Reflections on 1949 BOWMAN's (25 HOFers, many Rookies)...show-N-tell us of your cards

[jimmysuitcase]

Thanks for your response, Ted. My slate hi# is pictured below next to his normal counterpart.

[G1911]

I'm building this set right now, in low grade, with 81 cards to go. I really underrated the high numbers before starting this set, they are pretty tough comparatively. I've got a slate Joe Tipton, and plan to do the white/grey backs in series 1.


I like and hate this set. I like it as the first of the post-war 'full size' mainstream sets, and I've grown to like the odd half-colorization used in 1949 by Leaf and Bowman. As a set collector who doesn't care about rookies, all the star rookies and their increased prices sure can get annoying though, for cards that are less attractive (In my subjective opinion) than pretty much any of the mainstream 50's sets featuring the same players. The Jackie card I have never understood how it can be reasonably considered a rookie at all. I've had a ton of fun picking up the commons though as part of my full Bowman run (all my other sets are 0-5 cards away from completion).

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm building this set right now, in low grade, with 81 cards to go. I really underrated the high numbers before starting this set, they are pretty tough comparatively. I've got a slate Joe Tipton, and plan to do the white/grey backs in series 1.


I like and hate this set. I like it as the first of the post-war 'full size' mainstream sets, and I've grown to like the odd half-colorization used in 1949 by Leaf and Bowman. As a set collector who doesn't care about rookies, all the star rookies and their increased prices sure can get annoying though, for cards that are less attractive (In my subjective opinion) than pretty much any of the mainstream 50's sets featuring the same players.

The Jackie card I have never understood how it can be reasonably considered a rookie at all.

I've had a ton of fun picking up the commons though as part of my full Bowman run (all my other sets are 0-5 cards away from completion).

G1911

You are a true collector...... Thanks for sharing your thoughts regarding this set.

And yes, the 1949 BOWMAN Jackie Robinson is far from being his "rookie" card.


ROOKIE card.....issued Summer 1947 ..…..……………..….....……. 1948 ……..…...…..…....…... Early Spring 1949





Mid Spring 1949





TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by tedzan

G1911

You are a true collector...... Thanks for sharing your thoughts regarding this set.

And yes, the 1949 BOWMAN Jackie Robinson is far from being his "rookie" card.

You forgot the Swell Sport Thrills!

Jackie has so many early issues and all this can just create confusion among us collectors. His 1948 Leaf has the crown at the moment and I think it should stay that way. This was his first card issued by a major US card manufacturer. Furthermore, it comes from one of the best baseball sets ever made.

We also want to be careful here that Jackie doesn't end up going the "Pele route." Pele had a few rookie cards, which were manufactured between the years of 1958 to 1960, sell for large amounts of money. The collecting world started to take notice, and next thing you know, he now has about twenty-plus rookies! Here is the latest discovery:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1958-A-Gaze...4AAOSwgOddzw05

It looks hand-cut to me and PSA ended up grading this piece of garbage. I had to walk away from all this madness.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

ROOKIE card.....issued Summer 1947 .…..……………..….....……. 1948 ....……..…...…..…....… 1948
.





Early Spring 1949 ..………...………...................…...………. Mid Spring 1949

. .



TED Z
.

Ohhhh ! I forgot the 1948 SWELL GUM JRobby. Thanks for reminding me, Jason.

Furthermore, it's really refreshing to hear some one else on this forum agree with me regarding the 1949 LEAF cards.
Thanks again, Jason.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Ohhhh ! I forgot the 1948 SWELL GUM JRobby. Thanks for reminding me, Jason.



Furthermore, it's really refreshing to hear some one else on this forum agree with me regarding the 1949 LEAF cards.

Thanks again, Jason.





TED Z



T206 Reference

.

Here is a SABR poll from May, which shows at least 1949 is gaining steam. I linked readers to your excellent article at http://oldcardboard.com/misc/issue09/issue09.asp and Keith Olbermann commented on the poll with 1949 (see second pic).



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Here is a SABR poll from May, which shows at least 1949 is gaining steam. I linked readers to your excellent article at http://oldcardboard.com/misc/issue09/issue09.asp


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Jason

That poll shows us that 42 % of collectors have been "brainwashed" by PSA with their phony "1948" date on their flips. PSA should recall every single 1949 LEAF card
that they have graded, and re-grade them correcting the the date on their flip. But, we know they won't do this. So, the "fake news" will continue.

Hey guys,
I appeal to your common sense of logic. Certain bios on the backs of the 1949 LEAF cards provide proof as to when these cards were issued. I do no expect you to start
reading numerous bios to prove it to yourself. Displayed here is one card that tells the whole story, Lou Boudreau's bio......check-it-out.

.

Lou Boudreau's MVP Award was announced in December of 1948.

And, for those of you who would counter..... "well some cards were issued in 1948, while others in 1949". Well. that is sheer "horse-crap".
The COPYRIGHT date on the back of each card identifies when its Bio was written and registered.

Here is an uncut sheet of the 1st Series cards issued in early Spring of 1949. I, and many other old-time collectors, acquired these cards in 1949.
And NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, has ever said they acquired them in 1948. I did a survey some years ago in which I asked this of collectors who
grew up in various parts of the country in the late 1940's.





For those of you who value accurate dating of BB card sets, I leave you with this....get a copy of http://oldcardboard.com/misc/issue09/issue09.asp.
You'll find it worthwhile and very interesting.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jason

That poll shows us that 42 % of collectors have been "brainwashed" by PSA with their phony "1948" date on their flips. PSA should recall every single 1949 LEAF card
that they have graded, and re-grade them correcting the the date on their flip. But, we know they won't do this. So, the "fake news" will continue.

Hey guys,
I appeal to your common sense of logic. Certain bios on the backs of the 1949 LEAF cards provide proof as to when these cards were issued. I do no expect you to start
reading numerous bios to prove it to yourself. Displayed here is one card that tells the whole story, Lou Boudreau's bio......check-it-out.

.

Lou Boudreau's MVP Award was announced in December of 1948.

And, for those of you who would counter..... "well some cards were issued in 1948, while others in 1949". Well. that is sheer "horse-crap".
The COPYRIGHT date on the back of each card identifies when its Bio was written and registered.

Here is an uncut sheet of the 1st Series cards issued in early Spring of 1949. I, and many other old-time collectors, acquired these cards in 1949.
And NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, has ever said they acquired them in 1948. I did a survey some years ago in which I asked this of collectors who
grew up in various parts of the country in the late 1940's.





For those of you who value accurate dating of BB card sets, I leave you with this....get a copy of http://oldcardboard.com/misc/issue09/issue09.asp.
You'll find it worthwhile and very interesting.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I think it's pretty obvious that the Leafs are a 1949 issue, the Boudreau being the most concrete evidence that makes 1948 100% impossible. I've wondered how this set got stamped with the 1948 date everywhere though. This was a fairly major issue, and not a very old set when the catalogs first began, unlike many other sets that have been attributed with inaccurate dates. In the early periodicals, does anyone know if these were correctly labelled as 1949, and the mistake came later? Or have these just always been labelled with the wrong year? Most all the catalogs and checklists I have access too from before the last few years insist it is a 1948 issue, not just PSA's slabs.


It would be a fun project to more thoroughly trace some of the historiography than the history of the sets themselves, how a lot of the misinformation that has been spread happened (T206 Hustler backs, T220 Silver border Jack Goodman, N28 being an 1888 issue, etc.)

As to Jackie:
1947 Bond Bread
1947 Bond Bread Exhibit
1947 Bond Bread Dual Sided
1947 Bond Bread Jackie Series (13 cards)
1948 R346 blue Tint
1948 Swell Sports Thrills

By my count, that's at least 18 different cards before his Leaf and Bowman were issued. If his Leaf and Bowman are rookies, than almost all the cards in the sets is a "rookie," even though those players are on many earlier cards.


Since posts are better with a card, here's the 3 Leafs I got in the mail this week, including Mr. Boudreau. I don't like this set quite enough to pay up the big bucks for the scarce second series, but I'd like to complete Series 1, raw and low-grade.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by jimmysuitcase

Thanks for your response, Ted. My slate hi# is pictured below next to his normal counterpart.

jimmysuitcase

Thanks, I have "Buddy" Kerr.

I've been tracking the Hi # slates which have been found.
To date, I have 26 slates from the Hi# series.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.