topic: why are exhibits so underrated as a set?

[dbussell12]

really curious to hear your guys' thoughts on this. i just never understood it myself. they seem to me to be so fundamental as a consistent and essential undercurrent to the history of baseball cards themselves. and yet they are valued as less than! pic is a dimaggio from my collection. i personally think its his best most iconic card. i also feel similarly with the nyg mays, and perhaps even the ted williams salutations.

these cards are just so fundamental to me. they're deeply powerful in how they were distributed and accessed/accessible. and perhaps that contributes to their perceived market valuation now.

would love to hear your thoughts.

[tiger8mush]

Size is a major reason. Much larger than a traditional baseball card.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Size is a major reason. Much larger than a traditional baseball card.

i have heard similar! i really think they stand out as more painterly and striking pieces for that reason in my collection; are very singular. thanks for sharing!!

[parkplace33]

I like them, but this is what I have heard from other collectors over the years:

1. Dull compared to other issues.
2. Reprinted a ton over the years. You have to have a good eye to figure out if it an original or reprint.
3. The size is a hindrance.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I like them, but this is what I have heard from other collectors over the years:

1. Dull compared to other issues.
2. Reprinted a ton over the years. You have to have a good eye to figure out if it an original or reprint.
3. The size is a hindrance.

agreed drew. some of the prints are deeply striking; yes, the reprint thing i think can scare people off. identifying the years of each piece in the sets is something i've put an eye to a couple of times.

size is primarily what i am hearing as well, but thats one of the things i love about them. the format is so strange; to think of them as crucial mid century relics of media production is kind of my angle! cheers; great to hear from you here.

[Luke]

I think a combo of size and the fact that most collectors don't ever get interested in non-Topps/Bowman sets. The fact that I still see people calling 1948 Bowman Feller's RC tells me a lot about people's appetite for "oddball" cards. I agree with you about Exhibits, they are awesome. I beleive they are the first baseball cards ever sold (rather than given out as advertising pieces or prizes). Feels like that should give them a ton of hobby cred, but it doesn't seem to.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Luke

I think a combo of size and the fact that most collectors don't ever get interested in non-Topps/Bowman sets. The fact that I still see people calling 1948 Bowman Feller's RC tells me a lot about people's appetite for "oddball" cards. I agree with you about Exhibits, they are awesome. I beleive they are the first baseball cards ever sold (rather than given out as advertising pieces or prizes). Feels like that should give them a ton of hobby cred, but it doesn't seem to.

wow luke - we are on the same page. i think more about history in general so to me it seems like the set seems like a no brainer. that's a really powerful statement about the exhibits being the first ever sold. would love to hear you speak more about this if you ever wrote or considered writing an essay on them/this topic.

cheers; great to hear your opinion on this. we are totally in agreement!!

[obcbobd]

I love them and agree that the size issue affects their popularity. The 1921 Ruth is one of my favorite cards. The other reason, especially for set collectors is that for most years are not dated. Cards issued 1947-66 are grouped into a single set, at least according to my old vintage catalog. An extreme eample is the Ted Williams (9 showing), a great card. It's listed in the catalog as a 39-46 Salutation Exhibit, but I've heard it was produced well into the 1960s.

This site does give information on dating Exhibit cards https://keymancollectibles.com/exhibitdatechart.htm

[hcv123]

Your observation has perplexed me for many years. I have also heard the "size" reasoning. My problem with that is then why the exception for the 1925 Gehrig exhibit which took off for the moon not too many years ago?

I think there are some INCREDIBLE exhibit cards that have not come close to being price respected compared to their card counterparts. The 1921 Ruth is the one that tops the list for me. Low pop, unique (great) pose, early in his Yankees career..... what gives? The earlier 1920's issues in general I would say arguably have nicer more appreciable images than many of their card counterparts of the day.

[refz]

I’m going say the size ??

I like them by the way

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by refz

I’m going say the size ??

But size doesn't matter...

[dbussell12]

great thread we have going here guys... great to have this in the archives of the forum as well for current and future collectors to peruse and discover some of the in depth expertise members of the community have. wonderful stuff. thanks for commenting with your deep knowledge, experience, and considered thoughts adds a lot of value for everyone.

[wolverinejayhawks]

As an Exhibit card collector, I can add the following:

1. When people say dull, part of that is the monotone nature of exhibit cards, which also generally have a blank back. Tobacco and then candy cards were using multi-colors back in the 1800s. The Exhibit Supply Company presses weren’t set up to do multi-color.

2. Size made storage more of a hassle to early collectors.

3. The fact that the hoppy labeled them as “oddball” cards didn’t increase their popularity.

4. After the 1920s, they tended to have longer print runs for various sets. As noted earlier, Salutation Exhibits (1939- ?) kept the same cards for a long time and replaced them only as players retired. I’m sure this made the set look unfresh to kids who were the primary consumers of cards at the time. Topps and Bowman were what kids purchased in the 1950s and when collecting took off in the 1980s, that’s what they wanted: to rebuild their childhood collections.

I am not sure about the reprint angle. The 1980s reprints are clearly marked so you can tell they are reprints.

If you are interested in Exhibit cards, Adam Warshaw’s book is a great history of the sets.

https://www.lulu.com/shop/adam-warsh...e=1&pageSize=4

Vince


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brent G.]

Can someone please elaborate on the machines these came out of and where they were typically located?

[wolverinejayhawks]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Can someone please elaborate on the machines these came out of and where they were typically located?

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Can someone please elaborate on the machines these came out of and where they were typically located?

They were definitely located in Arcades (places where you could play ski-ball, pinball, etc.). I think store owners could also buy them and put them with gumball machines, etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[commishbob]

Growing up in the late 50s/early 60s I spent a couple of weeks every summer at my grandparents house in Brooklyn. One of my favorite memories of those times is walking the Coney Island boardwalk with a pocket full of coins and hitting up the Exhibit vending machines at the arcades. I only have a few left from my original collection, Gentile, Aparicio and a couple others but I’ve added many more over the years. They were certainly a fun part of my collecting life.

[Exhibitman]

The two-slot counter-top model. This:



I restored to this:

[BioCRN]

As a kid in the late 70s/early 80s I remember some of the machines once used as exhibit vending machines turned into sticker sheet vending machines.

[Schlesinj]

Nothing to add except a piece of advertisingIMG_6971.jpeg.

[darkhorse9]

I actually tried collecting the complete "set" of Salutation cards and came within six cards of completing.
It was then I realized there was no such thing as a "set"
. It's all a bunch of individual cards. Therefore completing it became a useless venture
I broke it all up, sold them individually and moved on to actual pre-war sets.

[wolverinejayhawks]

There is a nice history of the Exhibit Supply Company here: https://www.madeinchicagomuseum.com/...bit-supply-co/

As noted in that article, Exhibit Supply Company started actively marketing the machines to drug stores starting in the 1920s. That was about the same time that their first baseball set came out (1921).

Back then, drug stores were a center of retail activity where you bought candy, cigarettes, newspapers, etc. They also had soda counters and people hung out. I got all my first sports cards as a kid in the 1970s at several drug stores in my hometown.

Hence, distribution would have been pretty mainstream in the USA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by dbussell12

really curious to hear your guys' thoughts on this. i just never understood it myself. they seem to me to be so fundamental as a consistent and essential undercurrent to the history of baseball cards themselves. and yet they are valued as less than! pic is a dimaggio from my collection. i personally think its his best most iconic card. i also feel similarly with the nyg mays, and perhaps even the ted williams salutations.

these cards are just so fundamental to me. they're deeply powerful in how they were distributed and accessed/accessible. and perhaps that contributes to their perceived market valuation now.

would love to hear your thoughts.

Personally I like this set. However, I used to collect individual HOF'ers that interested me due to the size as some have mentioned previously, and the difficulty picking up the nuances of the set. Exhibits are sort of like JD McCarthy postcards are the to the'60's - '80's. I like JD McCarthy postcards because all of the poses were not on printed on the main issues of a players card and the set contains the images cards or postcards produced of many players. However, there are so many postcards and variations...something like 2,496 at last count