rare Willie Mays cards

[Exhibitman]

Dude, you're just digging yourself a bigger hole. There is proof of dating, right on the cards themselves. ESCO made two team cards each year: the pennant winners in each league from the prior season (stopped in 1956). Here's the 1952 printing of the Yankees card:



Notice that it says "1951 World Champions"? Well, when did the Yankees become the 1951 champs? In October 1951. Here's the 1949 Cleveland Indians card:



See the split legend at the bottom? That was a feature of only the 1949 print run. That card shows the 1948 champs from a 1949 printing. I wish it was a 1948 because it would have Paige and Doby rookies.

If you actually look at the Phillies card:



It designates the team as 1950 NL champs. It is from the 1951 print run. Not 1950 because they wouldn't have known who was going to win the 1950 pennants until the season was over.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but the facts are what they are. Your refusal to recognize them just makes you look like you are cravenly trying to boost the value of the Mays cards you are hoarding.

[VintageHoarder]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Dude, you're just digging yourself a bigger hole. There is proof of dating, right on the cards themselves. ESCO made two team cards each year: the pennant winners in each league from the prior season (stopped in 1956). Here's the 1952 printing of the Yankees card:



Notice that it says "1951 World Champions"? Well, when did the Yankees become the 1951 champs? In October 1951. Here's the 1949 Cleveland Indians card:



See the split legend at the bottom? That was a feature of only the 1949 print run. That card shows the 1948 champs from a 1949 printing. I wish it was a 1948 because it would have Paige and Doby rookies.

If you actually look at the Phillies card:



It designates the team as 1950 NL champs. It is from the 1951 print run. Not 1950 because they wouldn't have known who was going to win the 1950 pennants until the season was over.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but the facts are what they are. Your refusal to recognize them just makes you look like you are cravenly trying to boost the value of the Mays cards you are hoarding.

Fair enough...I see your point. Its very flattering that you think I have the power to instantly influence value on a card, but unfortunately, I'm not Gary V. I never once said this is THE rookie of Mays, but it is most definitely HIS ESCO ROOKIE. It'll never be the value of his Bowman rookie, but it is undoubtedly his Exhibit rookie.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Dude, you're just digging yourself a bigger hole. There is proof of dating, right on the cards themselves. ESCO made two team cards each year: the pennant winners in each league from the prior season (stopped in 1956). Here's the 1952 printing of the Yankees card:



Notice that it says "1951 World Champions"? Well, when did the Yankees become the 1951 champs? In October 1951. Here's the 1949 Cleveland Indians card:



See the split legend at the bottom? That was a feature of only the 1949 print run. That card shows the 1948 champs from a 1949 printing. I wish it was a 1948 because it would have Paige and Doby rookies.

If you actually look at the Phillies card:



It designates the team as 1950 NL champs. It is from the 1951 print run. Not 1950 because they wouldn't have known who was going to win the 1950 pennants until the season was over.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but the facts are what they are. Your refusal to recognize them just makes you look like you are cravenly trying to boost the value of the Mays cards you are hoarding.

Adam:

I of course agree with all you have said on this subject. It is hard for non Exhibit guys to fully understand the intricacies of all things ESCO!

I and a few others have been working on a year by year checklist for the Exhibits. FWIW we have the first Mays card issued in 1953.

Why? Well, he would not have been issued in 51 as he was an unknown rookie. The 1952 set we believe was issued in B&W as is evidenced by the two 1951 team cards and others issued in B&W, but no Mays in B&W with the Made in U.S.A. Thus 1953 was the Mays "rookie" Sepia Exhibit card with the Made in U.S.A designation.

[VintageHoarder]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Adam:

I of course agree with all you have said on this subject. It is hard for non Exhibit guys to fully understand the intricacies of all things ESCO!

I and a few others have been working on a year by year checklist for the Exhibits. FWIW we have the first Mays card issued in 1953.

Why? Well, he would not have been issued in 51 as he was an unknown rookie. The 1952 set we believe was issued in B&W as is evidenced by the two 1951 team cards and others issued in B&W, but no Mays in B&W with the Made in U.S.A. Thus 1953 was the Mays "rookie" Sepia Exhibit card with the Made in U.S.A designation.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Why would they make 1952 B&W cards of Mantle and Mays' teammate, Monte Irvin, but none of Willie Mays himself? Mays, if I recall correctly, was the 1951 ROY. Meanwhile, Mantle was not, and Irvin wasn't even in the discussion. Yet, cards were made of them in 1952 and not Mays? It just doesn't make much sense, and I just don't think it's possible to pin every card in this set to an exact date, regardless of how big of a professional you like to consider yourself to be. The evidence provided just doesn't all add up to me.

[steve B]

In this day where sets are fairly comprehensive and "rookies" have become important cards - sometimes being made before the player has actually played a real game- it can be had to imagine not making a card of a player who was ROY.

But there's lots of reasons why they might not have.
Like Mays might not have signed with them.
Or they may have not wanted to pay Mays extra- If I remember right Mays insisted on more than the usual contract with Topps.

Or some other reason. 53 Bowman also missed Mays, as well as Williams and Robinson, all established stars.

[VintageHoarder]

Originally Posted by steve B

In this day where sets are fairly comprehensive and "rookies" have become important cards - sometimes being made before the player has actually played a real game- it can be had to imagine not making a card of a player who was ROY.

But there's lots of reasons why they might not have.
Like Mays might not have signed with them.
Or they may have not wanted to pay Mays extra- If I remember right Mays insisted on more than the usual contract with Topps.

Or some other reason. 53 Bowman also missed Mays, as well as Williams and Robinson, all established stars.

True. ESCO was on a tight budget, but they clearly got Mays in the set. It's just really unclear as to exactly when these cards came out. To the best of my knowledge,, ESCO didn't follow any particular pattern in producing any particular cards. They had no intentions of dating them neither, but it's cool they exist and it gives everyone an affordable option aside from the mainstream issues.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by VintageHoarder

This doesn't make much sense to me. Why would they make 1952 B&W cards of Mantle and Mays' teammate, Monte Irvin, but none of Willie Mays himself? Mays, if I recall correctly, was the 1951 ROY. Meanwhile, Mantle was not, and Irvin wasn't even in the discussion. Yet, cards were made of them in 1952 and not Mays? It just doesn't make much sense, and I just don't think it's possible to pin every card in this set to an exact date, regardless of how big of a professional you like to consider yourself to be. The evidence provided just doesn't all add up to me.

Well, when you turn up a Mays Exhibit in B&W as were issued in 1952 as is evident by the 51 pennant winners cards being in B&W LMK and we can have a discussion.

Seems you have been provided with tons of information here that you refuse to acknowledge for your own distorted thinking/fantasies/financial interests. I expect your next post will say FAKE NEWS about all this information as it is coming from us who consider ourselves "BIG PROFESSIONALS" as you term us. I would suggest you get a new adding machine since all the evidence presented does not add up to you!

[VintageHoarder]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Well, when you turn up a Mays Exhibit in B&W as were issued in 1952 as is evident by the 51 pennant winners cards being in B&W LMK and we can have a discussion.

Seems you have been provided with tons of information here that you refuse to acknowledge for your own distorted thinking/fantasies/financial interests. I expect your next post will say FAKE NEWS about all this information as it is coming from us who consider ourselves "BIG PROFESSIONALS" as you term us. I would suggest you get a new adding machine since all the evidence presented does not add up to you!

Perhaps you shouldn't be trying to add anything up at all, because You CANNOT prove this to be the case with every single card in the set! That's my point! ESCO never followed any particular pattern for releasing their sets, so therefore, it's impossible to date all these cards to an exact year. How do you know the sepia-colored Mays wasn't released sometime in 1952 with the other B&W cards in the set? Where is actual evidence that shows the sepia-colored Mays being a 1953? Since you're the "professional", this shouldn't be a hard question to answer. Don't tell me something is what it is if you can't provide concrete evidence to back it up.

[VintageHoarder]

Ok, I think I mightve found a B&W Mays. Certainly looks that way when compared to the sepia, anyway.

[VintageHoarder]

The top photo is hard to make out, but the second one is more noticeable. The raw one on the left appears more B&W when compared to the PSA one on the right.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Adam:

I of course agree with all you have said on this subject. It is hard for non Exhibit guys to fully understand the intricacies of all things ESCO!

I and a few others have been working on a year by year checklist for the Exhibits. FWIW we have the first Mays card issued in 1953.

Why? Well, he would not have been issued in 51 as he was an unknown rookie. The 1952 set we believe was issued in B&W as is evidenced by the two 1951 team cards and others issued in B&W, but no Mays in B&W with the Made in U.S.A. Thus 1953 was the Mays "rookie" Sepia Exhibit card with the Made in U.S.A designation.

I'm down with that.

The fact is a nice Mays is still a solid early Mays card.