rare Willie Mays cards

[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.

[whiteymet]

First to reply to an earlier post where you said:

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.

The simple answer is you can't print a sheet of all B&W cards and have ONE of the cards be sepia. Each sheet is printed the same way. Be it sepia or B&W. All cards on that sheet will be the same

Your "B&W" above is not B&W. I can point out tons of examples of different tints of sepia. These could be different print runs, how far into a print run the sheet was printed as ink was running low and the big difference is when the same sepia card was issued (printed) in different years.

Below is an example of what I am talking about. Four different tint Mantles with the same Made in U.S.A. we are talking about. B&W bottom right.

[VintageHoarder]

So, even though this is a different tint Mays, we aren't going to acknowledge its anything different? Its obvious the sheets were printed in B&W, but my point is: it still doesn't explain if Mays ended up being printed sometime that same year in 1952 with sepia. Furthermore, are you saying they dedicated to sepia-colored sheets for Mays alone? If not, who else was included? This is just all speculation and it's just what the hobby has come to accept. I've been an outlier in this matter, but mostly only due to lack of evidence. It is what it is. 🤷It's still a rookie-era card, nonetheless.