Batter Up Color Variations

[srittenberg]

Hi. A friend told me about this thread. I have a Batter Up #60 Morgan in red. I'm attaching a picture.

[brianp-beme]

That appears to be the purple tint. Here is a quote I pulled from Judson's post, which I fully agree with:


"Keep in mind that the pink/purple cards have some variety in the ink, but red cards are truly red".

Brian

[cubman1941]

A little OT but here are my higher numbers - I gather they would all be considered sepia. I wonder why the 140 is in larger letters? this may have been covered in original post.

[edhans]

Only the Hack is a sepia. The rest appear to be blue.

[cubman1941]

Originally Posted by edhans

Only the Hack is a sepia. The rest appear to be blue.

Thanks, appreciate it.

[BobC]

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the 1934-36 Batter-Up cards should more correctly and accurately be split and listed as two distinctly different sets. And quite frankly, I'm surprised they haven't been.

The obvious evidence is that cards 1-80 are all a larger, uniform size, and come in the aforementioned multiple colors/tones, as opposed to the high number cards 81-192 that are all smaller and only come in the darker, muted sepia or black/dark bluish tones. They were also issued over multiple years, with the low number series being first released in 1934, and then the high number series being released separately, around 1936 I believe.

The main evidence against this separate sets thinking, I am guessing, is that the issue is sequentially numbered from 1 to 192, so it appears it was intended as one continuous issue. And also that no players are duplicated in both the high and low number series. However, there are various other card issues that have shown such similar sequential numbering, and yet are still considered as separate and distinctly different sets. Just look at some of the W card issues. If nothing else, maybe Burdick should have designated the 1-80 low number card series as R218-1, and the 81-192 high number series as R218-2. That would seem more appropriate and consistent to how other similar set anomalies were treated and designated by him. Just my $0.02.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by BobC

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the 1934-36 Batter-Up cards should more correctly and accurately be split and listed as two distinctly different sets. And quite frankly, I'm surprised they haven't been.

The obvious evidence is that cards 1-80 are all a larger, uniform size, and come in the aforementioned multiple colors/tones, as opposed to the high number cards 81-192 that are all smaller and only come in the darker, muted sepia or black/dark bluish tones. They were also issued over multiple years, with the low number series being first released in 1934, and then the high number series being released separately, around 1936 I believe.

The main evidence against this separate sets thinking, I am guessing, is that the issue is sequentially numbered from 1 to 192, so it appears it was intended as one continuous issue. And also that no players are duplicated in both the high and low number series. However, there are various other card issues that have shown such similar sequential numbering, and yet are still considered as separate and distinctly different sets. Just look at some of the W card issues. If nothing else, maybe Burdick should have designated the 1-80 low number card series as R218-1, and the 81-192 high number series as R218-2. That would seem more appropriate and consistent to how other similar set anomalies were treated and designated by him. Just my $0.02.

I agree with this assessment. Batter-Ups, because of the size difference, should have a separate classification.

Here are a few more of my thoughts. Based on the availability of tints, it seems like the 1-80 cards were issued in two groups: 1 to 40, with the six different tints, and 41 to 80 with the four tints. I always found it interesting that the producers really top loaded the lower numbers with stars...22 of the first 40 cards are HOF players, and plenty of other notable stars. While 41-80 only has 6 HOF players.

I also think it a possibility that cards 81-192 were issued in two 56 card groups (81-136 and 137-192). I have never paid much attention to the tints on these higher numbers (I prefer the look of the 1-80 cards over the higher numbers), but to me it seems there are possibly more subtle tints available than just sepia and blue/black...any others out there who can chime in?

Brian