 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
08-23-2020, 06:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Where is this thread going?
To start, if one can't definitively say whether a card is coming from a bread package or a Sports Star Subjects box everything else that follows is irrelevant. So where is this going? Are we going to get a bunch of random pictures of rounded cards and square cards, pretend we know what packaging they originally came from, and then draw likely arbitrary conclusions about what differentiates them when any differentiating factors may be completely random or specific to the impact of the environment on the cards from the decades that followed their manufacturing, and then call this research?
Ted and Shaun have captured a lot of great background info on late 40's bread cards from their own personal experience and verifiable data coming from contemporaneous publications. Ted took the right approach when he dropped out of what is happening now when the process stopped becoming valid and reliable versus anything resembling academic research standards. In all likelihood the vast majority of distinctly rounded corner cards that have specific color/toning/contrast on the front and back are period to the late 40's. Yes, someone can try to imitate at least the front of these cards through cutting a square cornered card in a similar fashion and no third party grading service is going to get it right all of the time. It is what it is. Last edited by griffon512; 08-23-2020 at 06:12 AM. 
|
|
#2
08-23-2020, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is a distinction between Bond Bread and "Sport Star Subjects" cards!
Quote:
Cards inserted into the bread packages lost some of that brilliance from being there. Cards in the Sport Star Subjects sets initially retained the cardstock brightness in their boxes, but as removed and handled the brilliance diminished. In his first post at the beginning of this thread, Ted stated: "A recent find of many of these SQUARE cards (BB and Movie Stars) suggest a 1949 issue date since Walker Cooper is depicted in this collection as a NY Giant (Cooper was traded to Cinci in the Summer of '49)." While he called it an "unknown set," he obviously was referring to the "square" corner cards of that version of the Sport Star Subjects sets not issued with "round" corners. He was mistaken though in assuming Walker Cooper was in the set. Thus from the beginning of this thread, he was unaware of a Sport Star Subjects set with "round" corners. Ted saved many from mistakes by brilliantly distinguishing 1947 Bond Bread package inserts from Festberg remainders with his white-back, round-corners vs. brown-toned back, square-corners definition. We all got it and we're all past that. Ted indicated he has withdrawn from participation in this thread. He leaves unanswered the confusion his long used, catch-all phrase created as it unwittingly encompasses the "round" corner Sport Star Subjects cards. They are not Bond Bread package inserts. 68Hawk's 08-20-20 Post #311 above, gave us an opportunity to hear what a grading card company would tell its customer about how it distinguishes Bond Bread cards from Sport Star Subjects cards. That question has been asked several times in this thread. From his pictures, it cannot be said which one of these two sets his card came from. At the present it is true though, that a card a grading company has authenticated as a Bond Bread insert has more value than identified otherwise. But remember, there are a couple of old timers who participated early on in this thread who said they obtained their Sport Star Subjects sets in 1947. You ask why post all of the pictures. On 04-04-2009 in Post #8 above, Ted posted the backs of a Bond Bread insert and a Festberg remainder side-by-side showing their distinctive "white" or "brown-toned" backs. Ted complained about the recent picture I posted showing the backs of a Bond Bread insert verses a Sport Star Subjects card. He will not post his own picture. The pictures now being posted by others will help fill in the gaps as an alternative resolution. This is not an exercise in futility nor a "take-sides" issue. Rather, we all can learn if we participate. Keep posting your pictures of the backs of Bond Bread inserts and Star Star Subjects cards. I am seeking a set of Sport Star Subjects cards in their original unopened boxes for two reasons. First, it will help establish the order of arrangement of the cards inside since most boxes were opened, the cards taken out, and often put back inside in a random order, not the original. Second, the full brightness of the white cardstock should be retained. Copyright 2020, by Michael Fried, P.O. Box 27521, Oakland, California 94602-0521
|
|
#3
08-23-2020, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"intensity of the brightness of the white card stock." I give up. I'm waving the white flag (a more intense white than typically seen in homogenized bread cards, must be a sports star subject flag from 1947 with rounded corners). I hope others do the same.
Last edited by griffon512; 08-23-2020 at 04:38 PM.
|
|
#4
08-24-2020, 05:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
What we see is the perceptional result of light radiating on our eyes from the visible region of the spectrum. In 1931, the Commission Internationale de L’Éclairage (CIE) adopted standard curves for color that specify how the various wavelengths of light coming from an object (its radiance) can be transformed into a set of three numbers that specify a color (its “spectral power distribution” or SPD). The eleven basic color categories are white, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange, and gray, but each color has tens of thousands or more variations. The CIE defines “brightness” as “the attribute of a visual sensation according to which an area appears to emit more or less light.” CIE defined a numerically standard curve to measure such luminance. Integrating the set of three numbers that specify a color (the SPD) with the measured “brightness” of an object results in a specific CIE luminance number for the object. For more details, see http://poynton.ca/ColorFAQ.html In other words, we can measure the differences between the brightness of the Bond Bread cards after they came out of the packages against the brightness of cards fresh from a Sport Star Subjects box. The referenced website article above also provides guidance on how to adjust any scans that get posted here to a uniform standard so that one can be compared against another. I don't know which “white flag” you are waving. Is it a Bond Bread one or a Sport Star Subjects one? Providing more scans of cards is better than giving up. I do know that for more than 10 years, many people insisted in this thread the Festberg remainders were nothing more than reprints printed after 1980. My Post #194 above of 05-07-2020 (only a little more than 3 months ago, less time than it took to print the cards) provided scientific evidence to establish otherwise. Below is one of the pictures from that post, a Festberg card on top of a strip of new white paper taken under ultraviolet light.  The card itself does not glow because it does not have the chemical “brighteners” that have been added to paper since 1951, while the white strip underneath glows bright, an indicator of added brighteners. Perhaps my May 2020 posting was confusing because here and there I used terms like “brighteners” and “brightness.” We will be able to measure the actual difference in luminance between Bond Bread and Sport Star Subject cards using a less rudimentary technology than an ultraviolet light (used here only to determine whether or not chemical brighteners had been added). Of course, it's easy to give up if you really don't care about the differences between 1947 Bond Bread package insert cards and cards of the Sport Star Subjects set. It may be easier to just spend four or five figures on something called a “rookie” card rather than actually know what it is. It is not reasonable to discourage those who might want to know because you do not care. Keep on posting the backs of Bond Bread cards and Sport Star subject cards for those of us who care. Thanks, Mike Copyright 2020 by Michael Fried, P.O. Box 27521, Oakland, California 94602-0521 Last edited by abctoo; 08-24-2020 at 06:10 AM.
|
|
#5
08-24-2020, 06:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have tried to follow this thread. (I am not actually interested in either of the two sets discussed. My interest is in the related Jackie Robinson set, which hasn't been addressed.) I have a couple of thoughts.
It is hard not to admire Mike's "camel in search of water" doggedness. But, we have followed this saga through numerous sand dunes and yet the horizon continues to show endless sand in all directions. I have to agree with Griffon that the quest appears doomed. Not only is the "water" proving hard to find, it seems extremely unlikely that the provenance of any cards that may be posted will be solid enough to justify drawing any useful conclusions. Like Griffon, I have lost interest. I hate to abandon Mike in the desert, but I really can't see how he is going to achieve any meaningful results. Good luck to Mike in proving me wrong.
|
|
#6
08-24-2020, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's true, I've posted little on the 13 cards of the Bond Bread special Jackie Robinson set. member Charleybrown has been researching that issue far beyond belief for years and has posted extensive, useful information in the thread entitled, " OT: Revisiting the D302 Jackie Robinson Bond Bread Release Date " and elsewhere. In one of his July 2020 posts, Charleybrown indicated he was going to write a more detailed article fully exploring those cards. You should look forward to reading it as I do once it gets published. He has broken a lot of myths about those cards, even those that have existed for over 60 years. The hardest ones of those myths are the dates that each of the individual cards were issued. He has conclusively proven, including from the 1946-1949 dates of the original, underlying wire service photos used to create the Robinson pictures on the cards, that not all were issued in 1947. Rather, they were issued from 1947 through 1949. Other than my little reference to those Robinson cards (such as in Post #290 on 07-03-2020), I would be redundant to attempt to add anything to Chareybrown's outstanding efforts. I will say, the grading card companies appear to be ignoring reality and are still dating all of these 13 cards on their labels as 1947. That's very misleading for those seeking only "rookie" cards. GeoPoto, distinguishing Bond Bread cards from other lookalikes is not an endless process. I've only been at it for a little more than 3 months. Already, we have found the pictures used in the Bond Bread insert set come from ACME Newspictures Service. That also establishes that the Team Photo Packs sold in ballparks (that contained some of those photos) were made up of pictures from ACME. We've found that cards generally attributed as "Bond Bread perforated dual sided cards" are actually an Elgee Product, not associated with Bond Bread. We date the release date to 1947-48 because a few of the pictures of action shots of Cowboys in the set come from the movie "Red River," which though filmed in 1946, was released in 1948. ACME distributed movie studio pictures to more than 900 clients including over 700 newspaper groups. Since all of the rest of the Cowboy photos come from Cowboy movies released in 1947 or before, it is possible that "Red River" did release movie shots for advance publicity in 1947. If so, that would put the set as a 1947 set and not a 1947-48 one. We've found that the 1947 Bond Bread insert cards, and the round and square corner cards of the Sport Star Subject sets and the Screen Star Subject sets were manufactured by the Meyercord Co. of Chicago. You fear the distinction between the Bond Bread inserts and the rounded-corner Sport Star Subject cards may take forever to resolve. Actually, we're not far off from that. While it is a complex issue, as time permits to do so, an extrapolation of the digital image information in http://poynton.ca/ColorFAQ.html will answer your question. That should satisfy your concerns about the provenance of cards posted. We tried to make the distinction another way -- by comparing the wear on individual die-cuts used for the photos on Bond Bread cards and Sports Star Subjects cards. That would have been very easy if Ted had provided a uniform scan of each of his proven original Bond Bread card to use for comparison. He refused. We also established as untrue the opinion that the Festberg remainders were reprints made in the 1980's. Our ultraviolet light test proved they were printed on cardstock made before 1951. We've also shown the fallacy of attempting to distinguish cards by how close one part of an image is to the edge vs. the closeness of the image to an edge of another card. That issue arose because people forgot to apply their knowledge about cards in general. The uncut cards in the sheets of Bond Bread and Sport Star Subjects had no space between each other and would trim just like any other cards, often with a little shift to the left or right, or up or down. We all see what happens during such shifts, and its called "centering," an issue that still plagues the hobby today. Don't give up! We're working on it and have gone a long way in less than 3½ months. Post your pictures of the backs of Bond Bread and Sport Star Subjects cards, and please continue making comments. It all helps us focus on the actual issues troubling our readers. Stay healthy, Mike Copyright 2020 by Michael Fried, P.O. Box 27521, Oakland, California 94602-0521 Last edited by abctoo; 08-24-2020 at 05:38 PM.
|
|
#7
08-24-2020, 06:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don't confuse indifference with what is obvious: this has been a bridge to nowhere and will continue to be so because the research process is unreliable, random, and invalid. It would not pass muster to even a hint of academic research scrutiny. As I said before -- though I recognize that any objective points will likely never be digested -- if one can not even verify which cards are coming from Bond Bread packages and Sports Star Subject packages everything else is irrelevant. That should be obvious but apparently it isn't. If one is doing a scientific experiment and they can't even identify who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group any results that follow are irrelevant. Clear enough? Probably not.
In Ted's Post 298 -- comprised mainly of Homogenized Bread cards he got when he was a kid in 1947 with the exception of two cards he identified as in later years -- it is clear that there is no material difference in the "intensity of the whiteness," the key differentiator in your words, between the backs of his cards and the supposed Sports Star Subject back you often use in your post. If you want to blacklight every card you can gather from the Festberg find and compare them to Homogenized Bread cards, go for it, no one is going to stop you. If people want to waste their time contributing to this "research" that's their choice. I've wasted enough time reading these posts. By the way, I'm pretty confident there is nothing legally binding about slapping on a copyright on a Internet forum post. Not that anyone of rational mind would have the slightest interest in reproducing the information in this thread. Copyright: Me, dumbass who spent too much time on this thread
|
|
#8
08-24-2020, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It obvious from your response that you did not read the reference, http://poynton.ca/ColorFAQ.html, which primarily concerns reconciling the difference with digital images. Had you done so, you would have recognized that a pool of pictures being sought does not produce research that is unreliable, random, or invalid. In fact, it provides guidance for taking random pictures and modifying to a standard normal for computer use. Regardless of the pool of pictures we obtain, all can be adjusted to the same color standards we set for Bond Bread and Sport Star Subject cards. From Ted we have original Bond Bread inserts and I have some of the Subjects cards, on which to establish such standards. It is a complex and detailed process I am not yet willing to do unless I have enough pictures to apply it to. I see you have apparently lost interest in finding out just what is actually a Bond Bread or a Sport Star Subjects card. For some reason you chose to delete most of the content of your postings in this thread prior to the one quoted above. It seems you did not like the direction I was going in pointing that high grade cards of the lookalike Bond Bread and Sport Star Subjects sets primarily come from Sport Star Subjects sets. Obviously you do not agree that placing a single card inside a bread package to be handled as it will by the recipient will cause cards to have more wear than those being placed in a protective box from which one did not have to take any cards out. I also noticed that on 05-29-2020 you started a Post, which you have now changed the title to “no longer for sale -- 1947 Homogenized Bond Bread SGC 7.5 Jackie Robinson RC.” There, you were offering an SCG graded 86 NM+ card that SCG had labeled as a “1947 Bond Bread Jackie Robinson” for over $3,500. I am duplicating your pictures from your thread below. If you are really interested in knowing whether your card is accurately authenticated by SCG, then asked them how they know its not a Sport Star Subject set card. The rest of us would like to know the answer. Do you? I'm sorry I have not been fully disclosing all of the information I have. I first wanted to address the compelling questions raised for years in this thread that may cause some to misinterpret the facts I have uncovered. For example, in the scan of the back of the SCG card above, the lower right corner of the picture shows the round die-cut ending but with the remaining bottom end of the card not in direct alignment with that die cut. The cards from a stack of sheets were first cut with a straight knife blade to make stacks of individual cards. Then two adjoining sides of a stack of card were die-cut, then the cards rotated 180 degrees to die-cut the other two sides. The opposite corners of a card were cut by the same die-cutter. While parts of the opposite corners show cuts from part of the same die-cutter, they are usually not an exact match. I have several examples of such die-cutting. The cards were printed on sheets with no space between cards. Even today, straight-edge cutting of cards is not an exact science. Otherwise, “centering” would be of no concern. I will be providing in my article detailed information about the die-cutting, including pictures of the cuts different die-cutters used so you see which your card matches up with. Griffon512, I own copyrights. I appreciate your attempt at humor in the “copyright” notice you added at the end of your post. I understand for a Copyright to be valid, it must say “copyright” or have the © symbol, the date, and the name and address of the copyright holder. I don't think yours meets that test. Even if it did, the fair comment I've made above about your post would be protected from copyright infringement. I make no claim to the intellectual property of anyone else. Be well, Mike Copyright 2020 by Michael Fried, P.O. Box 27521, Oakland, California 94602-0521 Last edited by abctoo; 08-24-2020 at 03:31 PM.
|
|
#9
08-24-2020, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
1. No I did not delete most of the comments of the posts I've made in this thread. I've added some content to my comments so they will show up as edits but feel free to log every single edit I've made if you are able to see that. Not sure where you are going with that insinuation but whatever.
2. My Homogenized Bread Jackie was sold so it is no longer available. Masterful sleuthing. What that means is even if someone were to want to insinuate that I'm talking my cards up there is no basis for it. I don't have any Homogenized Bread Cards, Sports Star Subject cards, Festberg cards, etc. I'm guessing you have a number of Festberg cards or other cards like them, but I will not questions your biases. Again, you are confusing indifference with an obvious bridge to nowhere or a likely blanket of erroneous information presented as fact. I do care that people are not completely misled by pseudo-research that a junior high schooler could gather presented as substantive information, and that is my only compelling interest in responding to this dead-end (or worse) thread. Ted took the right approach in not responding anymore when pushing on a string, and I will too. 3. Your point about copyright law is wrong and some lawyers on this thread can correct you, but I can't blame them for not participating. I'm sure we're all waiting with baited breadth for the article!
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| WTB 1947 Bond bread Cards | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 1 | 05-18-2007 07:18 PM |
| WTD 1947 Bond Bread Cards | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 03-30-2007 09:42 AM |
| F/S 1947 Bond Bread Cards | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 09-02-2006 09:32 PM |
| Wanted: 1947 Bond bread Cards | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 08-27-2006 04:16 PM |
| WTB 1947 BOND BREAD cards | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 06-30-2006 05:21 PM |
Hybrid Mode
