Let's see some SCRAPPS!

[Casey2296]

There it is, awesome article and props to everyone involved, it's what makes this hobby great.

[brianp-beme]

. (period, for those with limited visual acuity)

Brian (duplicate poster extraordinaire)

[brianp-beme]

And just shows you that sometimes excellent hobby research like this is slow to travel...I feel like there are many more like me that had no idea about the origin of this set, and it has been 8 years since this info was originally shared. Thanks to Al, the OP, and Mr. Linker for the link (OP and Linker both Rad_Hazard).

Brian

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Always thought these were gorgeous and undervalued, although my frame of reference for values goes back a long way. The fact that they're now considered the granddaddy of all candy issues just makes them all the more appealing. (And I think I'll still call them Scrapps. It's just a great name.)

[HexsHeroes]

.
Here is the Hanlon scrapp I owned (colors are washed out in this image )

It had always been my plan to collect the entire Detroit team, and maybe entire set. Alas, was not to be. But still enjoy viewing them.

[jcmtiger]

Not mine anymore, but enjoyed them.

[Al C.risafulli]

Hey All!

For a guy who is lucky enough to get to do hobby research all the time, this was among my favorites.

But it also brings up an issue, one that I've been talking about incessantly for quite some time.

When I had all my research together on this, I immediately reached out to the editor of the Standard Catalog, who reviewed it and made the editorial decision to update the Catalog with the new set name.

Today, there is no resource like this that I'm aware of. There is no central place to report new discoveries, new checklist additions, new sets, variations, and the like. To my knowledge, there has not been an update to the Standard Catalog in nearly a decade.

Meanwhile, if you submit an HD Smith card to a grading company, they will grade it as a Scrapps Tobacco card. Some auction houses and ebay listings still call them Scrapps Tobacco.

It should be common knowledge at this point that these cards are HD Smith & Co. I made this discovery almost a decade ago and published it on the LOTG Blog and via Broadcast email to LOTG customers at that time. That year at the National, I presented my findings at the Net54 dinner. The Standard Catalog updated that year, and REA began using the actual name at the same time.

Part of the reason to disclose this research as widely as possible is so that other hobbyists can expand on this research, so we can all learn more. For instance, this is a GUM CARD ISSUE. An interested collector might be able to tell us when the HD Smith cards were distributed, relative to the G&B issue. What are the first gum cards? G&B, or HD Smith? An interested collector might be able to research how the gum and cards were packed - in tins? Wrappers? How were they advertised?

The more widely this information is disseminated, the more collectors become aware of it, and the more they can dig in and do more research to expand on what's already known.

The hobby needs a regularly-updated Standard Catalog.

-Al

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

Hey All!

For a guy who is lucky enough to get to do hobby research all the time, this was among my favorites.

But it also brings up an issue, one that I've been talking about incessantly for quite some time.

When I had all my research together on this, I immediately reached out to the editor of the Standard Catalog, who reviewed it and made the editorial decision to update the Catalog with the new set name.

Today, there is no resource like this that I'm aware of. There is no central place to report new discoveries, new checklist additions, new sets, variations, and the like. To my knowledge, there has not been an update to the Standard Catalog in nearly a decade.

Meanwhile, if you submit an HD Smith card to a grading company, they will grade it as a Scrapps Tobacco card. Some auction houses and ebay listings still call them Scrapps Tobacco.

It should be common knowledge at this point that these cards are HD Smith & Co. I made this discovery almost a decade ago and published it on the LOTG Blog and via Broadcast email to LOTG customers at that time. The Standard Catalog updated that year, and REA began using the actual name at the same time.

Part of the reason to disclose this research as widely as possible is so that other hobbyists can expand on this research, so we can all learn more. For instance, this is a GUM CARD ISSUE. An interested collector might be able to tell us when the HD Smith cards were distributed, relative to the G&B issue. What are the first gum cards? G&B, or HD Smith? An interested collector might be able to research how the gum and cards were packed - in tins? Wrappers? How were they advertised?

The more widely this information is disseminated, the more collectors become aware of it, and the more they can dig in and do more research to expand on what's already known.

The hobby needs a regularly-updated Standard Catalog.

-Al

Absolutely great point Al. Hasn't been a decade yet though, has it? I thought the last edition of the SCD catalogs was 2017, but I know Bob Lemke had left his editorial position a few years before. And not sure the successor(s) was as keen as updating things as Bob was. I miss them myself, and used to get the new copy almost every year.

Unfortunately, written publications (books, newspapers, magazines) have been going the way of the dinosaurs and being replaced by the younger generations with podcasts, digital books, social media, internet, etc. Also, unfortunately, though we here on Net 54 would likely be all in for such an annual, updated publication, I think we're still too small of a potential market for someone/group to want to take on the financial responsibility for doing the ongoing work for such a great publication.

I know people point to places like our own site, or maybe the OBC site with their checklists and descriptive history. But our site doesn't cover everything, for everybody. You have to come on and ask questions, but even then, there is so, so much we never get to or talk about on here that would have been covered in the old SCD catalogs. And as great as the OBC site is, I've looked at their checklists and set descriptions, and know they are not continually reviewed and updated, nor are they anywhere near as all-encompassing as the SCD catalogs were. The price guide aspect of the SCD catalogs would be even more inaccurate and behind the times today, given how things in the market can seemingly change so quickly and dramatically these days. But I still found them somewhat useful in at least giving one the background and knowledge of potentially which cards in which sets were viewed as SPs or variations, and thus more valuable, or as to the view of which cards in a particular set were the most valuable tier, second tier, and so on. Having a ballpark idea is better than having no idea at all. And knowing that cards in this or that particular set go for more or less than those in other sets, can at times be fruitful and informative as well.

Of course, there are probably others that are happy there is not an SCD annual catalog publication anymore so that newcomers to the hobby (or old timers that are getting back in or that haven't kept up) looking to get into the vintage/pre-war side don't have a ready, all-in-one source they can go to for knowledge and information. Let's those that know have a possible advantage over those that don't, right? Still wish we had them coming out every year though also, like Al.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

Hey All!

For a guy who is lucky enough to get to do hobby research all the time, this was among my favorites.

But it also brings up an issue, one that I've been talking about incessantly for quite some time.

When I had all my research together on this, I immediately reached out to the editor of the Standard Catalog, who reviewed it and made the editorial decision to update the Catalog with the new set name.

Today, there is no resource like this that I'm aware of. There is no central place to report new discoveries, new checklist additions, new sets, variations, and the like. To my knowledge, there has not been an update to the Standard Catalog in nearly a decade.

Meanwhile, if you submit an HD Smith card to a grading company, they will grade it as a Scrapps Tobacco card. Some auction houses and ebay listings still call them Scrapps Tobacco.

It should be common knowledge at this point that these cards are HD Smith & Co. I made this discovery almost a decade ago and published it on the LOTG Blog and via Broadcast email to LOTG customers at that time. That year at the National, I presented my findings at the Net54 dinner. The Standard Catalog updated that year, and REA began using the actual name at the same time.

Part of the reason to disclose this research as widely as possible is so that other hobbyists can expand on this research, so we can all learn more. For instance, this is a GUM CARD ISSUE. An interested collector might be able to tell us when the HD Smith cards were distributed, relative to the G&B issue. What are the first gum cards? G&B, or HD Smith? An interested collector might be able to research how the gum and cards were packed - in tins? Wrappers? How were they advertised?

The more widely this information is disseminated, the more collectors become aware of it, and the more they can dig in and do more research to expand on what's already known.

The hobby needs a regularly-updated Standard Catalog.

-Al

Thank you Al for the original research and this breakthrough!

Kutzner & Berger might be the printer of the H.D. Smith & Co. "Scrapps".

Here is a great resource I found on different scrap companies of the era:

https://www.picture-scraps.com/colle...r%5D=46&page=1

https://www.picture-scraps.com/producers

[90feetaway]

Really nice , colorful issue. I used to have O'Neil and Hanlon. Anyone have a Commisky to post?

[67airborne]

I like the fact that they are a gum issue. I think it makes them a little more unique in a time period of mainly tobacco issues. I also like that this company thought so highly of its marketing strategy that they would send away to Germany to get what they thought was a higher standard of printing and must have taken months with shipping and production. They don’t seem readily available and you don’t see them often in pristine condition either. Most of the ones I’ve seen have all been lower grade, but I also haven’t been watching them forever since I only restarted collecting in the last couple years after a 20 year break.
Also, are there any of the known issues that are harder to find over the others that anyone has seen so far?