W520 and W522 strip cards a 1921 issue, not 1920

[judsonhamlin]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Nice work.

This evidence most certainly does impact the "rookie" card collecting community. Collectors often grab the W520 or W522 for George Kelly's rookie card. I guess this leaves the horribly ugly 1920 W516-1 as his only "true" rookie now. And the creators were kind enough to completely butcher his name (and position). And doesn’t the image look more like Ross Youngs (who also played for the Giants and who is noticeably absent from the set):

I always thought the photo was Hal Chase...

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

I always thought the photo was Hal Chase...

I could see that too...

[rhettyeakley]

E220 is a 1922 set, despite the 1921-23 date usually given.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

E220 is a 1922 set, despite the 1921-23 date usually given.

Hi Rhett, I 100% believe you, but do you have a thread and/or evidence that can support that dating? The date of issuance for that set is important for dumb-asses like me.

[rhettyeakley]

There was this thread from a couple years back...
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125883

[brianp-beme]

Looking at the E220 thread that Rhett provided a link for and the listings of players that have been verified in each of the 3 different back styles shown, it appears that Rhett's theory that the E220 set is likely a 1922 issue is accurate, as one of the cards that he references as started in 1922 with the team identified on his card (George Burns - Cincinnati) is seen with all three back types.

For example it is possible that the Type 1 back, which all 120 cards have been identified as existing, was partially issued in 1921 and then in 1922 (which might account for the multiple poses seen in the set of some players, like Pete Kilduff bending and Pete Kilduff leaping, etc.). I think 1923 is not a likely date, but with the handful of cards that Rhett identified as having ended their careers in 1920 with the team identified on their cards, that we can't rule out a multi-year issue of this set (1921 +1922).

Brian