Batter Up Color Variations

[judsonhamlin]

In the land of useless tasks, I plan on trying to recreate the high number sheets - I am sure they were not issued sequentially and I strongly suspect that 81-192 were skip numbered and released at separate times based on team ID and uniform photos in the high numbers, as well as the font size used in the caption boxes.

[Chris-Counts]

It's nice to see this thread get some activity after eight years. I agree the Batter-Ups should be divided into separate 1934 and 1936 sets. As for those issued in '36, here are the variations I have. It appears there are distinctive subtle tints of green, blue, brown and gold, along with some cards done in straight B&W.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

It's nice to see this thread get some activity after eight years. I agree the Batter-Ups should be divided into separate 1934 and 1936 sets. As for those issued in '36, here are the variations I have. It appears there are distinctive subtle tints of green, blue, brown and gold, along with some cards done in straight B&W.

Some of those are extremely subtle...none of that bold "I'm a green tint" and "Well I'm obviously a red tint" as seen in the lower number cards.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

Here are the font size lists for the high number cards 81 through 192, as far as I could tell. Not as straightforward as far as I was thinking it would be...there are 7 different font sizes used (once again, as far as I could ascertain).

Here are those font size groupings, identified below by their card number, and based upon the size of the 'Batter-Up' text on the front, as far as I can spit (I already used 'tell', 'thinking' and 'ascertain', so spit was the obvious choice):

--Smallest size font (6 total) - Identified as Group A

100, 102, 139, 143, 157, 158


--Next size (36 total) - Group B

82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122, 124, 126, 131, 132, 135, 137, 138, 150, 151, 155, 159, 163


--Next size larger (34 total) - Group C

90, 97, 103, 107, 109, 110, 114, 116, 118, 121, 125, 127, 129, 134, 136, 142, 144, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 156, 160, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 173, 176, 180, 181, 182


--Next size up (16 total) - Group D

85, 89, 93, 113, 141, 145, 146, 154, 171, 172, 175, 177, 179, 183, 184, 187


--Next up (11 total) - Group E

112, 123, 128, 130, 133, 162, 164, 178, 185, 188, 190


--Next larger again (4 total) - Group F

167, 174, 186, 191


--Absolutely the largest (5 total) - Group G

81, 140, 161, 189, 192


If my font estimations are accurate (I am likely to be off some), here are possible print run groupings that would add up to a sheet size of 56

Group B (35), Group D, (16), Group G (5) = 56

Group A (6), Group C (35), Group E (11), Group F (4) = 56

or

Group C (35), Group D (16), Group G (5) = 56

Group A (6), Group B (35), Group E (11), Group F (4) = 56


I am probably making things too simple, but it was fun to try to make some order out of font chaos.

Brian

[judsonhamlin]

Excellent! I’ll use that to see if the slight miscuts match up with those groups of 56

[judsonhamlin]

Rainy day activity here - matching a few pairs and a trio of cards to see if it helps sort the sheet biz out. Figured the following pairs (l to r, as listed):

172-169
180-163
129-177
188-171 and the following three -

107 is above 156, and 156 is to the left of 101

More later

[judsonhamlin]

A few more:

110-136
182-142
120-88

And above/below pairs:
168 above 130
173 above 178

[Spike]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

--Next size (35 total) - Group B

82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122, 124, 126, 131, 132, 135, 137, 138, 150, 151, 155, 159


--Next size larger (35 total) - Group C

90, 97, 103, 107, 109, 110, 114, 116, 118, 121, 125, 127, 129, 134, 136, 142, 144, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 156, 160, 162, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 173, 176, 180, 181, 182

163 seems to be missing from the text tally and group B seems short one number, so must belong there? :-) (You have it as a confirmed pair with 180, so would be an interesting cross-size match.)

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Spike

163 seems to be missing from the text tally and group B seems short one number, so must belong there? :-) (You have it as a confirmed pair with 180, so would be an interesting cross-size match.)

Oops...looks like I skipped 163 in my listing. I have checked and the text size does appear to belong within Group B. I will update that post.

Great work folks...I will try to eventually post some scans of cards with overlaps so that maybe more of the connection puzzle can be pieced together or confirm connections already made.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

After peer review I reviewed the list I had posted, and noticed I had also listed card #162 in both Group C and Group E. Group E is correct, so I removed 162 from Group C list.

So my original total of cards for Group B has changed to 36 (from 35), and Group C has changed to 34 (from 35). So my fun little playing around with possible 56 card sheets based on font size has changed as well, which I changed on the original post and have also included it below:


If my font estimations are accurate (I am likely to be off some), here are possible print run groupings that would add up to a sheet size of 56


Group A (6), Group C (34), Group E (11), Group G (5) = 56

Group B (36), Group D, (16), Group F (4) = 56

or

Group A (6), Group C (34), Group D (16) = 56

Group B (36), Group E (11), Group F (4), Group G (5) = 56


Brian

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

In the land of useless tasks, I plan on trying to recreate the high number sheets - I am sure they were not issued sequentially and I strongly suspect that 81-192 were skip numbered and released at separate times based on team ID and uniform photos in the high numbers, as well as the font size used in the caption boxes.

Intriguing idea about the skip numbering. Both card #81 and #192 appear to have the bigger font, which in my mind would indicate that they belong to the first high # printing, because the makers would want kids to know what range of cards they needed to collect.

Though it may seem like an useless task for many, the results would be fascinating for us fortunate few. For my type of fun I think I will utilize the Old Cardboard gallery for this set to determine large/or small font size on each of the high # cards, and post those results here. In my ideal world, there would be 56 of each type.

Brian