topic: why are exhibits so underrated as a set?

[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.

[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!!

[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

[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.

[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.

[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!!!!!