1948-49 Leaf vs. 1952 Topps

[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.

[tedzan]

Ronnie

I did collect Sportscards in the 1970's. My first price guide was the Sport Americana BB card Price Guide by Jim Beckett. And, it lists this LEAF BB card set as 1948-1949.
I told Jim (a good friend of mine) that this set was strictly a 1949 issue. Eventually, Jim corrected his Guide to reflect the 1949 date.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[RedsFan1941]

just took a quick look through some of my guides from the 1970s. The first edition of the Sport Americana Baseball Card Price Guide, published by Jim Beckett and Denny Eckes in 1979, listed Leafs as being issued in 1948-49.

The second edition of the Sports Collectors Bible, published in 1977, lists 1948 Leafs.

The Stirling Sports Card Catalog, published in 1977, lists 1948-49 Leafs.

I am not saying these guides are right, only that Leafs were referred to as issued in 1948 long before PSA and SGC were on the scene. So to blame the grading companies for this possible mistake, is unfair.

[Lorewalker]

I am fascinated by this, Ted, so I have now read the backs of 62 different cards from the Leaf set. To further my earlier point on my previous post, all 62 cards refer to the 1948 season and either list stats or highlight an event of that season. On one of the cards, #66 Orval Grove, which bares a 1948 copyright date, it actually refers to a "winter deal" that brought Early Wynn to the Indians.

I looked up the date of that winter deal and it took place on Dec 14, 1948. There is just no conceivable way that these cards were issued at anytime in 1948. I don't think Vistaprint and Fed Ex were around in 1948 where these cards could have been printed, packed and distributed between Dec 15 and Dec 31.

In case that is not convincing can anyone name a card issue that was released in a particular calendar year in which the stats referenced the season of that same year? It has been the practice of all card companies to release cards in the calendar reflecting the previous season's stats, etc.

This is absolutely not a 1948 issue. It is a 1949 issue and only 1949. I do not know copyright law but there has to be some legal explanation for some cards to bare the 1948 date and why some show 1949. If the presence of the 1948 copyright date is the only factor that determines that this is a 1948 issue then the hobby has the wrong date on this Leaf set.

[Exhibitman]

The copyright date reflects the year the item was submitted to the Library of Congress, not the date of commercial issue of the set. I can copyright a book today and not offer it for sale until next year.

Beware of errors of inductive reasoning: Reference to an event on a card indicates only that the copy on the card was drafted no earlier than the day after that event, not that it was issued on a specific date after that. For example, referring to a December 8, 1948 trade on a card means that the card bio was written some time after 12/8/48. Saying it was issued in 1949 is an assumption based on the likely date of issue given that bio; not saying it is wrong, just that it is not direct evidence. What if Leaf rolled out the set for Christmas? It would be a 1948 issue.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The copyright date reflects the year the item was submitted to the Library of Congress, not the date of commercial issue of the set. I can copyright a book today and not offer it for sale until next year.

Beware of errors of inductive reasoning: Reference to an event on a card indicates only that the copy on the card was drafted no earlier than the day after that event, not that it was issued on a specific date after that. For example, referring to a December 8, 1948 trade on a card means that the card bio was written some time after 12/8/48. Saying it was issued in 1949 is an assumption based on the likely date of issue given that bio; not saying it is wrong, just that it is not direct evidence. What if Leaf rolled out the set for Christmas? It would be a 1948 issue.

Thanks for the copyright explanation, Adam, so it could certainly be argued that if the copyright date is what is being used to call this a 1948 issue it could be flawed?

Assuming there is no card back that references a New Year's Eve party, a referenced trade that took place on Dec 14th I don't think would in all likelihood give Leaf enough time to print, pack and truck product to the be on the shelves for Christmas. With 11 days until Christmas how many days in advance of Christmas would a company want to get their product on the shelves in front of consumers? Baseball season was long over and football was in mid stride. I guess anything is possible for a company who employed skip numbers on their set but issuing baseball cards in the dead of winter seems like financial suicide.

Chase

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The copyright date reflects the year the item was submitted to the Library of Congress, not the date of commercial issue of the set. I can copyright a book today and not offer it for sale until next year.

Beware of errors of inductive reasoning: Reference to an event on a card indicates only that the copy on the card was drafted no earlier than the day after that event, not that it was issued on a specific date after that. For example, referring to a December 8, 1948 trade on a card means that the card bio was written some time after 12/8/48. Saying it was issued in 1949 is an assumption based on the likely date of issue given that bio; not saying it is wrong, just that it is not direct evidence. What if Leaf rolled out the set for Christmas? It would be a 1948 issue.

Hi Adam

Copyright ('48 or '49) has created this dilemma for decades. And, a good part of this is because there aren't too many dudes here as old as I am that remember when we collected
these LEAF BB cards as kids. I have said it in a prior post in this thread. But, I guess I'll have to reprise it again: "I have compared notes with old-timers in the hobby who collected
these cards in their youth. And, absolutely NO ONE recalls purchasing these cards in 1948.

However, some here do not accept this fact. So, I appeal to your common sense of logic....with the dated facts on these player's bios, and Orval Grove's bio (thanks to Lorewalker),
which alludes to the Dec 14, 1948 Grove / Wynn deal....how the hell can anyone think that this set of BB cards was issued in 1948 ? ?


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
.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 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.

Beckett listed it as a 1948-49 set not a 1948 set. The card pictured in the price guide is Joe DiMaggio. The first line of the bio is "Smashed out 39 home runs (tops) and 190 hits for a .320 average last season." Those are his stats from 1948. How is a card a 1948 card when it lists his 1948 sets as being last year?

We are asking common sense questions. How is it placed as a 1948 set when (all?) current players have 1948 stats and several refer to those stats as last year? Who changed the year from 1948-49 and what was the basis for that change? When I collected, it was never referred to as a 1948 set. How is it that kids can read the backs of the cards and figure out they are 1949 cards, but dealers and (serious?) collectors never read the backs of cards and just called them 1948? PSA from the earliest time called them incorrectly 1948, so don't they at least have some responsibility for the error? We all know the power of their flip and with some simple research they could have got it right.