topic: why are exhibits so underrated as a set?

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wow Adam... it sounds like I need to get your book! This is really powerful stuff. I find that when it comes to things like truth things like emotional investment and financial investment in perceived ideas/realities can get in the way of seeing clearly. It's a shame, but I understand why it happens. I'm a baseball historian + archivist so I'm not interested in preserving anything other than reality and things how they are and were. It seems pretty clear to me that they are essential to the unfolding of card history over decades; were a persistent and essential presence in shaping the landscape of American collectible and democratically owned baseball images.

Thanks for sharing; off to research your book...
My best,
David

[ALBB]

have never been a fan, always felt they were not " real " baseball cards

[Rickyy]

Originally Posted by dbussell12

Wow Adam... it sounds like I need to get your book! This is really powerful stuff. I find that when it comes to things like truth things like emotional investment and financial investment in perceived ideas/realities can get in the way of seeing clearly. It's a shame, but I understand why it happens. I'm a baseball historian + archivist so I'm not interested in preserving anything other than reality and things how they are and were. It seems pretty clear to me that they are essential to the unfolding of card history over decades; were a persistent and essential presence in shaping the landscape of American collectible and democratically owned baseball images.

Thanks for sharing; off to research your book...
My best,
David

Yes get Adam's book! I highly recommend it.

Ricky Y

[Casey2296]

-
I enjoy collecting postcards and pre-war exhibits, the size is a plus when you have them in hand, some great images. And would agree with Howard the 21 Ruth is fantastic.
-

[Exhibitman]

Thanks for the kind words, guys. I think size is a plus when the images are classic:

[Exhibitman]

To expand on the confusion over counterfeits versus stock differences, in the late 1960s the company began to use whiter, thinner stock. You see it primarily on the '1948' HOF set that is attributed as a 1974 set in the Standard Catalog, and on sepia and black and white boxing cards. Both of these Clay versions are legit; the green was first:




The irony is that the greenie is the most valuable yet the sepia and the black and white (not shown) are harder to find.

What you have to check in terms of counterfeits when it comes to white stock is re-screening. Exhibits are half tone prints (little dots) made by photographing a real photo through a screen. This:



becomes this:



If you have the card but not the original art and you want to make a half tone print of it, all you can do is take a photo of the card through the half tone screen and then print it again. The drop in print clarity and quality is like a photocopy of a photocopy. Once you know what it is, you know what it is (yeah, I know, under "redundant" it says "see redundant").

Oh, and I put '1948' in quotes because the date is entirely a creation of some early cataloguer's half-baked research. The 1950 catalog still offers the set for sale. Same is true of the '1948-52' football set; the 1955 catalog still offers them for sale.

The post-1928 baseball issues are also rife with short prints and variations big and small.

[Snapolit1]

Because people who controlled the direction of the hobby, long time collectors and sellers of small cardboard, decided that bigger or medium size cardboard isn't really a card. No deeper than that.

Have heard people say "because they came out of a machine." Jeez, how stupid is that.


And Adam's book is great.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Because people who controlled the direction of the hobby, long time collectors and sellers of small cardboard, decided that bigger or medium size cardboard isn't really a card. No deeper than that.

Have heard people say "because they came out of a machine." Jeez, how stupid is that.


And Adam's book is great.

well said steve!!

[luciobar1980]

I am also not generally a fan of blank-back cards. Without the back they just feel like postcards or something. They're half the fun! I'm as much of a fan as back designs as I am of front designs, to be honest.

Also, the fronts really have no design to them at all.. they're just photos.

Not saying they're the worst, I've just never been drawn to them really at all.

[Exhibitman]

These are "just photos" too





Sometimes a picture says all it needs to say.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Thanks for the kind words, guys. I think size is a plus when the images are classic:

Party on wayne!!!!!