Batter Up Color Variations

[judsonhamlin]

In a recent thread about the R318 set, some collaborative searching revealed that, contrary to existing belief, red- and green-printed Batter Ups appear to have been issued only with cards 1-40, as opposed to all 80 "low numbered" cards. This was based upon a review of cards for sale on eBay, the Old Cardboard set gallery and the collections of a couple of members.
Throwing this out to the board for the following:

Does anyone have red or green Batter Ups numbered 41-80? Keep in mind that the pink/purple cards have some variety in the ink, but red cards are truly red.
On the related issue of sheet size, are there any uncut sheets out there that would show how the cards came out of the printing press? If there were 40 card sheets, then that would bolster the idea that the red and green printings were discontinued after the first sheet was distributed.

Thanks to zan, brianp-beme and spec for contributing to this discussion which, if it plays out, might lead to a revision in the set checklist.

[Zan]

Thanks for your research. Eager to see what people come up with.

I think because so little is known about this set (either because of accessibility of knowledge or the popularity of the set) it's safe to say that we can make assumptions that your theories are valid, but I'm glad you opened it up to others to contribute.

[brianp-beme]

Thanks Judson...I was thinking of making the color issue part of a new thread. I have reposted my comments here for easier reference.

All of my red and green Batter-Ups are from #1-40. I have examples of all of the colors for #'s 41-80 except for red and green. Definitely makes it appear like the set, at least the first 80 cards, was issued in groups of 40.

To extrapolate, the higher number cards, which are noticeably shorter, would most likely have been issued in two 56 card groupings, which would account for the 112 additional cards (#'s 81 -192).

Perhaps the first two printings of 40 were 8 across and 5 down on a sheet, while, the second two printings could have been 8 across and 7 down on a sheet (with some of the extra room coming from the shorter heighth of the cards). Thus National Chicle could have dropped the two colors after their first 1-40 sheet run.

A side point...I have always been floored how many HOF players are in the first 40 cards (22), compared to how many are found #'s 41-80 (5). National Chicle was certainly stacking the deck with their first run.

Brian

[Chris Counts]

All my Batter Ups that are green or red number 40 or lower as well. This partially explains why you see fewer of them. I'm also glad you pointed out the distinction between the pink/magenta cards and those that are red. I'm surprised I've never seen a premium charged for the red and green cards, which seem tougher to find. I'd like to see a population comparison between, for instance, a pink Lefty Grove and a red or green Lefty Grove.

Also, I'm curious about the color varieties in the cards numbered 81 and above. The distinctions ares more subtle, but they definitely exist. Mine have green, blue gold and sepia tints. Are some shades tougher than others or limited to certain cards?

[srittenberg]

Hi. A friend told me about this thread. I have a Batter Up #60 Morgan in red. I'm attaching a picture.

[brianp-beme]

That appears to be the purple tint. Here is a quote I pulled from Judson's post, which I fully agree with:


"Keep in mind that the pink/purple cards have some variety in the ink, but red cards are truly red".

Brian

[cubman1941]

A little OT but here are my higher numbers - I gather they would all be considered sepia. I wonder why the 140 is in larger letters? this may have been covered in original post.

[edhans]

Only the Hack is a sepia. The rest appear to be blue.

[cubman1941]

Originally Posted by edhans

Only the Hack is a sepia. The rest appear to be blue.

Thanks, appreciate it.

[BobC]

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the 1934-36 Batter-Up cards should more correctly and accurately be split and listed as two distinctly different sets. And quite frankly, I'm surprised they haven't been.

The obvious evidence is that cards 1-80 are all a larger, uniform size, and come in the aforementioned multiple colors/tones, as opposed to the high number cards 81-192 that are all smaller and only come in the darker, muted sepia or black/dark bluish tones. They were also issued over multiple years, with the low number series being first released in 1934, and then the high number series being released separately, around 1936 I believe.

The main evidence against this separate sets thinking, I am guessing, is that the issue is sequentially numbered from 1 to 192, so it appears it was intended as one continuous issue. And also that no players are duplicated in both the high and low number series. However, there are various other card issues that have shown such similar sequential numbering, and yet are still considered as separate and distinctly different sets. Just look at some of the W card issues. If nothing else, maybe Burdick should have designated the 1-80 low number card series as R218-1, and the 81-192 high number series as R218-2. That would seem more appropriate and consistent to how other similar set anomalies were treated and designated by him. Just my $0.02.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by BobC

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the 1934-36 Batter-Up cards should more correctly and accurately be split and listed as two distinctly different sets. And quite frankly, I'm surprised they haven't been.

The obvious evidence is that cards 1-80 are all a larger, uniform size, and come in the aforementioned multiple colors/tones, as opposed to the high number cards 81-192 that are all smaller and only come in the darker, muted sepia or black/dark bluish tones. They were also issued over multiple years, with the low number series being first released in 1934, and then the high number series being released separately, around 1936 I believe.

The main evidence against this separate sets thinking, I am guessing, is that the issue is sequentially numbered from 1 to 192, so it appears it was intended as one continuous issue. And also that no players are duplicated in both the high and low number series. However, there are various other card issues that have shown such similar sequential numbering, and yet are still considered as separate and distinctly different sets. Just look at some of the W card issues. If nothing else, maybe Burdick should have designated the 1-80 low number card series as R218-1, and the 81-192 high number series as R218-2. That would seem more appropriate and consistent to how other similar set anomalies were treated and designated by him. Just my $0.02.

I agree with this assessment. Batter-Ups, because of the size difference, should have a separate classification.

Here are a few more of my thoughts. Based on the availability of tints, it seems like the 1-80 cards were issued in two groups: 1 to 40, with the six different tints, and 41 to 80 with the four tints. I always found it interesting that the producers really top loaded the lower numbers with stars...22 of the first 40 cards are HOF players, and plenty of other notable stars. While 41-80 only has 6 HOF players.

I also think it a possibility that cards 81-192 were issued in two 56 card groups (81-136 and 137-192). I have never paid much attention to the tints on these higher numbers (I prefer the look of the 1-80 cards over the higher numbers), but to me it seems there are possibly more subtle tints available than just sepia and blue/black...any others out there who can chime in?

Brian

[brianp-beme]

I just realized that I previously posted a lot of the same info seen directly above. Indeed, 8 years ago in post #3 on this thread.

At least I am consistent.

Brian

[judsonhamlin]

In the land of useless tasks, I plan on trying to recreate the high number sheets - I am sure they were not issued sequentially and I strongly suspect that 81-192 were skip numbered and released at separate times based on team ID and uniform photos in the high numbers, as well as the font size used in the caption boxes.

[Chris Counts]

It's nice to see this thread get some activity after eight years. I agree the Batter-Ups should be divided into separate 1934 and 1936 sets. As for those issued in '36, here are the variations I have. It appears there are distinctive subtle tints of green, blue, brown and gold, along with some cards done in straight B&W.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

In the land of useless tasks, I plan on trying to recreate the high number sheets - I am sure they were not issued sequentially and I strongly suspect that 81-192 were skip numbered and released at separate times based on team ID and uniform photos in the high numbers, as well as the font size used in the caption boxes.

Intriguing idea about the skip numbering. Both card #81 and #192 appear to have the bigger font, which in my mind would indicate that they belong to the first high # printing, because the makers would want kids to know what range of cards they needed to collect.

Though it may seem like an useless task for many, the results would be fascinating for us fortunate few. For my type of fun I think I will utilize the Old Cardboard gallery for this set to determine large/or small font size on each of the high # cards, and post those results here. In my ideal world, there would be 56 of each type.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

It's nice to see this thread get some activity after eight years. I agree the Batter-Ups should be divided into separate 1934 and 1936 sets. As for those issued in '36, here are the variations I have. It appears there are distinctive subtle tints of green, blue, brown and gold, along with some cards done in straight B&W.

Some of those are extremely subtle...none of that bold "I'm a green tint" and "Well I'm obviously a red tint" as seen in the lower number cards.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

Here are the font size lists for the high number cards 81 through 192, as far as I could tell. Not as straightforward as far as I was thinking it would be...there are 7 different font sizes used (once again, as far as I could ascertain).

Here are those font size groupings, identified below by their card number, and based upon the size of the 'Batter-Up' text on the front, as far as I can spit (I already used 'tell', 'thinking' and 'ascertain', so spit was the obvious choice):

--Smallest size font (6 total) - Identified as Group A

100, 102, 139, 143, 157, 158


--Next size (36 total) - Group B

82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122, 124, 126, 131, 132, 135, 137, 138, 150, 151, 155, 159, 163


--Next size larger (34 total) - Group C

90, 97, 103, 107, 109, 110, 114, 116, 118, 121, 125, 127, 129, 134, 136, 142, 144, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 156, 160, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 173, 176, 180, 181, 182


--Next size up (16 total) - Group D

85, 89, 93, 113, 141, 145, 146, 154, 171, 172, 175, 177, 179, 183, 184, 187


--Next up (11 total) - Group E

112, 123, 128, 130, 133, 162, 164, 178, 185, 188, 190


--Next larger again (4 total) - Group F

167, 174, 186, 191


--Absolutely the largest (5 total) - Group G

81, 140, 161, 189, 192


If my font estimations are accurate (I am likely to be off some), here are possible print run groupings that would add up to a sheet size of 56

Group B (35), Group D, (16), Group G (5) = 56

Group A (6), Group C (35), Group E (11), Group F (4) = 56

or

Group C (35), Group D (16), Group G (5) = 56

Group A (6), Group B (35), Group E (11), Group F (4) = 56


I am probably making things too simple, but it was fun to try to make some order out of font chaos.

Brian

[judsonhamlin]

Excellent! I’ll use that to see if the slight miscuts match up with those groups of 56

[judsonhamlin]

Rainy day activity here - matching a few pairs and a trio of cards to see if it helps sort the sheet biz out. Figured the following pairs (l to r, as listed):

172-169
180-163
129-177
188-171 and the following three -

107 is above 156, and 156 is to the left of 101

More later

[judsonhamlin]

A few more:

110-136
182-142
120-88

And above/below pairs:
168 above 130
173 above 178

[judsonhamlin]

And a couple more:

81-192 (first and last cards of high # set)
168-129 (makes a run of 4 - 168-129-177 and 130 under 168)
82-115

And three more top/bottom combos:
103 over 114
135 over 152
184 over 186

[judsonhamlin]

One more, based on the Billy Herman card posted here:

118 Walker is above 138 Herman but are printed top to top, which does not match up with any other sets and, to my mind, either represents the second sheet of 56 from the other matches or that that was done across the issue and this is just the first positive ID

[Spike]

More left-right pairs, based on miscuts in my near-set. "Maybe" means I'm 50/50 on a match. Others look 75-100%. Just one match, 86-146, appears to cross the text size groups listed earlier.

83-91
91-183 (maybe)
120-88
105-150
135-106 (maybe)
108-135 (maybe)
125-110 or -176
86-146
155-82

Top-bottom

135 over 126

[Spike]

Another match (115-95) gives us 82-115-95, which I mocked in the attachment. The 82-115 overlap I can find could be bigger and more obvious. Do you have images that connect there?

[Spike]

106-99

[judsonhamlin]

Thanks to Spike, this what we have so far

[Spike]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

--Next size (35 total) - Group B

82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122, 124, 126, 131, 132, 135, 137, 138, 150, 151, 155, 159


--Next size larger (35 total) - Group C

90, 97, 103, 107, 109, 110, 114, 116, 118, 121, 125, 127, 129, 134, 136, 142, 144, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 156, 160, 162, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 173, 176, 180, 181, 182

163 seems to be missing from the text tally and group B seems short one number, so must belong there? :-) (You have it as a confirmed pair with 180, so would be an interesting cross-size match.)

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Spike

163 seems to be missing from the text tally and group B seems short one number, so must belong there? :-) (You have it as a confirmed pair with 180, so would be an interesting cross-size match.)

Oops...looks like I skipped 163 in my listing. I have checked and the text size does appear to belong within Group B. I will update that post.

Great work folks...I will try to eventually post some scans of cards with overlaps so that maybe more of the connection puzzle can be pieced together or confirm connections already made.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

After peer review I reviewed the list I had posted, and noticed I had also listed card #162 in both Group C and Group E. Group E is correct, so I removed 162 from Group C list.

So my original total of cards for Group B has changed to 36 (from 35), and Group C has changed to 34 (from 35). So my fun little playing around with possible 56 card sheets based on font size has changed as well, which I changed on the original post and have also included it below:


If my font estimations are accurate (I am likely to be off some), here are possible print run groupings that would add up to a sheet size of 56


Group A (6), Group C (34), Group E (11), Group G (5) = 56

Group B (36), Group D, (16), Group F (4) = 56

or

Group A (6), Group C (34), Group D (16) = 56

Group B (36), Group E (11), Group F (4), Group G (5) = 56


Brian

[brianp-beme]

I was able to confirm the 106/99 connection, as well as the 184 above 186 connection. I have included scans for some additional overlapping cards.

They might be tough to match up this way (by just using scans), but hopefully some of these are obvious enough to match. I don't quite have the patience or eyes to do this matching work...but you two seem to do a good job at it, so good luck, especially with the partial cards!

Brian

[Spike]

Thanks Brian, your post of the 128-140 images lined up great, even if by accident! This looks like a vertical match.

Also confirmed 90-134 horizontal match.

[Spike]

186-175 Warneke - Fox horizontal

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Spike

Thanks Brian, your post of the 128-140 images lined up great, even if by accident! This looks like a vertical match.

Also confirmed 90-134 horizontal match.

Great work Matthew! And it looks like my scanner is better at making matches than I am.


Brian

[edhans]

Not very good at this stuff, but I have a few on my website that may help put together the puzzle. Feel free to copy the images.

https://t206.monkberry.com/thirties.html

Ed

[Spike]

126-117 Ferrell - Dickey. That black ink sure picked up fingerprints!

[Spike]

Used combo of known and new numbers to build this 3x3 block

168 Owen 129 Lombardi 177 Rogell
141 Bonura 184 Rowe 191 Burns
167 Babich 186 Warneke 175 Fox

Note there are five Tigers in this block. Will be interesting to track any team patterns and hope these sheet layouts hold across all color/tone varieties!

(Replaced Gehringer with Bonura per later comment)

[judsonhamlin]

Try swapping out Bonura (141) for Gehringer (130) and I think that’s a winning block

[Spike]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

Try swapping out Bonura (141) for Gehringer (130) and I think that’s a winning block

Ah, I saw 168 as above 130 from earlier notes. Agreed looking at a Bonura miscut that it belongs left of 184 Rowe.

[leftygrove10]

Hopefully these pictures show up from my phone. I think Hallahan is to the left of Grove.

[Spike]

Originally Posted by leftygrove10

Hopefully these pictures show up from my phone. I think Hallahan is to the left of Grove.

Agreed, 121-153 horizontal should go on the sheet

[leftygrove10]

I think Hallahan sits above Davis.

[Spike]

I continue to make progress on this big, complicated puzzle and propose an 8 card vertical x 7 card horizontal layout, joined top-to-top at the middle edge, which means 4 rows aligned to each configuration (regular + "upside down").

If this is correct, there will be 28 cards (7 columns x 2 "spines" x 2 sheets) that connect top-to-top. This shows a partial example.

[Spike]

Another way to look at these intersecting 4x7 panels (56-card sheet), with confirmed contiguous layout for almost half of one sheet.

[judsonhamlin]

I like that lay out. I’ll work some more on the right side of that chart and see if we can get a column of 8

[judsonhamlin]

I will also guess that, based on font/box size, the 81/192 pair will fit there somewhere

[Spike]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

I like that lay out. I’ll work some more on the right side of that chart and see if we can get a column of 8

Great, building out that column should indeed prove the layout.