W501-2 is now recognized by SGC!

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by cliffyb

I'd like to ask the knowledgable collectors here why you think the W501 cards don't, in my opinion, get too much respect? Is it the grainy photos? Is it that the cards are similar to E121 and W575-1? The W501s have very low pops and a nice selection of all-time greats. Or perhaps they do get their share of respect and I'm incorrect. Thanks!!!

I think it is a combination that they have, since the beginning of hobby times, been classified as strip cards, and the traditional W501 cards (which perhaps now should be referred to as W501-1 cards) were indeed issued in strip form and thus usually have borders top/bottom borders with poor cuts or have been separated by tearing. Another contributing factor is that they have blank backs, which for a sizeable chunk of the collecting world is seen as the plain jane sister of cards that have a bunch of words printed on the back. W501-1 cards do not have grainy photos...in my opinion they are about comparable in photo quality as seen in the E121 set. The W501-2 I believe are a little grainier in appearance. The E122 American Caramel set has very grainy photos, in case you want to see what a real fiber-enriched grainy card looks like.

Both the W501-1 and the newly recognized W501-2 are in my opinion great cards worthy of more collector interest.

Here is a W501-1, for visual reference.

w501ruel261 (249x400).jpgw501ruel262 (242x400).jpg



Brian

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I think it is a combination that they have, since the beginning of hobby times, been classified as strip cards, and the traditional W501 cards (which perhaps now should be referred to as W501-1 cards) were indeed issued in strip form and thus usually have borders top/bottom borders with poor cuts or have been separated by tearing. Another contributing factor is that they have blank backs, which for a sizeable chunk of the collecting world is seen as the plain jane sister of cards that have a bunch of words printed on the back. W501-1 cards do not have grainy photos...in my opinion they are about comparable in photo quality as seen in the E121 set. The W501-2 I believe are a little grainier in appearance. The E122 American Caramel set has very grainy photos, in case you want to see what a real fiber-enriched grainy card looks like.

Both the W501-1 and the newly recognized W501-2 are in my opinion great cards worthy of more collector interest.

Here is a W501-1, for visual reference.

Attachment 618817Attachment 618818



Brian

Brian, IMHO, both the W501-1 and W501-2 cards are grainy in appearance, an E121 card has a slightly grainy appearance, and a W575-1 card is not grainy in appearance.. For a visual comparison, below are my WaJo cards from these sets:

[ValKehl]

The Standard Catalog of Vintage Baseball Cards lists two variations for W575-1 cards of Sam Rice - an "E. C. Rice" and an "E. S. Rice." I've been working on a master set of Rice's cards for many years, and I've never come across the "E. S. Rice" variation. I now believe that the "E. S. Rice" variation is actually a W501-2 card that has long been mis-cataloged as a W575-1 card. Below are my W501-1, W501-2, and W575-1 cards of Rice. The Standard Catalog shows two variations for several other players, and I suspect that one variation for each of these players is actually a W501-2 card.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Brian, IMHO, both the W501-1 and W501-2 cards are grainy in appearance, an E121 card has a slightly grainy appearance, and a W575-1 card is not grainy in appearance.. For a visual comparison, below are my WaJo cards from these sets:

Val, this is an important topic. Imagine the Board giving SGC a set lesson. And convincing them. Well done for you guys. I do have a question though: The ones that are numbered with some kind of id lettering on top of the card are 2's or 1's? I have a nice Cobb with these markings on top so am interested.

[ValKehl]

John, I'm really not able to respond to your question re the grading of W501-1 cards with the "G-4-22" and a card # at the top border, as the only such card that I have that is slabbed is a SGC 6 of Sam Rice (shown in post #12 above). But, in looking at the PSA & SGC pop reports, I see that both of these TPGs have given out lots of 4, 5, and 6 grades for these cards.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Val, this is an important topic. Imagine the Board giving SGC a set lesson. And convincing them. Well done for you guys. I do have a question though: The ones that are numbered with some kind of id lettering on top of the card are 2's or 1's? I have a nice Cobb with these markings on top so am interested.

The cards with the card # and G-4-22 at top are what we are calling W501-1…or more simply put they are what Burdick described when he listed the set as W501.

The W501-2 are the parallel set that has been essentially moved from being incorrectly grouped with W575-1 to being called W501-2 as they are a complete parallel set in size/subjects/physical characteristics to W501-1 only lacking the card # and “G-4-22” at the top.

*Side note is that the G-4-22 is likely referring to the date of issue/production. At least that is my speculation. (April 1922)

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Val, this is an important topic. Imagine the Board giving SGC a set lesson. And convincing them. Well done for you guys. I do have a question though: The ones that are numbered with some kind of id lettering on top of the card are 2's or 1's? I have a nice Cobb with these markings on top so am interested.

John, I now realize that I misinterpreted your question, hence my response in post #27 above is not relevant. Sorry about this. Rhett and BrianP have appropritely responded to your question.

[Leon]

Great points made, guys. I am a W575-1 fan and actually classify a lot of the really rare backs to being W575-1 with an ad back....
Yeah, no way that SGC AUT Johnson, above, is a W575-1....
Here are some more original W575-1s shown before too. Much less grainy, or more focused, than the W501s... (shown many times but they seem relevent..)