The Card Collectors Bulletin- Aug. 1, 1944, Whole No. 31

[Leon]

It seems many of our members enjoy the history of the hobby. I for one greatly enjoy it and enjoy studying it, as evidenced by the few recent threads on the old Card Collectors Bulletins. I have around 20 of them to share with our community. Instead of picking and choosing how to share them I feel the best way is to just go down the chronological order of them and post them as such. For a very brief history, the Card Collectors Bulletins (CCB) were started by Jefferson Burdick in order to communicate with fellow collectors and catalog insert cards and other trading cards he collected and so loved. The CCB was the predecessor to The US Card Collectors Catalog (June 1939), which itself was the predecessor to the American Card Catalog. The CCB started in 1937 and continued until the very early 1980's (I believe). The ones which will be shared are from 1944 through 1949 but there are many I am missing as they were put out at approximately 6 per yr. Regardless of that it is very seldom that we are able to find hobby related writings pre-1950. The CCB seems to be the gold standard for early hobby publications. We will get to see what Jefferson Burdick thought and felt about collecting, the breadth of his collecting, and his ideas on the cataloging of the cards we love. I have to admit I have changed my view (somewhat) on the updating of the American Card Catalog. Some of the articles posted will be pertaining to sports, and some won't be, but they will all have to do with what we enjoy. I am hosting the articles on my personal site so they can be made larger for all of us older collectors to be able to easier enjoy the reading . regards

[barrysloate]

Looks like N162 was called Goodwin #120 back then.

Keep these coming Leon- they are terrific.

[Mrc32]

I agree. These are fun to read. Thanks for posting.

[SteveMitchell]

Thank you, Leon, for a look back (way back) in card collecting. I look forward to reading others in the future.

[Gradedcardman]

Leon,

Great stuff !!

[T206DK]

these are fabulous ! thanks for posting them Leon

[teetwoohsix]

I agree, these are awesome !!! Thanks again Leon !!

Sincerely, Clayton

[4815162342]

Piling on with another thanks!

[Leon]

Your welcome guys. Showing the Bulletins is the least I can do for a great bunch of vintage baseball collectors. Still getting the process down though. Since each of these early copies (not sure about later ones) is 8 pages (4 individual, but fronts and backs) going forward I will probably show 4 pages at a time. Here is the rest of the first one...(btw, are the images too large??)....enjoy

[Mrc32]

Interesting that on that third page there Leon, a collector was looking for a bunch of the Short Printed t205s.

So even back in 1944 some collectors knew those cards were harder to come by....

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Mrc32

Interesting that on that third page there Leon, a collector was looking for a bunch of the Short Printed t205s.

So even back in 1944 some collectors knew those cards were harder to come by....

Hey Michael
As we go along with these it's going to be very obvious that the exact same things we talk about today were being talked about 65 yrs ago too. There will be a whole bunch of collective head nodding as folks read these. I especially like the careful verifying and cataloging of cards. I believe one of the articles Burdick wrote is going to say the cards need to be sent to him for verification and in order to be added to a list. We'll see as we go how much really hasn't changed. One of the main things we will continually see is what used to take a month now takes a second.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Liberal use of the royal we.

[barrysloate]

Pretty cool to see Jefferson Burdick's want list. Also, as Leon noted, some things never change. Look at the collectors writing and complaining about unfair auction practices, and the need for some new rules to be implemented, such as the winning bidder getting a lot for only a small increment above the second high bid (perhaps the birth of sniping).

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Liberal use of the royal we.

Of course I wasn't referring to me as "we". "We" being the collective board.

And for the record those people (person) you might be inferring to are not suspended anymore so they can post whenever they would like to.

[barrysloate]

As long as we're vaguely on the subject, you do know that "your welcome" is incorrect.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Of course I wasn't referring to me as "we". "We" being the collective board.

And for the record those people (person) you might be inferring to are not suspended anymore so they can post whenever they would like to.

No, the author of the bulletin uses the royal we.

[teetwoohsix]

Burdick's want list was huge !!! A man on a mission

These are so interesting,,,,,loved this part:

"Umpire Fessanden, whom all the old players remember due to his vain habits and love of personal apple-use" LOL,,,,,,

Thanks again Leon, this is a lot of fun. Also, the size of the pages come across perfect on my screen. Please keep 'em coming !!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

As long as we're vaguely on the subject, you do know that "your welcome" is incorrect.

of course.....common mistake

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No, the author of the bulletin uses the royal we.

I have noticed that as I have been reading them. Maybe he and Brucii are onto something?

[barrysloate]

Is it debatable? I don't think so. It's just a contraction for "you are welcome."

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Is it debatable? I don't think so. It's just a contraction for "you are welcome."

First of all I meant to take that word "debatable" out of my message. However, my initial thought was why in the world do almost ALL of the phrases I ever see say "your welcome" and not "you're welcome"?.......again, I didn't mean to leave that word in the message title of my last post. It was a mistake on top of a mistake.

[barrysloate]

There are situations where the royal "we" is entirely acceptable. For example, if you are a sole proprietor you might prefer to use "we" to create the illusion that your business actually consists of more than one person. But the chatboard is by nature very informal, and Bruce's use of "we", as I've told him countless times, is inappropriate.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Leon

First of all I meant to take that word "debatable" out of my message. However, my initial thought was why in the world do almost ALL of the phrases I ever see say "your welcome" and not "you're welcome"?.......again, I didn't mean to leave that word in the message title of my last post. It was a mistake on top of a mistake.

Interesting, because I've never seen it used. "Your welcome" would actually mean "the welcome belonging to you." Does that make any sense? Maybe in some context, but I can't think of any at the moment.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Interesting, because I've never seen it used. "Your welcome" would actually mean "the welcome belonging to you." Does that make any sense? Maybe in some context, but I can't think of any at the moment.

"Your welcome when the prince entered the building was totally inappropriate."

[barrysloate]

Also:

We welcomed you last week, and we are extending your welcome for a second week.

[Jaybird]

I could read this stuff all day! Thanks

--edited to add: I'm referring to the CCB, not the grammar lesson.

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

I could read this stuff all day! Thanks

Your welcome.

[bh3443]

Leon, thanks so much for posting this edition. My wife and I were very excited to see the part about the Kimball's Album, Wayside inn and Snowbound that features the works of Longfellow.
Longfellow's Wayside Inn is a few miles from our home over the line in Sudbury. This is where our daughters and my wife went to High School.
We used to dine there all the time. We really enjoyed taking guests and relatives there for a great meal over the years. My wife would get a laugh when I tipped the bartender with 1952 Bowman cards! (he was a customer and preferred the cards for a tip). It was great to see Sudbury 's Wayside inn mentioned on the Kimball Album!
It would be a treat to see the Wayside Inn on a card or the album mentioned!
Thanks again for sharing! These are great and not offered too often.
I remember seeing a complete run of them in Lew lipset's auction years ago. I believe in ran from the mid 40's thru early 1981.
Take care,
Bill Hedin

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

There are situations where the royal "we" is entirely acceptable. For example, if you are a sole proprietor you might prefer to use "we" to create the illusion that your business actually consists of more than one person. But the chatboard is by nature very informal, and Bruce's use of "we", as I've told him countless times, is inappropriate.

Why does wanting to deceive the public make the usage acceptable?

[judsonhamlin]

Thanks for posting that, Leon. Great references to the war (Lionel Carter going to New Guinea) and it is interesting that the short-print T205's were in demand even then.
BTW, I will also gladly pay $.75 for all O'Hara (St.L.) cards

[barrysloate]

I give up Peter, why?

[autograf]

For Bill.........
T69 Helmar Historic Homes..............
Pretty easily found on ebay.........not very expensive.........
The Kimball album is another story..........

[bh3443]

Originally Posted by autograf

For Bill.........
T69 Helmar Historic Homes..............
Pretty easily found on ebay.........not very expensive.........
The Kimball album is another story..........

Tom,
Thank you so much! The Inn hasn't changed much! Just the dining area is bigger and the kitchen is added in the back plus the gift shop! You made my day! Thanks again, Bill