rare Willie Mays cards

[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.

[VintageHoarder]

Also, do take a look at this Dodgers team card from eBay. I do believe Keyman Collectibles themselves label this as a 1949 from the notations. As you can see, the card itself is stamped by Exhibit, noting them as the 1949 National League champs. This proves my point that not all of these cards can be labeled accurately by just one or two cards in this set. It seems Exhibit didn't follow any pattern in printing and printed as they needed cards. Assuming Keyman Collectibles is correct in this labeling,, this also proves that Exhibit didn't necessarily delay production of all their cards into the following year. This would prove, rather, that they did in fact produce some cards within the same year. I do also believe Yankees had their 1949 World Series team card labeled/notated just the same. This fact alone also proves that the "information" originally provided, is actually flawed. Not arguing, I'm just hoping that the people interested enough in these sets will see that there's more than meets the eye and I think we have gotten too used to just being complacent in accepting what people think rather than what they know.