don't. They're caught in this no man's land between a card and a postcard, they lack color, it's basically one big set from 1939 to about 1966, and there are a bunch of fakes in the market, along with reprints, to muddy the waters. As a collector, where do you even start?

yes, chris. this is a crucial observation. i think there is a much higher barrier to entry for these cards, as -- as you say -- they straddle many worlds and dating + understanding them requires a bit of sleuthing!! cheers!

[Rickyy]

I collect them myself. I have heard about the size issues as well, but to me the appeal is that it's a combo of photos of players from the golden era + it was often used as post cards, and it's a baseball card.

As Howard mentioned some of the HOF cards like Gehrig rookie have gone through the roof in terms of prices.

Ricky Y

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Rickyy

I collect them myself. I have heard about the size issues as well, but to me the appeal is that it's a combo of photos of players from the golden era + it was often used as post cards, and it's a baseball card.

As Howard mentioned some of the HOF cards like Gehrig rookie have gone through the roof in terms of prices.

Ricky Y

love the tape on the gehrig ricky. it adds a lot to the presentation of the card. they're great pieces of history aren't they? -- cheers -- david

[Kutcher55]

It's kind of a leading, biased question, isn't it? Who is to say they are underrated? The images are nice, but the main reason I don't collect them is that they aren't what I could consider to be baseball cards. Also, as a general rule of thumb, I find cards with blank backs to be disappointing, almost without exception.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Also, as a general rule of thumb, I find cards with blank backs to be disappointing, almost without exception.

The backs aren't all blank!

But I also agree with all of the drawbacks that others have mentioned.

One more to add - I think they mostly/entirely came from vending machines, rather than packs? And so therefore, that's another black mark against them.

[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.