Could G & B be two separate issues?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

In going through my G & Bs, I noticed that some have "chewing gum" above the company name at the bottom and some do not (the area is blank). The ones with chewing gum do not appear to be any more difficult than the ones without. I did not attach any signifigance to it until I noticed a few duplicates that have other differences besides the "chewing gum" or lack thereof. In the O'Rourke portraits, the only difference is the "chewing gum". In the Ryan portraits, the font is different and the script team name "Chicago" is different. Finally, in the Welch portraits, the script team name is different and the portrait without chewing gum has an oval around the picture, like an SF Hess. (I have one other G & B like that also, Whitney.

It appears to me that the cards were made in two distict batches- one with "chewing gum", one without, and that they are different series- same poses reissued.

Leon- please reduce these scans if they are too large.

[Archive]

Posted By: bigfish

Really nice looking cards!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Richard- first off, it's a nice luxury to have duplicate poses of G & B. That aside, it certainly does seem correct that there were two distinct print runs. Perhaps they were popular enough that they ran out and had to print some more. That seems logical.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

As I look again the Ryan and Welch each have an "S" at the end of the team name in one, and not in the other. No question two separate print runs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

is the answer. I also tried to find a pattern and there was none. Line drawings, photo portraits, all teams were just as likely to appear with "chewing gum" as without.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

the O'Rourke is exactly the same photo and scripted team name. If they simply reissued with different advertising captions, why re-do the Ryan and Welch but not O'Rourke?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Really interesting discovery! Is there a similar pattern with Yum Yums?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

I need many more Yum Yums to make that determination.
But I don't think so. All Yum Yum captions are the same and I have noticed no differences in my few dupes.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Great cards. I sure think of Four Base Hits when I look at those cards. Those pictures really resemble them. Just from memory it seems like I see more with the chewing gum than without...I'm still looking for a fielding pose if you ever want to talk..?

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Yup, I was just going through a few of my dupes and one of my T206 Wagners just seems a little different from my other T206 Wagner...

Nice cards... I know you had a question in mind but thanks for sharing those scans. Those are awesome...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

There is probably no specific reason why the O'Rourke doesn't share the same characteristics as the other two. We are assuming the printers spent the same amount of time we are in checking out these nuances.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

The N403, E223 and Four Base Hits share many of the same photos. I know the Ewing portrait is the same (ouch), and you probably recognize this one:



and Fred, I think I bought most of these in the early 1990s before they were fully appreciated.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

That's great....but he looks like he has a crease almost right where mine does?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

and yours is twice as big.......

I can't believe I said that.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

at least you didn't say my Johnson is twice as big...

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Nope, just your Kelly, Leon...

[Archive]

Posted By: david

this was originally noted by lew in his book.

'the words chewing gum appear on some of the cards on others it is omitted. thus far, non of the nine subjects known american league cards have chewing gum. however, of the remaining 46 subjects 17 do not have chewing gum while 17 do. six of the 29 have been found which exist both with and without the variation. the possibility must be considered that this variation could distinguish between cards issued in 1888, those in 1889 and those in both years.'

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

There may have been two print runs, but how can anyone speculate that this was due to the "popularity" of the issue? With only 1 to 5 (or thereabouts) of each card surviving, this must have been one of the least loved of all sets when issued.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

I think the low survival rate says more about the product than the cards.
Same goes for YumYums.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Maybe Yum Yum tasted like Crap Crap.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

Just curious, as I have not seen too many other non-sports G&B's, were the baseball players issued simultaneously, and how many other non-baseball subjects are known.
-Rhett Yeakley