topic: why are exhibits so underrated as a set?

[dbussell12]

really curious to hear your guys' thoughts on this. i just never understood it myself. they seem to me to be so fundamental as a consistent and essential undercurrent to the history of baseball cards themselves. and yet they are valued as less than! pic is a dimaggio from my collection. i personally think its his best most iconic card. i also feel similarly with the nyg mays, and perhaps even the ted williams salutations.

these cards are just so fundamental to me. they're deeply powerful in how they were distributed and accessed/accessible. and perhaps that contributes to their perceived market valuation now.

would love to hear your thoughts.

[tiger8mush]

Size is a major reason. Much larger than a traditional baseball card.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Size is a major reason. Much larger than a traditional baseball card.

i have heard similar! i really think they stand out as more painterly and striking pieces for that reason in my collection; are very singular. thanks for sharing!!

[parkplace33]

I like them, but this is what I have heard from other collectors over the years:

1. Dull compared to other issues.
2. Reprinted a ton over the years. You have to have a good eye to figure out if it an original or reprint.
3. The size is a hindrance.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I like them, but this is what I have heard from other collectors over the years:

1. Dull compared to other issues.
2. Reprinted a ton over the years. You have to have a good eye to figure out if it an original or reprint.
3. The size is a hindrance.

agreed drew. some of the prints are deeply striking; yes, the reprint thing i think can scare people off. identifying the years of each piece in the sets is something i've put an eye to a couple of times.

size is primarily what i am hearing as well, but thats one of the things i love about them. the format is so strange; to think of them as crucial mid century relics of media production is kind of my angle! cheers; great to hear from you here.

[Luke]

I think a combo of size and the fact that most collectors don't ever get interested in non-Topps/Bowman sets. The fact that I still see people calling 1948 Bowman Feller's RC tells me a lot about people's appetite for "oddball" cards. I agree with you about Exhibits, they are awesome. I beleive they are the first baseball cards ever sold (rather than given out as advertising pieces or prizes). Feels like that should give them a ton of hobby cred, but it doesn't seem to.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Luke

I think a combo of size and the fact that most collectors don't ever get interested in non-Topps/Bowman sets. The fact that I still see people calling 1948 Bowman Feller's RC tells me a lot about people's appetite for "oddball" cards. I agree with you about Exhibits, they are awesome. I beleive they are the first baseball cards ever sold (rather than given out as advertising pieces or prizes). Feels like that should give them a ton of hobby cred, but it doesn't seem to.

wow luke - we are on the same page. i think more about history in general so to me it seems like the set seems like a no brainer. that's a really powerful statement about the exhibits being the first ever sold. would love to hear you speak more about this if you ever wrote or considered writing an essay on them/this topic.

cheers; great to hear your opinion on this. we are totally in agreement!!

[obcbobd]

I love them and agree that the size issue affects their popularity. The 1921 Ruth is one of my favorite cards. The other reason, especially for set collectors is that for most years are not dated. Cards issued 1947-66 are grouped into a single set, at least according to my old vintage catalog. An extreme eample is the Ted Williams (9 showing), a great card. It's listed in the catalog as a 39-46 Salutation Exhibit, but I've heard it was produced well into the 1960s.

This site does give information on dating Exhibit cards https://keymancollectibles.com/exhibitdatechart.htm

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

I love them and agree that the size issue affects their popularity. The 1921 Ruth is one of my favorite cards. The other reason, especially for set collectors is that for most years are not dated. Cards issued 1947-66 are grouped into a single set, at least according to my old vintage catalog. An extreme eample is the Ted Williams (9 showing), a great card. It's listed in the catalog as a 39-46 Salutation Exhibit, but I've heard it was produced well into the 1960s.

This site does give information on dating Exhibit cards https://keymancollectibles.com/exhibitdatechart.htm

that site is awesome. they're really powerful history. i agree, i think there's a bit of a barrier to entry for some because of how the dating functions!

[hcv123]

Your observation has perplexed me for many years. I have also heard the "size" reasoning. My problem with that is then why the exception for the 1925 Gehrig exhibit which took off for the moon not too many years ago?

I think there are some INCREDIBLE exhibit cards that have not come close to being price respected compared to their card counterparts. The 1921 Ruth is the one that tops the list for me. Low pop, unique (great) pose, early in his Yankees career..... what gives? The earlier 1920's issues in general I would say arguably have nicer more appreciable images than many of their card counterparts of the day.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by hcv123

Your observation has perplexed me for many years. I have also heard the "size" reasoning. My problem with that is then why the exception for the 1925 Gehrig exhibit which took off for the moon not too many years ago?

I think there are some INCREDIBLE exhibit cards that have not come close to being price respected compared to their card counterparts. The 1921 Ruth is the one that tops the list for me. Low pop, unique (great) pose, early in his Yankees career..... what gives? The earlier 1920's issues in general I would say arguably have nicer more appreciable images than many of their card counterparts of the day.

howard!! i don't know if you remember but we talked a long time at the chantilly show. my name is david + was there with my dad. late 20s early 30s, tall, shaved head. we got into a super spirited discussion about proofs and you showed some of the really beautiful and awesome stuff you had in terms of RGBY proofing of a 60s set.

i am 1000% in agreement with you. i approach things from the perspective of a historian/more of a philosophical angle, so a lot of 'card market' stuff so to speak doesn't make any sense to me. the images on those early exhibits, particularly the 21s and definitely including some of if not all of the big HOF/star level poses in the 39-46 are just wonderful. some of them have such deep clarity, print quality, and chiaroscuro of light and darkness; the mays nyg seated in the 47-66 set, if properly researched for date of print, is a rookie card directly aligned to his first year of play. its a really profound set and an essential part of american and baseball history to me. its a shame it doesn't get its due!!

my best; hoping to see you again at the next chantilly show come the summer.
david

[jbsports33]

I have never understood this and most likely it has to due with size, like others have mentioned and there is lack of color. They are great to collect and there are more options then most understand - and the 1920s and 30s ones are so cool. I have had many in the past and current, some of my largest purchases and sales have been exhibit cards. Also - there are great sets in non sports, boxing and wrestling not just baseball. Keep your eyes out for 4 panel versions, as you can have more than one Hall of Famer on one card. Happy collecting! Jimmy

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by jbsports33

I have never understood this and most likely it has to due with size, like others have mentioned and there is lack of color. They are great to collect and there are more options then most understand - and the 1920s and 30s ones are so cool. I have had many in the past and current, some of my largest purchases and sales have been exhibit cards. Also - there are great sets in non sports, boxing and wrestling not just baseball. Keep your eyes out four panel versions, as you can have more than one Hall of Famer on one card. Happy collecting! Jimmy

thanks jimmy! this is an awesome comment. if you ever have any 20s ones for sale particularly the 1921s i would love to chat.

you sound like an expert on these! would love to connect in pms and discuss further anytime. it sounds like we have a mutual appreciation for these wonderful artifacts of american history.

[Rich Klein]

Size and also some of the most popular players are also printed to the moon (so to speak)

IIRC, The Ted Williams Exhibit was still available until his career completed in 1960 meaning there are a LOT of them in the wild.

But, on the plus side, if you paid attention to Lucky Larry's posts with pictures on Exhibit Variations, doing a master set of Exhibits is a real fun challenge. I enjoyed going through the COMC data base and separating those cards

Rich

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Size and also some of the most popular players are also printed to the moon (so to speak)

IIRC, The Ted Williams Exhibit was still available until his career completed in 1960 meaning there are a LOT of them in the wild.

But, on the plus side, if you paid attention to Lucky Larry's posts with pictures on Exhibit Variations, doing a master set of Exhibits is a real fun challenge. I enjoyed going through the COMC data base and separating those cards

Rich

rich -- i do think there is an essential caveat here which is that different dates of printing are identifiable with research. the williams exhibit can be identified and closely time stamped based on several essential attributes on the card itself. its quite fun detective work with these cards!

they're a great time; i hear you on scarcity. i personally think when there's more of a card, its actually more meaningful in terms of democratic circulation, particularly on very period specific pieces like these. the 39s-46s in particular of crucial players/poses/depictions.

[Chris Counts]

I collect Exhibit cards, but I understand why many don't. They're caught in this no man's land between a card and a postcard, they lack color, it's basically one big set from 1939 to about 1966, and there are a bunch of fakes in the market, along with reprints, to muddy the waters. As a collector, where do you even start?

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

I collect Exhibit cards, but I understand why many don't. They're caught in this no man's land between a card and a postcard, they lack color, it's basically one big set from 1939 to about 1966, and there are a bunch of fakes in the market, along with reprints, to muddy the waters. As a collector, where do you even start?

yes, chris. this is a crucial observation. i think there is a much higher barrier to entry for these cards, as -- as you say -- they straddle many worlds and dating + understanding them requires a bit of sleuthing!! cheers!

[Rickyy]

I collect them myself. I have heard about the size issues as well, but to me the appeal is that it's a combo of photos of players from the golden era + it was often used as post cards, and it's a baseball card.

As Howard mentioned some of the HOF cards like Gehrig rookie have gone through the roof in terms of prices.

Ricky Y

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Rickyy

I collect them myself. I have heard about the size issues as well, but to me the appeal is that it's a combo of photos of players from the golden era + it was often used as post cards, and it's a baseball card.

As Howard mentioned some of the HOF cards like Gehrig rookie have gone through the roof in terms of prices.

Ricky Y

love the tape on the gehrig ricky. it adds a lot to the presentation of the card. they're great pieces of history aren't they? -- cheers -- david

[Kutcher55]

It's kind of a leading, biased question, isn't it? Who is to say they are underrated? The images are nice, but the main reason I don't collect them is that they aren't what I could consider to be baseball cards. Also, as a general rule of thumb, I find cards with blank backs to be disappointing, almost without exception.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Also, as a general rule of thumb, I find cards with blank backs to be disappointing, almost without exception.

The backs aren't all blank!

But I also agree with all of the drawbacks that others have mentioned.

One more to add - I think they mostly/entirely came from vending machines, rather than packs? And so therefore, that's another black mark against them.

[Exhibitman]

Oh boy, where do I start? I wrote a damn book on them, after all. I will stick to the initial question for now. I think the lag in interest in Exhibit cards stems from some early decisions on cataloging. The ACC assigned catalog numbers to cards but Beckett and Eckes put out their much more comprehensive but much narrower guides in the 1980s. Exhibit cards, postcards and quite a few other ACC-catalogued cards were omitted entirely and then lumped together in their baseball collectibles guide with things like pins and coins. That persisted for quite some time until Krause put out its Standard Catalog and folded many more ACC-listed cards into it, including Exhibits. As these cards came back into the main card catalog, collectors began to understand that the earliest major league cards of many players were postcards, Exhibit cards, etc. It was a gradual awareness that really kicked into gear in the 1990s with the 1925 Gehrig. There's also a bit of reluctance to acknowledge them on the part of incumbents who are invested (monetarily and emotionally) in other issues as the earliest or rookie issues. Very similar to the 1949 Leaf supporters who deride the 1947 Bond Bread Robinson when debating rookie cards.

On the issue of counterfeits, once you know what you are looking at, the bad ones stick out like sore thumbs. It is a problem confined to postwar cards. Where people get confused is with the company's late 1960s-last gasp 1970s print runs of a few sets, which were on different stock. Again, when you know what they are, differentiating them is easy.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Oh boy, where do I start? I wrote a damn book on them, after all. I will stick to the initial question for now. I think the lag in interest in Exhibit cards stems from some early decisions on cataloging. The ACC assigned catalog numbers to cards but Beckett and Eckes put out their much more comprehensive but much narrower guides in the 1980s. Exhibit cards, postcards and quite a few other ACC-catalogued cards were omitted entirely and then lumped together in their baseball collectibles guide with things like pins and coins. That persisted for quite some time until Krause put out its Standard Catalog and folded many more ACC-listed cards into it, including Exhibits. As these cards came back into the main card catalog, collectors began to understand that the earliest major league cards of many players were postcards, Exhibit cards, etc. It was a gradual awareness that really kicked into gear in the 1990s with the 1925 Gehrig. There's also a bit of reluctance to acknowledge them on the part of incumbents who are invested (monetarily and emotionally) in other issues as the earliest or rookie issues. Very similar to the 1949 Leaf supporters who deride the 1947 Bond Bread Robinson when debating rookie cards.

On the issue of counterfeits, once you know what you are looking at, the bad ones stick out like sore thumbs. It is a problem confined to postwar cards. Where people get confused is with the company's late 1960s-last gasp 1970s print runs of a few sets, which were on different stock. Again, when you know what they are, differentiating them is easy.

Wow Adam... it sounds like I need to get your book! This is really powerful stuff. I find that when it comes to things like truth things like emotional investment and financial investment in perceived ideas/realities can get in the way of seeing clearly. It's a shame, but I understand why it happens. I'm a baseball historian + archivist so I'm not interested in preserving anything other than reality and things how they are and were. It seems pretty clear to me that they are essential to the unfolding of card history over decades; were a persistent and essential presence in shaping the landscape of American collectible and democratically owned baseball images.

Thanks for sharing; off to research your book...
My best,
David

[ALBB]

have never been a fan, always felt they were not " real " baseball cards

[Rickyy]

Originally Posted by dbussell12

Wow Adam... it sounds like I need to get your book! This is really powerful stuff. I find that when it comes to things like truth things like emotional investment and financial investment in perceived ideas/realities can get in the way of seeing clearly. It's a shame, but I understand why it happens. I'm a baseball historian + archivist so I'm not interested in preserving anything other than reality and things how they are and were. It seems pretty clear to me that they are essential to the unfolding of card history over decades; were a persistent and essential presence in shaping the landscape of American collectible and democratically owned baseball images.

Thanks for sharing; off to research your book...
My best,
David

Yes get Adam's book! I highly recommend it.

Ricky Y

[Casey2296]

-
I enjoy collecting postcards and pre-war exhibits, the size is a plus when you have them in hand, some great images. And would agree with Howard the 21 Ruth is fantastic.
-

[Exhibitman]

Thanks for the kind words, guys. I think size is a plus when the images are classic:

[Exhibitman]

To expand on the confusion over counterfeits versus stock differences, in the late 1960s the company began to use whiter, thinner stock. You see it primarily on the '1948' HOF set that is attributed as a 1974 set in the Standard Catalog, and on sepia and black and white boxing cards. Both of these Clay versions are legit; the green was first:




The irony is that the greenie is the most valuable yet the sepia and the black and white (not shown) are harder to find.

What you have to check in terms of counterfeits when it comes to white stock is re-screening. Exhibits are half tone prints (little dots) made by photographing a real photo through a screen. This:



becomes this:



If you have the card but not the original art and you want to make a half tone print of it, all you can do is take a photo of the card through the half tone screen and then print it again. The drop in print clarity and quality is like a photocopy of a photocopy. Once you know what it is, you know what it is (yeah, I know, under "redundant" it says "see redundant").

Oh, and I put '1948' in quotes because the date is entirely a creation of some early cataloguer's half-baked research. The 1950 catalog still offers the set for sale. Same is true of the '1948-52' football set; the 1955 catalog still offers them for sale.

The post-1928 baseball issues are also rife with short prints and variations big and small.

[Snapolit1]

Because people who controlled the direction of the hobby, long time collectors and sellers of small cardboard, decided that bigger or medium size cardboard isn't really a card. No deeper than that.

Have heard people say "because they came out of a machine." Jeez, how stupid is that.


And Adam's book is great.

[luciobar1980]

I am also not generally a fan of blank-back cards. Without the back they just feel like postcards or something. They're half the fun! I'm as much of a fan as back designs as I am of front designs, to be honest.

Also, the fronts really have no design to them at all.. they're just photos.

Not saying they're the worst, I've just never been drawn to them really at all.

[Exhibitman]

These are "just photos" too





Sometimes a picture says all it needs to say.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Thanks for the kind words, guys. I think size is a plus when the images are classic:

Party on wayne!!!!!

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Because people who controlled the direction of the hobby, long time collectors and sellers of small cardboard, decided that bigger or medium size cardboard isn't really a card. No deeper than that.

Have heard people say "because they came out of a machine." Jeez, how stupid is that.


And Adam's book is great.

well said steve!!

[luciobar1980]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

These are "just photos" too





Sometimes a picture says all it needs to say.

Sure, but these also have cool backs. Exhibits for me are bland, front and back. Just my opinion.

[refz]

I’m going say the size ??

I like them by the way

[jbsports33]

Originally Posted by dbussell12

thanks jimmy! this is an awesome comment. if you ever have any 20s ones for sale particularly the 1921s i would love to chat.

you sound like an expert on these! would love to connect in pms and discuss further anytime. it sounds like we have a mutual appreciation for these wonderful artifacts of american history.

The last few years I have sold out of the 1920s exhibits, had a larger collection and for about 2 years and sold most of them. Including Ruth, Cobb and many other stars. I will keep my eyes open for more, I really love the colored post card versions myself. Thanks!

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by dbussell12

well said steve!!

Scene from an arcade in April 1925 . . .100 years ago today in fact . . . .

"Daddy . . .can I have a penny so I can get a CARD of a baseball player from the machine."

[Snowman]

Because they're not baseball cards. Also, they're not under rated. Next question

[Musashi]

.

[rjackson44]

Originally Posted by hcv123

Your observation has perplexed me for many years. I have also heard the "size" reasoning. My problem with that is then why the exception for the 1925 Gehrig exhibit which took off for the moon not too many years ago?

I think there are some INCREDIBLE exhibit cards that have not come close to being price respected compared to their card counterparts. The 1921 Ruth is the one that tops the list for me. Low pop, unique (great) pose, early in his Yankees career..... what gives? The earlier 1920's issues in general I would say arguably have nicer more appreciable images than many of their card counterparts of the day.

Hi howard agreed i just picked up a mikan and it was not cheap..i love them..

[Touch'EmAll]

Exhibits have that classic look to them - great pictures. And love the size, big but not too big.

Much of the 1920's Exhibits are unique to just a single year only.

Speaking of big, what other cards are oversized - T3's I think are even bigger than Exhibits. 1970 Basketball, 1976 Basketball are both larger than life. So many Team Issue & Picture Pack/Photo Pack cards are large size.

What about undersized cards. T206 is really darn small, would they be better if larger? Others?

[akleinb611]

Adam, thanks for chiming in. I last checked on this thread early yesterday and felt I would have to say something if you didn't.

And by the way, that Julie Newmar card is a short and convincing response to the question of why life is worth living...

On a less philosophical note, I wrote an article on exhibits for Frank Barning's Baseball Hobby News about forty years ago, and collectors were having precisely the same debate then. Size may be part of the issue (but, as has already been pointed out, where does that leave Turkey Reds?), but the real problem lies in the lack of a good checklist. The 1947-1966 list found in modern price guides is little more than an information dump. Collectors are uneasy if they can't precisely figure out the year of a card, or how many are left in order to complete the set.

Elwood Scharf chronicled the postwar Exhibit baseball set in the pages of The Trader Speaks in the late Seventies, and I would have thought that his observations would have been picked up by the price guides. But they haven't been. Adam, you've done your part, but the understanding of this series just hasn't hit the mainstream. And yes, the fact that a popular player like Williams or DiMaggio was reissued for years does dampen some people's enthusiasm. But that's the reality; there's nothing we can do about that.

I got enthused about Exhibits in the late 1970's when they could be had at card shows for twenty five cents in mint condition, Hall of Famers for fifty cents, and Mantle/DiMaggio/Williams for a buck each. Now that's incentive!

It really comes down to how willing you are to collect blind. Me, I also collect the Exhibit movie star issues of the 1910's to the 1960's. There are so many cards, known and unknown, that it makes my brain hurt. A checklist? Are you kidding?

[Brent G.]

Can anyone from the "it's not a card" opinion define the exact measurement range of what a "card" is? I think these are considerably smaller than say 1985 Topps Super "cards." And Old Judge and many others have blank backs -- we don't have an issue calling them "cards."

These are amazing pieces of photo art -- whatever you wanna call them!

[Neal]

I've always loved Exhibits, with the Salutations being one of my favorite exhibit issues. Pound for pound, they're the best value card in the hobby imo.

Over the years, these have become a bit more popular. Same thing with postcards. A few dealers that I know have seen slow growing interest/acceptance of even larger cards being added to collections. As a "slabhead", I really didn't collect anything bigger than a Tallboy slab and there are sooo many beautiful card issues that I was passing on.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by refz

I’m going say the size ??

But size doesn't matter...

[dbussell12]

great thread we have going here guys... great to have this in the archives of the forum as well for current and future collectors to peruse and discover some of the in depth expertise members of the community have. wonderful stuff. thanks for commenting with your deep knowledge, experience, and considered thoughts adds a lot of value for everyone.

[wolverinejayhawks]

As an Exhibit card collector, I can add the following:

1. When people say dull, part of that is the monotone nature of exhibit cards, which also generally have a blank back. Tobacco and then candy cards were using multi-colors back in the 1800s. The Exhibit Supply Company presses weren’t set up to do multi-color.

2. Size made storage more of a hassle to early collectors.

3. The fact that the hoppy labeled them as “oddball” cards didn’t increase their popularity.

4. After the 1920s, they tended to have longer print runs for various sets. As noted earlier, Salutation Exhibits (1939- ?) kept the same cards for a long time and replaced them only as players retired. I’m sure this made the set look unfresh to kids who were the primary consumers of cards at the time. Topps and Bowman were what kids purchased in the 1950s and when collecting took off in the 1980s, that’s what they wanted: to rebuild their childhood collections.

I am not sure about the reprint angle. The 1980s reprints are clearly marked so you can tell they are reprints.

If you are interested in Exhibit cards, Adam Warshaw’s book is a great history of the sets.

https://www.lulu.com/shop/adam-warsh...e=1&pageSize=4

Vince


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brent G.]

Can someone please elaborate on the machines these came out of and where they were typically located?

[wolverinejayhawks]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Can someone please elaborate on the machines these came out of and where they were typically located?

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Can someone please elaborate on the machines these came out of and where they were typically located?

They were definitely located in Arcades (places where you could play ski-ball, pinball, etc.). I think store owners could also buy them and put them with gumball machines, etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[commishbob]

Growing up in the late 50s/early 60s I spent a couple of weeks every summer at my grandparents house in Brooklyn. One of my favorite memories of those times is walking the Coney Island boardwalk with a pocket full of coins and hitting up the Exhibit vending machines at the arcades. I only have a few left from my original collection, Gentile, Aparicio and a couple others but I’ve added many more over the years. They were certainly a fun part of my collecting life.