List of sets with incorrect years recorded..

[ls7plus]

I have some real doubts that the R314 Goudey "creamy" Joe DiMaggio premium is in fact a 1937, rather than 1936 (true rookie) issue, as it pictures Joe not in his Yankees,' but San Francisco Seals uniform, which he would have last worn in 1935. Seems to me a '37 issue, after the break-in rookie campaign Joltin' Joe put in (.323, 29 HR's) would have seen to it that DiMag appeared in Yankee garb. I know the Standard Catalog now contends this is indeed a 1937 issue, but I think I've seen PSA label it both ways.

Comments most welcome.

Larry

[abothebear]

The W560s have been discussed here as being catalogued incorrectly. It can't be a 1927 set, and is probably a 1929 issue (or later?). Is that that the kind thing you are looking for?

[DanP]

Originally Posted by abothebear

The W560s have been discussed here as being catalogued incorrectly. It can't be a 1927 set, and is probably a 1929 issue (or later?). Is that that the kind thing you are looking for?

Yes, thanks!

[ls7plus]

I agree with George. The W560 set contains Foxx, which would seem highly unlikely absent some psychic prowess on the part of the manufacturer, as Jimmie's first year of any note at all would have been 1928 (.328, 13 HR's in 400 at bats), with his first real Foxx-type year occurring in 1929 (.354, 33 HR's). 1929 at the absolute earliest.

Good thread, Dan.

Larry

[Baseball Rarities]

Great thread.

N28 - 1888, not 1887

M101-5 - 1916, not 1915

[PolarBear]

T3's and T9's are 1910, not 1911.

[bcbgcbrcb]

William Paterson, most likely 1924, possibly 1923 but definitely not 1922

[DanP]

Is there positive proof that this set was issued in 1924? Has anyone here done any analysis of the players on the cards (i.e. uniforms)?

Thanks.

[tedzan]

For many years, these Blue Tint cards were identified as 1947, or 1947-1948, or 1948-1949. And, in some instances they still are.
They are strictly a 1948 issue....period.

Also, their ACC classification....R346....is incorrect. These cards were available in strips of eight. But, they were never associated
with any gum or candy products. Therefore, they should have been classified as a W-xxx issue.







TED Z

[Bridwell]

I've seen Walter Mails game cards listed as 1923 or 1924. Which is correct?

Great thread!

[DanP]

Please keep these coming! I should have mentioned that I would like to create a summary in a spreadsheet type format that we can all access easily (maybe via this forum, if not at least from my website, maybe OldCardboard, etc.).

If at all possible, please provide your reasoning, proof, etc. so I can attach to each item in case someone disputes our findings.

For us RC collectors there's almost nothing worse then winning a card that you believe is a players true RC only to find out the issue date is wrong!! I actually lucked out a few times, barely loosing out in an auction only to find out after the card was no more a players RC then what I already had (i.e. Speaker Novelty Cutlery).

Thanks.

[novakjr]

I think the 1939-46 Salutation Exhibits that were printed after '46, which I believe can usually be determined by the use of "Printed" amongst other things, should be treated as a secondary issue, rather than be considered '39-46. Basically, the ones with the captions that fit the time period should stay as listed, while the others should be considered a post '46 salutation exhibit.