W501-2 is now recognized by SGC!

[ValKehl]

Recently, we had this Net54 thread re W575-1 in which there is mention of W501 cards, including a Type 2 version that hasn't been recognized by the TPGs: https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ghlight=w575-1

At the beginning of January, I sold my raw W501 Type 2 (or W501-2) duplicate of Sam Rice to a collector on another forum. I provided him with all the info I had re the W501-2 cards, especially Rhett Y.'s piece published in Old Cardboard Magazine several years ago. I told him the W501-2 card isn't recognized by the TPGs, but he told me he was going to submit it to SGC anyway. I wished him good luck, but wasn't holding my breath.

Well, lo and behold, this collector has received his card back from SGC, and the label on the SGC slab says "W501-2"! The collector included Rhett's info with his submission to SGC, and he said SGC never asked him any questions about it before slabbing it. Here's this card in its new SGC slab:

[rhettyeakley]

Pretty cool.

Neat to be able to add something to the established ACC.

[theshowandme]

Fantastic stuff Val. Thank you for letting me line up a W501-1 with this card yesterday at the meetup. The image box lined up perfectly. I’ll be asking SGC to review this one soon.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

Fantastic stuff Val. Thank you for letting me line up a W501-1 with this card yesterday at the meetup. The image box lined up perfectly. I’ll be asking SGC to review this one soon.

Don, it was great to meet and chat with you yesterday at the Net54 get together, and I'm glad that my W501-1 of WaJo was useful in helping you determine that your Sisler card is actually a W501-2 card. I, too, am going to "strike while the iron is hot" and submit my raw W501-2s of WaJo and Sam Rice to SGC at the upcoming Chantilly Show.

[brianp-beme]

Congrats all in finally getting a grading company to recognize overwhelmingly convincing research by Rhett, with a huge assist by Val and that other collector dealing with SGC.

It gives me hope that SGC can also rectify various other old hobby information on their labels, and show PSA how it can be done.

W501-2...a checklist of available cards needs to be created!


Brian

[cliffyb]

I'd like to ask the knowledgable collectors here why you think the W501 cards don't, in my opinion, get too much respect? Is it the grainy photos? Is it that the cards are similar to E121 and W575-1? The W501s have very low pops and a nice selection of all-time greats. Or perhaps they do get their share of respect and I'm incorrect. Thanks!!!

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by cliffyb

I'd like to ask the knowledgable collectors here why you think the W501 cards don't, in my opinion, get too much respect? Is it the grainy photos? Is it that the cards are similar to E121 and W575-1? The W501s have very low pops and a nice selection of all-time greats. Or perhaps they do get their share of respect and I'm incorrect. Thanks!!!

I think it is a combination that they have, since the beginning of hobby times, been classified as strip cards, and the traditional W501 cards (which perhaps now should be referred to as W501-1 cards) were indeed issued in strip form and thus usually have borders top/bottom borders with poor cuts or have been separated by tearing. Another contributing factor is that they have blank backs, which for a sizeable chunk of the collecting world is seen as the plain jane sister of cards that have a bunch of words printed on the back. W501-1 cards do not have grainy photos...in my opinion they are about comparable in photo quality as seen in the E121 set. The W501-2 I believe are a little grainier in appearance. The E122 American Caramel set has very grainy photos, in case you want to see what a real fiber-enriched grainy card looks like.

Both the W501-1 and the newly recognized W501-2 are in my opinion great cards worthy of more collector interest.

Here is a W501-1, for visual reference.

w501ruel261 (249x400).jpgw501ruel262 (242x400).jpg



Brian

[Leon]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Congrats all in finally getting a grading company to recognize overwhelmingly convincing research by Rhett, with a huge assist by Val and that other collector dealing with SGC.

It gives me hope that SGC can also rectify various other old hobby information on their labels, and show PSA how it can be done.

W501-2...a checklist of available cards needs to be created!


Brian

We might already be seeing the way PSA would do it. Nothing wrong with fixing a lot of old mistakes.
.

[cliffyb]

Thank you Brian. And I appreciate the attached pic. I do like the W501 photos. It's cool to see the players in action. It will be interesting to see where future interest in these cards heads. Given the state of the hobby, perhaps it's a positive that interest in these is on the low side.

[theshowandme]

I got to show off my Sisler and tell its story a few times this weekend at the Strongsville show

I do plan on trying to get SGC to reholder it under the W501-2 classification in Cleveland this summer

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

I got to show off my Sisler and tell its story a few times this weekend at the Strongsville show

I do plan on trying to get SGC to reholder it under the W501-2 classification in Cleveland this summer

Way to go, Don! I submitted my raw W501-2 and W575-1 cards of both WaJo and Sam Rice to SGC at the very recent Chantilly Show. I'll try to remember (I have the world's worst memory!) to let you know the results when I receive my slabbed cards.

[rhettyeakley]

Good to see some life in this thread and these cards in general.

As for the W575-1 cards that parallel the E121 Series of 120 set...they do exist but are VERY TOUGH to find and easily 90-95% are actually W501-2 cards that are labeled W575-1.

That being said, blank backed cards of the same quality images and otherwise identical to E121 Series of 120 cards are out there and they are confirmed as such by the better quality image, card stock, & the fact that they are on the same thinner card stock that E121 Series 120 (which is pretty obvious when holding a Series of 80 an Series of 120 in your hand at the same time)

So hate to be the bearer of bad news Val but you still need the Rice card.

I chose 2 "not so totally random" W575-1 (Series of 120) cards from my album to show what they look like & show the image quality vs Val's Rice he showed above

[ValKehl]

Rhett, it isn't clear to me what you mean by your comment, "So hate to be the bearer of bad news Val but you still need the Rice card." Are you telling me that the card I have identified as a W575-1 card is actually a W501-2 card? If so, I disagree. Not only is the card stock different for my W501-2 and what I believe to be my W575-1 of Rice, but the rectangular box containing Rice's image is slightly smaller in both width and height on my W501-2 (and W501-1) card. These same differences also exist between my W501-2 (and W501-1) and my W575-1 cards of WaJo. Rhett, have you ever compared the sizes of the rectangular boxes for the W501 cards vs. the W575-1 cards, and if so, did you find the sizes to be different, as I did?

Rhett, I also find it interesting to note the differences in Sam Rice's name and field position found on the "E121 and related cards" in my Sam Rice collection, as detailed below:

"E. S. Rice" and "O. F." - E121-120 A.m. Caramel, W501-1, and W501-2.

"E. C. Rice" and "C. F." - E121-80 Am. Caramel (with Type 1, Type 1 - reverse, and Type 2 backs), Clark's Bread, Gassler's Bread, Witmor Candy (horizontal back), Henry A. Johnson (purple back stamp), and what I believe to be my W575-1 card (shown above).

"E. C. Rice" and "R. F." - Herpolsheimer's Boy's Clothing, D327-1 Holsum Bread, D327-2 Holsum Bread, and Queen City Cigar Store.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Rhett, it isn't clear to me what you mean by your comment, "So hate to be the bearer of bad news Val but you still need the Rice card." Are you telling me that the card I have identified as a W575-1 card is actually a W501-2 card? If so, I disagree. Not only is the card stock different for my W501-2 and what I believe to be my W575-1 of Rice, but the rectangular box containing Rice's image is slightly smaller in both width and height on my W501-2 (and W501-1) card. These same differences also exist between my W501-2 (and W501-1) and my W575-1 cards of WaJo. Rhett, have you ever compared the sizes of the rectangular boxes for the W501 cards vs. the W575-1 cards, and if so, did you find the sizes to be different, as I did?

Rhett, I also find it interesting to note the differences in Sam Rice's name and field position found on the "E121 and related cards" in my Sam Rice collection, as detailed below:

"E. S. Rice" and "O. F." - E121-120 A.m. Caramel, W501-1, and W501-2.

"E. C. Rice" and "C. F." - E121-80 Am. Caramel (with Type 1, Type 1 - reverse, and Type 2 backs), Clark's Bread, Gassler's Bread, Witmor Candy (horizontal back), Henry A. Johnson (purple back stamp), and what I believe to be my W575-1 card (shown above).

"E. C. Rice" and "R. F." - Herpolsheimer's Boy's Clothing, D327-1 Holsum Bread, D327-2 Holsum Bread, and Queen City Cigar Store.

I was making a joke Val, I probably should have been more clear.

The E. S. RICE (O.F.) I showed in my post is a W575-1, which is the one I believe you need.

I believe you have yours all identified correctly.

There are two different known W575-1 Rice cards.
-You pictured a W575-1 of E. C. RICE (C.F.) which is correct
-The E. S. RICE (O.F.) that I pictured
(possibly a 3rd of E. C. RICE with R.F. but I haven't seen it)


The order which the RICE cards were made is as follows...

1920 (Holsum Type 1) & early 1921 Releases "E. C. RICE" with "R.F."
1921 Bulk of the releases "E. C. RICE" with "C. F."
1922 releases "E. S. RICE" with "O.F."

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Way to go, Don! I submitted my raw W501-2 and W575-1 cards of both WaJo and Sam Rice to SGC at the very recent Chantilly Show. I'll try to remember (I have the world's worst memory!) to let you know the results when I receive my slabbed cards.

Don, I received these 4 slabbed cards back from SGC today. SGC labeled 3 of the 4 cards correctly, with the W501-1 of Sam Rice receiving a "3" grade (I carefully erased the "14" in pencil in the upper right corner before submitting the card). But sadly, SGC mislabeld my W501-2 card of WaJo as being a W575-1 card. Sigh!

What is especially frustrating is that I made every effort to ensure that SGC would correctly identify all four of these cards by putting a little piece of paper in the top loader with each of these four cards identifying the correct ACC # (W501-2 or W575-1) when I submitted them. And, all four of these cards are correctly identified on the invoice order form I received when I gave these cards to the SGC rep at the Chantilly Show on April 5th. I would have thought that if the SGC grader/researcher was going to disagree with my identification of a card I submitted, SGC would have contacted me to clarify this BEFORE slabbing the card! I have contacted SGC, and SGC has agreed that I may return the mislabeled card to be correctly relabeled.

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Don, I received these 4 slabbed cards back from SGC today. SGC labeled 3 of the 4 cards correctly, with the W501-1 of Sam Rice receiving a "3" grade (I carefully erased the "14" in pencil in the upper right corner before submitting the card). But sadly, SGC mislabeld my W501-2 card of WaJo as being a W575-1 card. Sigh!

What is especially frustrating is that I made every effort to ensure that SGC would correctly identify all four of these cards by putting a little piece of paper in the top loader with each of these four cards identifying the correct ACC # (W501-2 or W575-1) when I submitted them. And, all four of these cards are correctly identified on the invoice order form I received when I gave these cards to the SGC rep at the Chantilly Show on April 5th. I would have thought that if the SGC grader/researcher was going to disagree with my identification of a card I submitted, SGC would have contacted me to clarify this BEFORE slabbing the card! I have contacted SGC, and SGC has agreed that I may return the mislabeled card to be correctly relabeled.

I’m glad they are willing to correct their error.

I’d love to see the scans when you have them!

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

I’m glad they are willing to correct their error.

I’d love to see the scans when you have them!

Don, here are scans of the 4 cards I submitted to SGC. The WaJo card that SGC graded "Authentic" is the mislabeled card- this card is actually a W501-2 card.

[theshowandme]

Val, I put your cards into a collage side by side

[theshowandme]

I gave this card to SGC on Sunday in Chantilly.

I just got notified that it crossed to W501-2

Very happy. Many thanks to those who helped me here.

[ValKehl]

Don, congrats, your W501-2 of Sisler is a real nice card!

I recently was able to get SGC to correct their mislabeling of my WaJo card as a W575-1 card (shown in posts #22 & #25 above) to a correct W501-2 label.