![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Brian |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Was surprised that Bob Lemke and the SCD catalog never mentioned that in their descriptions. They treated it always as just one set. But besides the obvious size difference and the different colors between the low and high number series, what other set have you ever heard of that supposedly had a short printed high number series where the set itself was issued over a multi-year period? That doesn't make sense to me. One other big thing that would tend to support all 192 cards being in one set is that there are no players in the low number series that are duplicated in the high number series. Plus, they sequentially numbered the cards from 1 to 192 as if it were all one set. But sequential numbering itself doesn't necessarily guarantee cards are all supposed to be in one single set. For example, the 1938 Goudey "Big Head" cards are numbered 241 to 288. It seems, for whatever reason, that they were possibly intended to be an extension of the 1933 Goudey set then, that included cards 1 to 240? But if that was the intention, why did they jump from a 1933 issue to a 1938 issue to do so, skipping over all the other Goudey issues for the years in between? That is a question that has aways stumped me as to the true reason why Goudey numbered their 1938 cards as they did. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
What's more, if you look at the BACKS of the cards, the low number series declare the cards as being one of a series of 288 cards. And the high number series declare each card being one of a series of 312! This means that at first, Goudey planned a 48-card set, and then at some point decided to do 72 cards. Yet they only did 24, really, unless you subscribe to the belief that repeating the same 24 cards a second time (with cartoons added) was their plan all along, which I don't. There are WAY too many important players excluded from the set. For instance - why would they have not produced a card of Lou Gehrig or Chuck Klein, both of whom endorsed Goudey gum in 1934? There are lots of examples like that. I could go on about this set and all its unanswered questions all day. -Al |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
And the fact that only the '33 Goudey set fits that 288 card set description is a real head scratcher. LOL That is one of the great things about collecting such old sets. Trying to figure out what was going on behind the scenes. Great sets though. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Successful transactions on Net54 with balltrash, greenmonster66; Peter_Spaeth; robw1959; Stetson_1883; boxcar18; Blackie |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
1961 Fleer Basketball. It's my favorite set. It gets some love, but not enough, IMO. Here's a random scan from my set.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Another vote for T205. In the deep shadow of T206, yet this set is loaded with HOF, boasts deep colors, team logos, and stats and a write up on the back of the cards. Brilliant design too.
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Most underappreciated/undercollected players | phikappapsi | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 73 | 12-20-2018 05:53 PM |
Undervalued & Underappreciated Hockey & Hoops Cards | jb217676 | Basketball / Cricket / Tennis Cards Forum | 36 | 07-02-2017 08:07 AM |
Under valued (or underappreciated autographs) | daves_resale_shop | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 15 | 07-30-2012 11:54 AM |
Underappreciated Rarities | sreader3 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 31 | 04-26-2011 11:07 AM |
Your most underappreciated cards (to outsiders) | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 47 | 03-15-2009 09:25 PM |