1948-49 Leaf vs. 1952 Topps

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ted -- what about old price guides (I am sure they existed in the 50s and 60s) and old ads etc., what year did they identify the Leafs as being from?

[bobsbbcards]

I just updated my 49 Leaf Spreadsheet with today's VCP prices. Using $26,000 for the Paige (i.e., there are no recent sales for PSA 5's), the price for a complete set (with variations) in PSA 5 is $65,999. If you want to round that to $66,000, you won't be too far off.

PSA 4 set - $49,968
PSA 6 set - $106,546
PSA 7 set - $202,228
PSA 8 set - $473,477

Edited to add: I voted both

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ted -- what about old price guides (I am sure they existed in the 50s and 60s) and old ads etc., what year did they identify the Leafs as being from?

Peter....I just checked-out my old Price Guides, and here is my answer to you:

1979 Sport Americana BB card (1st Jim Beckett) Price Guide …...1948-1949

1987 SCD (1st Bob Lemke) Price Guide...… 1948-1949

Also, if I recall correctly Burdick, Frank Nagy, etc. referred to these LEAF cards as 1949.


Now, can you please answer my question. I will reprise it from my previous post...…

Originally Posted by tedzan

Peter..... in each of the two series of this 98 subject set 67 % of the cards have a Copyright date of 1948, and the other 33 % are dated 1949. You're a lawyer, have you ever
seen a Copyright date stamped in advance ?
I don't think it is legal to stamp a 1949 Copyright on a product that was supposedly issued in 1948.

Thanks


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[tedzan]

Hey guys,


Kudos to SGC......they finally got it correct. These LEAF premiums (7" x 5 1/2") were enclosed in the 24-count wax-pack boxes under the wax-packs.
They were given out to the lucky kid that purchased enough LEAF packs which emptied the box. So, these premiums are indeed a 1949 issue. But....
SGC identifies the LEAF BB cards as "1948-49 LEAF GUM CO." Very, very inconsistent ! ! When will these grading companies get it right ? ?



.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ted, I certainly would think that the copyright date would not be intentionally misrepresented, aside from legality what would be the point? But I guess the 1948 copyright on so many of the cards must be the source of the confusion.

[tedzan]

"Confusion" only to those unfamiliar with the production of this set of cards, Peter.

In 1981, I was doing research for my article in BASEBALL Cards Magazine regarding 1949 BOWMAN vs 1949 LEAF sets. I interviewed former senior employees of both of these
Gum Co. The LEAF employee was involved in the original production of these cards. She told me that the majority of the Rights to the images and the bios of the players were
obtained during 1948 (hence 1948 Copyright). And, the remaining players were obtained in early 1949 (hence 1949 Copyright).

I very well recall as a kid that the LEAF cards were available in March - April 1949 in my neighborhood in Hillside, NJ. I have compared this date with other veteran collectors in
the hobby, and they concur with this release date (collectors from St Louis to Boston).

I have never, ever met anyone who said they acquired these cards in 1948.

We were all too busy collecting 1948 LEAF Football cards. Their Hi # series was issued circa December 1948.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[RedsFan1941]

Grading companies are guilty of many mistakes. “Blaming” them for labeling 1948 Leaf baseball cards isn’t one of them. I collected cards back in the mid 70s and went to small shows along with the larger ones in Cincinnati and Plymouth, Michigan. EVERYBODY referred to these cards as “1948 Leafs.” This was at a time when the cards were only 30 years old. I have a hard time believing all of those hobby veterans were wrong.

[irv]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

Grading companies are guilty of many mistakes. “Blaming” them for labeling 1948 Leaf baseball cards isn’t one of them. I collected cards back in the mid 70s and went to small shows along with the larger ones in Cincinnati and Plymouth, Michigan. EVERYBODY referred to these cards as “1948 Leafs.” This was at a time when the cards were only 30 years old. I have a hard time believing all of those hobby veterans were wrong.

Well, I hate to jump in here, but if I had to listen to only one person on here with regards to postwar cards, Ted would be the guy.

Many on here have vast knowledge, or far greater knowledge than myself, and Ted is definitely one of those guys who I listen to and don't question. (jmo)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

Grading companies are guilty of many mistakes. “Blaming” them for labeling 1948 Leaf baseball cards isn’t one of them. I collected cards back in the mid 70s and went to small shows along with the larger ones in Cincinnati and Plymouth, Michigan. EVERYBODY referred to these cards as “1948 Leafs.” This was at a time when the cards were only 30 years old. I have a hard time believing all of those hobby veterans were wrong.

I have no reason at all to doubt Ted, but that's what's so confusing (to me anyhow), this isn't ancient history at all. It would be like someone today getting the date wrong on an 80s issue.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

Grading companies are guilty of many mistakes. “Blaming” them for labeling 1948 Leaf baseball cards isn’t one of them. I collected cards back in the mid 70s and went to small shows along with the larger ones in Cincinnati and Plymouth, Michigan. EVERYBODY referred to these cards as “1948 Leafs.” This was at a time when the cards were only 30 years old. I have a hard time believing all of those hobby veterans were wrong.

I agree with Ronnie I don't think the grading companies should be
at blame for a cataloging error.

PSA uses the catalogs as their reference and I know from personal experience they won't grade a card that isn't cataloged.

I don't know about the newest version but although they mention that it is
believed that they were not released until 1949 they still have the cards listed
as 1948 and the premiums listed as 1949 in the 2016 edition.
img611.jpg

[rats60]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

Grading companies are guilty of many mistakes. “Blaming” them for labeling 1948 Leaf baseball cards isn’t one of them. I collected cards back in the mid 70s and went to small shows along with the larger ones in Cincinnati and Plymouth, Michigan. EVERYBODY referred to these cards as “1948 Leafs.” This was at a time when the cards were only 30 years old. I have a hard time believing all of those hobby veterans were wrong.

This is funny, because collecting in Illinois in the 70s, everybody called them 1949 cards. We were taught that the card year was the next year after the last year of stats. The cards had 1948 stats, thus 1949 cards. I find it hard to believe that no one in Michigan or Ohio turned the cards over and read the backs.

This was my first 1949 Leaf card. The back reads "Made debut in 1947 as first baseman. Hit .296...chosen 'rookie of the year.' Last season again hit .296..." So as a teenager collecting in the 70s, the card has stats from 1947 and last year 1948, so the card is a 1949 Leaf. I am confused as to why this is so hard. Why would a company write last year in reference to 1948 if they made the cards in 1948?