"The Mystery of the W555s: Strip Cards or E-Card Superset?"

[the 'stache]

There is another aspect of pre-war baseball card collecting that has become apparent to me as a new enthusiast, and I find it highly fascinating. And that is the continuing research and evaluation that goes into the cataloging of baseball card sets. Though Jefferson Burdick first released his landmark system The American Card Catalog in 1960, it has remained remarkably accurate in the fifty plus years that have followed. But sometimes, continued research necessitates a reclassification of sets, and it appears that this is the case with the W555 strip set. So why am I writing this, you may ask? I believe that other hobbyists who are new to the pre-war niche might find it interesting to know not only why baseball card sets are organized the way they are (an understanding of pre-war nomenclature is vital to building any collection), but also that this organization is, in essence, organic. Though the cards were printed, in some cases, nearly 140 years ago, the relationships between how these cards coexist is ever changing. Beyond the historical context of the players depicted, the pieces of cardboard have a story of their own.

After spending twelve months in college not knowing what I wanted to do with my life (a year during which I was declared as an advertising art student), I switched to political science as my major, and began preparing myself for law school. I was one of those idealistic kids that felt one person could really make a difference, and I was completely ignorant of how the system actually worked. It soon became clear that the practice of law was not as intriguing to me as was the in-depth study of legal history. While getting up in front of a courtroom as either a prosecutor or a defense attorney was something that still appealed to the idealist in me, I was at my happiest delving deeply into LexisNexis, or Westlaw. I discovered the joys of precedent case research while taking a course called the American Legal System, which simulated one Supreme Court case for the entire semester. I spent much of that semester delving into case law. Seeing the evolution of laws over time was interesting to me. And until recently, I haven't found anything that intrigued me in that same way.

In the topic title, I referenced an article written in the Fall 2013 issue of Old Cardboard 1. Based on the information available at the time, Burdick included this set of stamp-sized cards under the strip card classification "W". But over time, similarities between the W555 set and 4 other sets emerged, though the four relative sets fell under the "E" classification reserved for candy cards.



The W555 Christy Mathewson, actual size

The comparisons to the four "E" series sets were prophetic, as the discovery of a complete candy box with four of the W555 cards attached confirmed the set's candy card status. The article in Old Cardboard meticulously lays out the four associated sets, player by player, with the W555 cards. The majority of cards employed the same source photography, though the E93, E94, E97 and E98 cards were full color lithographs, and the W555 cards were monochromatic (brown) in nature, and cropped. It took seeing the cards organized in this manner for a light to go off in my head, and I cannot recommend this issue enough to new collectors. It is $10 well spent, as it will "unlock" some of the mysteries of how cards were made in this era.

With that, I will ask the members of our forum to share any comments they might have about this set, or card cataloging in general. And of course, if you have any W555s in your collection, please share them.



1. Adesso, Robert and Hardeman, Lyman. "The Mystery of the W555s: Strip Cards or E-Card Superset?" Old Cardboard Fall 2013: 21-29. Print.

[Ladder7]

Would be a fun set to put together.

[autograf]

The uncut box they were cut from auctioned at Legendary in 2007.....

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...entoryid=72906

[Leon]

Nice write up and thread Bill. Burdick released his last revision of the American Card Catalog in 1960, not the first one. (though there was another in 1967 he had already passed away) His first iteration was 1939 and the first one that was named American card Catalog was in 1946. I like the W555s and am glad we finally learned where they came from. I think Burdick would be proud of the strides we have made in researching our(his) little gems.

[steve B]

The ACC is a bit older than 1960.

W cards have always been an odd classification. I understood them as "Issuer unknown" or "type of distribution unknown" which isn't correct and wasn't even when I started collecting.

The Sports collectors bible has no comment about the different letters I guess assuming readers either knew the classifications or would figure it out on their own.
The 1956 edition of the ACC lists them as "Album cards" and including exhibits, cabinets, team issues and other stuff, with the 500's being team issues. Nearly the entire group of strip cards that are now the W500's are under a handful of numbers, W301 -W307 maybe W308 and 309. The listing is that vague.

I'm not sure when the change to expanded listings happened, maybe 1960.

Obviously the 1956 version was sort of a work in progress and subject to some wholesale changes. I can't help but think Burdick would have reclassified sets as more information became available. Just how that would have been done under the general scheme of the ACC is a puzzle. The sections are mostly topical then alphabetical by the name of the set found on the card. Which isn't particularly clear for some sets.

Cataloging is a challenging task, some things are readily classified and have little variety. Some provide a wide array of challenges. In this Hobby we're fortunate to have had the ACC become a standard of sorts. There will be more listings that ought to be moved or added as things are discovered, but at least it provides a consistent framework.
Other hobbies don't have it as easy or sometimes have no catalog at all.
Stamps is a field where there are different catalogs for each country. In the US the Scott catalog is the most common, and it's arranged chronologically, so all the stamps with a design first issued in for instance 1938 are together, even if a particular variety wasn't issued until the 1950's.
But they have different criteria for what is considered a listable variety, or what is even considered listable at all. So the basic stamp might be number 300 but the same stamp came in sheets, booklets and coils. The regular one gets the 300, the entire booklet pane is 300b and the coils get their own numbers 316 and 318. Color or paper changes mean a whole new block of numbers.
They have a worldwide catalog with the same layout.
But not everything gets listed.
Now if you collect British stamps the catalog is done by Stanley Gibbons company. And it has an entirely different layout. Sort of chronologically by group, but if the color or paper got changed it's all together under the listing for the picture on it, so a 2pence stamp issued for 20 years in three different colors has it's own subsection with each major difference in it's own smaller group.
British collectors find the Scott catalog just as confusing as I find the Gibbons. There's even a book available that matches up the numbers since they don't match. Catalogs sometimes even disagree on what year a stamp was issued.
And some of the companies require a licensing fee to use their numbers. Which makes things challenging for someone writing one of the specialist catalogs that cover things in greater detail.


Yep, even for all it's bits that are confusing or haven't aged well, we're very lucky to have the ACC as a standard.

Steve B

[jeffshep]

Haven't had a chance to view the issue but here's another look at the ad I uncovered:

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Leon

Nice write up and thread Bill. Burdick released his last revision of the American Card Catalog in 1960, not the first one. (though there was another in 1967 he had already passed away) His first iteration was 1939 and the first one that was named American card Catalog was in 1946. I like the W555s and am glad we finally learned where they came from. I think Burdick would be proud of the strides we have made in researching our(his) little gems.

I'll have to go back and check where I pulled that date from. Maybe I just misread it. But it certainly makes what he accomplished all the more impressive.

When these cards are graded, they still receive the W555 designation by the tpgs. Is there something that needs to be done to reclassify them to an "E"?

Steve, great post. I just woke up, so I'll go back and read it after tonight's game. I'm not all there right now

[bigfanNY]

While I quite agree that these were originally issued on a candy box my understanding of what a W card is was taken from Burdick's directory of his collection at the Met. A "Souvenir card" creating a very broad category. Album 537 at the met was listed as "General issue W-cards W600 etc." Now most people would list a think a Sporting Life Cabinet should be listed as an M issue but clearly Mr. Burdick and his fellows did not. W issues were distributed in many and various ways some you mailed away for such as W600's and W575-2's others cut from strips etc. This issue was cut from a box of sweets so dose it belong with the group of cards given as souvenirs' of a product? or as a E card where the majority fit most peoples definition of a baseball card ie: you buy a product and inside is a card with a baseball player. Dose a Darby's Chocolate box fit better with e-cards or a W cards? From 1947 when Burdick first bequeathed his collection until 5pm on January 10th 1963 when he told the staff he was finished and would not be back. He worked at a small oak desk cataloging and mounting his collection passing away almost exactly two months later. His passion for our hobby is without peer He is deserving of our respect.
I agree and I am sure he would that if new information surfaces that sheds new light on an issue it should be addressed but not sure this is one of those cases.

Regards
Jonathan

[joeadcock]

...