1916-1920 Date for "Big Head" Strip Cards

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Greg,

I bought a very large group of stirp cards from a NY auction, I mean close to 100+ all in one lot. I think there were 3 big heads might have been 4. If this was a NY issure I would of expected a lot more. Also I think we would see the Ruth card more if it was a local NY think and that card does not show up at all.

I have always thought of the set as being "made up" meaning that nothing really was made to match and that it was more of a generic looking set.

I think by doing less work on the set it would have cost less to make and if someone just wanted to do thi fast and on the cheap this is the type of product that would have come out.

Back the Ruth, those apear to be Red sleeves and socks, so that would put him with the Sox and not Yankees right? Can't we use this to narrow that date. Since he is in a hitting pose and not pitching it would likely have been late in his Sox days when he was moving from pitching to hitting.

I think the best chance to id the date is the uniforms, but if things were done so roughly I am not sure they would be acurate anyway. This might just be one of those things we never id or confirm a date on like the 1915 W-Unc.

James G

The artist did depict the players in uniforms, but the uniforms were not intended to accurately match the real life uniforms. The intent of the make-believe uniforms was to have Yankees and Giants stand out from the rest, which was done with large, bold red/white pin stripes. Everyone else was dressed in plain uniforms.

The fact that Ruth and Mays are not wearing those bold red/white pin stripes indicates Ruth had not yet made the switch, but as you said, had established himself as a hitter.

The fact that Bodie is wearing the pin stripes dates this issue post-1918, so either 1919-1920. Your points make me lean toward 1920 firmly.

The quantity of the Big Heads in your New York find sounds correct to me, and actually makes me further believe New York. In general, in my experience, there are not three Big Heads for every 100 frequently seen strip cards, such as w516. The scarcity of the set leads me to believe local (regional) only distribution, and if that is the case, New York IMO is a no doubter because of those bold stripes. However, scarcity is not why I said New York; I said New York because of those uniforms (that weren't really uniforms). The New Yorkers wearing those bold stripes were not superstars like Johnson, Cobb, Sisler (by then), Hornsby, etc, but they were significantly included for a reason, and that reason was because they were local stars (like Paul whats-his-name that played for the Yankees late 90's early2000s). While Paul was an awesome player (anyone who remains in the show as long as he......), he was not a superstar in the country, only in New York. Paul was "adored" in New York.

The "+" symbols on the borders of only nine cards out of twenty cards in the set seems significant. I don't think this set was complete, and your point, that more would have survived if from New York makes sense. I don't think many were made and many that did survived........

Do you have any idea about the "+" symbol? Rice's card was developed out of, or led to the development of, the Sisler card, and because Sisler's card has a "+", and Rice's card didn't, it may indicate that one or the other was added after the fact in order to make the set larger with well known players included from other teams.

Your point from a couple months ago, specifically that Schalk is the only Black Sox player, also makes 1920 more firm in my mind.

I am firm on this also: The heads were magnified so the faces, including the details of the faces, could be seen and identified. But like Matt said (and my wife), it appears the drawings were completed first, then the names later, which led to mis-identification.

I've been thinking that other than the wrong names on the pictures, the art was well done, with the intended cartoonish effect.

Those "+" symbols; if we could figure those out............But the date seems crystal...

Thanks James

[nolemmings]

I'm having trouble with your reasoning for 1920 as the release date, and hardly consider that finding to be "crystal". First, if the New York players were given bright, bold contrived uniforms to stand out from the rest, than Mays and especially Ruth should be donning them as well. As you know, Ruth was sold to the Yankees right after Christmas in 1919. The acquisition was considered quite a coup for the Yanks, and I would have to believe that if the idea was to highlight the New Yorkers, he would have been front and center. You recognized in your last post that Mays and Ruth were not shown in the red and blue--how do you reconcile that with 1920 as a release date?

The other point that you made for 1920 is the inclusion of Ray Schalk as the only White Sox player, somehow suggesting that the Black Sox were deliberately omitted. The scandal, while suspected during or shortly after the 1919 World Series, did not break until September, 1920, with indictments issued the following month. The identity of the culprits was far from fixed in 1920, at least until almost year end, so leaving them out of the set cannot be due to criminal activity. Moreover, why not include sqeaky clean Eddie Collins, a HOF caliber player by 1920? It may just be that only one White Sox player was to be included and Schalk was chosen.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Todd, glad you're back!!

“Crystal.” I’ve never used that word in my speech.

Good points, which included some information I didn't know. The 1920 date is based on the uniforms, but using a one year delay......which as you said, should have nothing to do with the black sox (I now know). Should we return to 1919-1920, with the primary reason being the selection of players along with their respective uniforms, or should we settle on '19? I really want to know what you think about all this.

Ruth and Mays should be wearing those stripes (especially Ruth!), but they're not....They're Red Sox.....

So what about Mr. Konetchy? Does he belong with Baker or not, what do you see on that?

[nolemmings]

but you said

Those "+" symbols; if we could figure those out............But the date seems crystal...

I wouldn't discount completely that the large-bodied image on the "Baker" card is Konetchy. Just not sure.

I'm also wondering why there are four Senators in a 20 card set, yet you conclude that New York was the target audience.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

but you said

I wouldn't discount completely that the large-bodied image on the "Baker" card is Konetchy. Just not sure.

I'm also wondering why there are four Senators in a 20 card set, yet you conclude that New York was the target audience.

I know what I typed, please let's forget the "c" word. I should have said that I am absolutely certain or something, never spoken the "c" word unless referring to my mother's "C" animal collection.

Is it clear to you that the Giants and Yankees are wearing bold pin stripes? And if so, are you confident that the year is narrowed to the year mentioned? You did not say. To me, Bodie is a big clue because he never put up superstar numbers, yet he strikes me as a local fan's player type. Doyle had few good seasons, a steady player, but to be included in a star set? Burns was a local favorite, one of McGraw's most valuable. And of course, HR Baker adorned with NYA.

Four Senators, yeah, that stands out. Let's compare them to the confident looking New Yorkers:

• Johnson, one of the greatest ever, has a mustache and is quite plump.
• Sam Rice's card was half done. Interestingly, Rice had his first good season at bat in 1919, so since his card was half done, as an afterthought maybe, perhaps he was included later and taken from Sisler's card? Or perhaps the intent for him was correct, as a pitcher, like Sisler was a pitcher.
• Milan looks mischievous.
• Judge is on the wrong card IMO.

Maybe they were a give-away at one or more of the 22 Senator v Yankee match-ups, with some super-stars from the other teams mixed in?

As for the other teams,

• Schang looks like a clown, like he should have one of those little propellers on top of his hat.
• Some players can't be found.
• Babe Ruth, while cute today, was made to look like a baby (or am I the only one who notices?).
• Cobb is traveling the wrong way.

I personally have seen two types of cuts on these cards: all the way to the image, and several well cut ones. Any body ever seen or heard of a sheet of them or of any with jagged edges we so often see on strip cards? I would like to know if the fans cut them or if they were cut prior to distribution, if didtributed. I'm also thinking the set was possibly never complete. Perhaps this was to be W514 but the format changed when the errors were noticed? I'm not saying the "c" word...

James Gallo (who has an awesome collection by the way) said he found some in New York. Where else have they been found?

Todd, you noticed Baker, which is what led to me looking at all the other cards, so glad you decided to check in. Thanks

I have always thought these cards were very cool, but have not seen any in 10 years until I saw the Sisler for sale and Leon's cards. I bought three because I've always liked them.

As for Baby Ruth, I have a modern comparison: I was a Joe Montana fan and collected his cards. I found his toughest card to be the 1988 Starline Prototypes, the set of which was comprised of four cards, all quarterbacks: Elway, Simms, Kosar, Montana. It is very hard to find any of these cards, but especially Montana. It's so hard to find that an ex-mt ungraded version will sell for 400+. There were only 75 made of each player.

Left Hand batters:
1. Ruth
2. Rice
3. Judge
4. Sisler
5. Bagby (switch)
6. Doyle
7. Bancroft (switch)
8. Baker
9. Cobb
10. Schang
11. Mays
12. Milan

Left hand Throwers:
1. Ruth
2. Judge
3. Sisler

1. Ruth: LH/LH
2. Rice: bat LH, Throw: RH
3. Judge: LH/LH
4. Bodie: RH/RH
5. Sisler: LH/LH
6. Burns: RH/RH
7. Johnson: RH/RH
8. Bagby: S/RH
9. Doyle: Bats LH, Throws RH
10. Bancroft: S/RH
11. Baker: Bat LH, throw RH
12. Cobb: Bat LH, throw RH
13. Groh: RH/RH
14. Hornsby: RH/RH
15. Konetchy: RH/RH (pitching appearance in ’18)
16. Cadore: RH/RH
17. Schang: S/RH
18. Mays: Bat LH/Throw RH
19. Milan: Bat LH, Throw RH
20. Schalk: RH/RH

As Matt has said previously, the uniforms corresponded with the written names, evidence that the faces that were switched were done so accidentally. Therefore, the artist(s) was not familiar with the players, only provided with information.
The fact that Sisler and Rice's images were combined is evidence that the artist took a "short-cut" to completion of their respective cards. Both Sisler and Rice's poses are that of a pitcher, which is what they were in 1915-1916.

Cobb (CF) hitter and Base Stealer (offense)
Schang (C) hit by pitch 33 times 1915-1917
Sam Rice (P)
Johnson (P) 619 strike-outs 1915-1917
Sisler (1b), as seen on Judge’s card, pitcher 1915-16
HR Baker (3B) as seen on Konetchy’s card (*But not participating*)

• Konetchy and Mays are dressed exactly alike
• Sisler (St Louis Browns), Groh (Reds), Rice (Wash), and Judge (Wash) are exactly alike except for undershirt
• Judge (Washington) and Groh (Reds) are exactly alike
• Sisler and Rice are exact
• Same pants, red & white pin stripe: Baker, Bodie, George J. Burns
• Shirt, red and white pin stripe: Doyle,

• Two players at each position with each using opposite hand?
• New York rivalries?
• Don’t forget hitting pitchers and hitter that were former pitchers
• Ruth’s uniform does not match the New York Uniforms, at least as depicted by the manufacturer. The new Yorker’s stripes were consistent
• Ruth had wrinkled forehead and small cleft
• Real life clefts: Rice, Ruth, Sisler (Rice ID’ed,
• The uniforms corresponded with the written names, evidence that the faces were accidentally switched.
• Konetchy had a pitching appearance in ‘18
• Cobb is returning to second as Mays checks the runner

Boston Red Sox
• Babe Ruth 1914-1919 (RC) limited play in 1914
• Carl Mays 1915-1919 (RC)
• Schang 1918-1920
Washington Senators
• Walter Johnson 1907-1927 (“W” on chest)
• Joe Judge 1915-1932 (RC)
• Clyde Milan 1907-1922
• Sam Rice 1915-1933 (RC)(Pitcher 1915-1916)
Detroit Tigers
• Ty Cobb
New York Yankees
• Frank Baker 1916-1922 NYA on chest (****Red and White striped pants****)
• Ping Bodie 1918-1921 (“B” on chest) (****Red and White striped pants****) correct
New York Giants
• Larry Doyle 1915-1916 and 1918-1920 (****Red and White striped shirt****)
• George Joseph Burns 1911-1921 (****Red and White striped pants****)
Brooklyn Robbins
• Leon Cadore 1915-1922 (RC) (“C” on chest)
Boston Red Sox
• Babe Ruth 1914-1919 (RC)
• Carl Mays 1915-1919 (RC)
Boston Braves
• Konetchy 1916-1918 (new team starting 1916)
Philadelphia Phillies
• David Bancroft 1915-1920 (RC)
Philadelphia A’s
• Ping Bodie 1917
• Schang 1913-1917
Chicago Cubs
• Larry Doyle 1916-1917 (Some kind of change in 1916)
Chicago White Sox
• Ray Schalk 1912-1928
Cincinnati Reds
• Heine Groh 1914-1921
St Louis Cardinals
• R. Hornsby 1915-1926 (RC)
St Louis Browns (American)
• Sisler
Cleveland Indians
• Jim Bagby 1916-1922 (only 17 IP with Reds in 1912)

[Spike]

I studied this era's strip cards for a few years and propose looking at these "Big Head" cards as an update to W516's checklist for 1921's opening day. It could be in response to complaints that original W516 strips looked dingy or empty.

W516 itself targeted 1920, since it lists Babe Ruth as "Yanks pitcher." He first played for NYY in 1920 _and_ switched to fulltime outfield duty that same year, which soon made "pitcher" out-of-date.

If this matches their approach, art tweaks give each player more space and better highlight faces and uniforms. Based on earlier research in this thread, they still made name/face mistakes and must've focused on Ruth's reputation as "famous slugger who wears Yankee pinstripes" and missed his handedness. Those "+" printing guide marks also appear on W516s with thicker stock, so must've come off similar equipment.

I attached images showing these W516 changes, plus similar tweaks to this company's W529 boxing and Hollywood actor strips. In each case, they removed extraneous text, filled up each card image, and made them more engaging. Too bad they made so few cards in this style!

[Leon]

This is a great, old thread.
I guess I collected the set at one time. Now, I am relegated to type cards again...
I always like the ones with full borders...

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Spike

I studied this era's strip cards for a few years and propose looking at these "Big Head" cards as an update to W516's checklist for 1921's opening day. It could be in response to complaints that original W516 strips looked dingy or empty.

W516 itself targeted 1920, since it lists Babe Ruth as "Yanks pitcher." He first played for NYY in 1920 _and_ switched to fulltime outfield duty that same year, which soon made "pitcher" out-of-date.

If this matches their approach, art tweaks give each player more space and better highlight faces and uniforms. Based on earlier research in this thread, they still made name/face mistakes and must've focused on Ruth's reputation as "famous slugger who wears Yankee pinstripes" and missed his handedness. Those "+" printing guide marks also appear on W516s with thicker stock, so must've come off similar equipment.

I attached images showing these W516 changes, plus similar tweaks to this company's W529 boxing and Hollywood actor strips. In each case, they removed extraneous text, filled up each card image, and made them more engaging. Too bad they made so few cards in this style!

Nice Matt, I like how the Ruth and Cobb do seem to have utilized/tweaked the W516 images to stress different aspects of their playing, the Ruth (who has the same body positioning and even head tilt) to depict him as batter, and the Cobb (whose body and head lines up almost exactly as it does on his W516) as a runner, even though as depicted he could only be running back to the base as the result of a pickoff throw.

The Ruth reminds me of the Schapira card (shown below, not mine) issued at about the same time frame as the Big Head set that also utilized a Ruth throwing image and converted it into a batting pose to reflect his transition from pitcher to a full-time player, in this case just awkwardly adding a dropped bat.

Brian