Seeking opinions on T213-2 Lajoie variation

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Dewolf

I'll preface my question by saying that I realize there's likely no definitive answer, and in the end the decision is going to be 100 percent mind, but because I've given this a lot of thought I'd welcome some input.

Among my top collecting interests are Cleveland cards of Nap Lajoie. Because I'm an Indians/Cleveland collector first, I've had no desire to add Philadelphia cards of Lajoie to my collection.

My question is would you classify this card as depicting him as a member of the Cleveland or Philadelphia club? I realize that there is a card from the series that has the same image (Cleveland uniform) and the text lists him as being with Cleveland. So does the team designation that's printed on the card take precedence over what uniform a player is wearing? Again, I'm not looking for an absolute definition (assuming there even is one); I'd just appreciate some opinions.

Thanks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Cleveland. The uniform takes precedence.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

I'm a pre-war Phillies collector, and if the player is listed as being on a different team, I will not collect it, even if they have a Phillies uniform.

There are a lot of poses / pictures that are used across various T* and E* era sets of Philadelphia Phillies, but if it is an issue that lists team name on the front of the card, I will only collect it if it says "Philadelphia Nat'l", or some iteration of such.

But, collect as you like -- that is what makes this hobby fun.

Marc

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Rob,

Having just started to collect Toronto cards, I'm facing the same decision. The T213-2 set has a card of Tim Jordan, wearing a Brooklyn uni, listed as Toronto and the T214 set has a card of Joe Kelley wearing a Toronto uni, listed as New York.

Ultimately, I think it's a card-by-card decision. If the card has a unique pose and can be had for a decent price (ie. T213-2 Jordan) then you tell yourself it's the right team and try to pick one up. On the other hand, if it's a duplicate pose and/or not so cheap (ie. T214 Kelley), then you tell yourself it's not the right team, and move on.

Regards,

Richard.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

That T213 depicts him with Cleveland and the caption says Philadelphia Americans...

Cleveland released Lajoie to the Athletics on Tuesday, January 5, 1915.

So that T213 had to be printed AFTER that date. Makes me wonder about SGC's 1914 designation. Mr. Lipset's Encyclopedia says 1914 to 1916, and the type 2 series has 2 Lajoie's, one with a Cleveland caption, the other with Philadelphia American. So it would seem that the Cleveland captioned cards were the first of the bunch, and that those with the Philadelphia caption came later...


To answer your question, Philadelphia.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I'm going to suggest a compromise positon that is so complicated only a lawyer could come up with it.

If the card shows Lajoie in a Cleveland uniform, and you do not have another card of Lajoie in that pose, then buy the card even if he is listed with Philadelphia.

But if the same picture is also available on a card listing him with Cleveland, then you should skip the Philadelphia variation, especially if both cards are the same basic style. Here, there are T206 cards and even other Coupon cards that have the same picture, listing Lajoie with Cleveland. Stick with those and skip the Philadelphia ones.

Just my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I'm with Frank and others on this one. Lajoie didn't even join Philadelphia until 1915. So how can this even be a 1914 issue?

I think it's time to form a committee, perhaps spearheaded by Net54 members, to redate all these card issues that are currently misattributed. We find countless examples of sets that have long been dated incorrectly, starting with N28 and moving forward.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

If SGC had put 1914-1916 on there, I could accept that. That would be about right for the type 2 cards. But There's no way that card was around in 1914...


And I'm with Barry.

What we need is for about a dozen of us to calmly go through each issue, ascertain likely issue dates, and when our date conflicts with popular or guide dates, present our reasoning to the Standard Catalog folks (I perceive them most willing to listen to us, most willing to correct their publication), then wait to see if the listings are corrected.

Or, we get organized, form a "group", email info back and forth until we're satisfied with the work product, then WE publish a guide for Vintage Cards... Lord, we'd argue for months about where the cut-off date would be.

Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Instead of forming a private committee, why not just have guided threads on the board so that if anyone has good input they can add it? For example, a thread on T213-2 dating (started using the last few posts here) would seem to conclue the date was 1914-1916 and that info can then be presented to the Standard Catalog.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

I use the manufacturer designation. In this case, Philadelphia but as a Cleveland fan or collector, it would be hard to simply over look on this card.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Matt's idea adds to what I suggested on a different thread. If we had a link at the top of the page that directed us to pertinent information, such as lists that rate scarcity of backs, color variations, etc., we could also have a link (in spirit kind of like wikipedia) where contributors could study a set, demonstrate why they feel it is not dated correctly, and provide their research. Eventually, we would collectively revise the information in the current guides and provide them with more accurate dating.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

VintageCardapedia

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

I'll take all of the advertising possible on this card

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

If I were a Cleveland collector I would want this card. It is one of my favorite images on a baseball card and the Cleveland is more prominant.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: G. Maines

The image is Lajoie when he was with Cleveland.
Changing the caption does not change that fact.
This is Lajoie when he was with Cleveland.