topic: why are exhibits so underrated as a set?

[Jcarns22]

As someone who is really beginning to appreciate over-sized cards, I love the Exhibits. My only issue is the dating. I only want playing days cards, so the fact a lot of them span decades, is a major turn off for me. I have the DiMaggio because irregardless of production date (As long as it's actually in the stated frame), it is still within his playing years. However, I don't feel like getting into the weeds for most of these and will avoid them (Ted Williams), if I'm not confident in the print date.

[paul]

Originally Posted by Jcarns22

As someone who is really beginning to appreciate over-sized cards, I love the Exhibits. My only issue is the dating. I only want playing days cards, so the fact a lot of them span decades, is a major turn off for me. I have the DiMaggio because irregardless of production date (As long as it's actually in the stated frame), it is still within his playing years. However, I don't feel like getting into the weeds for most of these and will avoid them (Ted Williams), if I'm not confident in the print date.

I'm not aware of any evidence that any of the cards, including Ted Williams, were printed after their playing days. Am I wrong?

[Mungo Hungo]

To further complicate things, in many cases there's very likely a difference between production date and sale date. Because they had no dating (aside from the 1962-63 "stat backs"), the 1939-66 Exhibits presumably could be sold for years after the arcade received them. While a store couldn't really sell last year's baseball cards, there was no "last year" for Exhibits.

[toppcat]

A set is what you make of it.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by paul

I'm not aware of any evidence that any of the cards, including Ted Williams, were printed after their playing days. Am I wrong?

Latest printing I am aware of is the 1961 series.