1948-49 Leaf vs. 1952 Topps

[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)

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by irv

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)

that is certainly your choice. you can understand why people would choose not to just accept everything a person says as the truth, i hope.

[irv]

Originally Posted by 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
.

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

that is certainly your choice. you can understand why people would choose not to just accept everything a person says as the truth, i hope.

There are many on here who have a wealth of information that makes me envious but not many (that I am aware of?) can actually say they remember purchasing these cards when they were young.

That in itself trumps others who are only going by what is written and what they heard from some other collectors who likely weren't around then or didn't collect back then.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

that is certainly your choice. you can understand why people would choose not to just accept everything a person says as the truth, i hope.

Words of wisdom Ronnie.... Ted is as knowledgeable as it gets and knows more than you forgot....Have a nice day!

[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?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by rats60

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?

Hi rats60......thanks for your comments.

I completely agree with your logic. In fact, I have been saying the same as you. However, there are a few on this forum that don't accept it. I guess they just want to be contrarians.
They appear to think that the Grading Companies are infallible; therefore, any fact we provide is ignored by them (or they just don't understand).

As we have said, if collectors read the backs of these 1949 LEAF cards, they will see the player's 1948 stats. Furthermore, no one can argue with the Lou Boudreau and Frank Gustine
bios where events as late as December 1948 are described. Here they are......


MVP in 1948 (announced in mid-December 1948) …... Gustine traded to Cubs on December 8, 1948 .……. "Should sizzle into his old stride this year" (1949)
. .



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[RedsFan1941]

i am not saying that Ted’s theory about the year of issue is incorrect. i am saying he is wrong in placing blame on PSA, SGC, etc.

i know for a fact, because I was there, that 20 years before grading companies existed, collectors and price guides referred to the Leaf set as being issued in 1948. I bet ted knows this too if he was collecting in the 70s.