1954 All Star Photo pack questions

[sb1]

So, a 1954 photo pack just sold on ebay and included 23 different, oddly no Jackie Robinson(perhaps it was pulled out decades ago) as the pack had been in storage since the 1980's, but that seems unlikely that someone pulled it out back then. Anyway it contained:

Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Ernie Banks, Al Dark, Billy Martin, Jerry Lumpe, Gerry Coleman, Bob Turley, Robin Roberts, Gil Mcdougald, Johnny Kucks, Elston Howard, Eddie Robinson, Ray Boone, Ted Kluszewski, Al Schoendienst, Yogi Berra, Andy Carey, Joe Collins, Duke Snider, Don Newcombe and Ed Mathews.

Several of these are new names(in bold) to the list above, however several of them are Yankees and appear to be slightly larger, so they may be the 1956 Yankees mixed in with the 54 All-Stars???

https://www.ebay.com/itm/11590157341...rue&nordt=true

Probably raises more questions than answers.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by sb1

So, a 1954 photo pack just sold on ebay and included 23 different, oddly no Jackie Robinson(perhaps it was pulled out decades ago) as the pack had been in storage since the 1980's, but that seems unlikely that someone pulled it out back then. Anyway it contained:
Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Ernie Banks, Al Dark, Billy Martin, Jerry Lumpe, Gerry Coleman, Bob Turley, Robin Roberts, Gil Mcdougald, Johnny Kucks, Elston Howard, Eddie Robinson, Ray Boone, Ted Kluszewski, Al Schoendienst, Yogi Berra, Andy Carey, Joe Collins, Duke Snider, Don Newcombe and Ed Mathews.
Several of these are new names(in bold) to the list above, however several of them are Yankees and appear to be slightly larger, so they may be the 1956 Yankees mixed in with the 54 All-Stars???
https://www.ebay.com/itm/11590157341...rue&nordt=trueProbably raises more questions than answers.

No, I think the images give more answers than raise more questions. Based on his records to the midpoints of the seasons in 1953 and 1954 there is no way that Bob Turley would have been considered an all-star worthy of inclusion in the 1954 All-star set. Likewise, Banks' stats wouldn't merit inclusion either. Moreover, all of the 18 in my photo pack have the names in the same place: Lower right hand corner. The Banks and I believe all the others not mentioned in my earlier post do not have the names in the white box in the lower right hand corner. I believe they are from another issue, and maybe a couple of other issues.

[sb1]

I suspect the use of the "All-Star" moniker might have been loosely applied. Hard to say for sure why these regional stars might have been included??

I can say for certain, no 1950's Chicago Cubs Team issue photos have the players name in a white box like the Banks. I am pretty comfortable including the players with the box located in different locations as part of this issue.

I guess the only way we would know for sure is if one were to locate an opened or confirmed untouched pack. I do know that one sizeable group that I obtained with an envelope, touted as being original did have a Banks in the group.

We may never know, especially since they did print the names of the players on the envelope, just the teams.

[AustinMike]

As I mentioned previously, most of the Yankees included in the "1954 All-Star" sets sold in auctions mentioned above most likely came from the 1956 Yankees team photo set. I think as proof of this, Jerry Lumpe did not play in the majors until the 1956 season. Johnny Kucks did not play in the majors until the 1955 season. Therefore, there is no way they would be included in a 1954 set.

[sb1]

It would be so much easier if they measured and listed the sizes. The 1956 are larger than the 1954's. In some images you can clearly see size differences when side by side.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by sb1

It would be so much easier if they measured and listed the sizes. The 1956 are larger than the 1954's. In some images you can clearly see size differences when side by side.

I agree. I'm just curious about all these 1954 All-Star sets with the larger photos in them. Don't the sellers notice the different sizes? Also, why are there so many sets with the larger photos? Why are the larger photos being added? So many questions, so few answers.

[AustinMike]

Another duplicate post.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by sb1

I do know that one sizeable group that I obtained with an envelope, touted as being original did have a Banks in the group.

I wish I could accept that as definitive proof that the Banks belongs in the set (or rather, that it doesn't, since it wasn't in the envelope that I got with the 18 1954 All Stars, and that would mean I bought an incomplete set, LOL!!).
But I can't, because otherwise I'd have to accept that Bob Lemon was part of that set as well, because I received a Bob Lemon included in my envelope when I bought my 1954 All Stars. But Lemon simply couldn't have been part of the set. It is much larger than the others photos, and has a signature in script across his body rather than his name printed in a box in the lower right corner (or anywhere for that matter). The fact that you can't find an example of a Banks in any Cubs team issue is probably more compelling from an evidence standpoint (although I guess it's possible it came from another all star set or possibly was a stand-alone photo used as a promotion for signing at a store opening?).

Yup, I noted as well that the only definitive proof would be obtained in a "break" of a sealed envelope. I did purchase a 1949 Cleveland Indians unopened photo pack recently, so I believe there could be some out there...

It would be nice to have some closure regarding this set!!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

I did purchase a 1949 Cleveland Indians unopened photo pack recently

How do you know? Right now it is Schroedinger's picture pack: could be a 1949, could be a stack of blank paper in there.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

How do you know? Right now it is Schroedinger's picture pack: could be a 1949, could be a stack of blank paper in there.

Schrodinger's picture pack! I like that! And the reference is not lost on me.

As you well know, the best one can do is assess the integrity of the container, as one might do for much of the unopened material that a buyer hasn't seen packaged with their own eyes (or cannot view through the wrapped with a high-intensity light). Sure, we try to create theories from best available evidence. But even if you have a real unopened rare pack and you're trying to base a conclusion about a set on it, you really can't. If a card isn't in there, you need to reproduce the event to make sure there wasn't an error at the company level. That, along with the memory of the many times I've pulled non-mint cards out of packs from packs I purchased myself from boxes at the candy store during the year of issue, is the reason why I don't buy much in the way of vintage unopened product. I only buy when I feel like I'm getting a great deal, can be reasonably sure that the pack hasn't been opened, and also never bet more than I feel I can lose in the gamble.

[Exhibitman]

Ahh an optimist. You probably think the cat is alive. I always assume it is dead; that's what pulling six Sixto Lezcano cards and not a single Nolan Ryan in all the packs I busted in 1976 will do to a young boy's impressionable mind...