![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hoping someone can educate me or direct me to a prior thread that covered this topic. I was just made aware of a variation in the '41 Playball set. To be clear, I'm not talking about the paper version -- that is a separate topic. Instead I'm curious about the difference between the cards that have just the "C" (copyright) symbol on the back lower left corner as opposed to the cards that have the "C - 1941" symbol. I checked my set and 25 of my 71 cards (I'm one card short) have the '1941', all of them within the early (#1-48) part of the set so I suspect the variation was not extended to cards 49-72 but I would like to confirm this. Additional questions.
1. Is one version rarer than the other? 2. Are there differences in the card stock and/or size of the cards? When I did an informal survey of my own set it appears as though the ones with just the 'C' have slightly larger dimensions and aren't quite as bone-white as the ones that include 1941. This might just be coincidental because I only looked at a handful of cards. 3. Is there any value difference between the two versions, particularly on the key cards? Any other info the experts might be able to share is greatly appreciated! |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Although my data is limited to a single 1941 card, #14 Ted Williams, I tracked sales of the variations over several years. My data was limited to graded cards due to the vast number of reprints for this set (and what I was planning on purchasing).
1. For Ted, just the "C" (copyright) symbol was about 25% of the graded card sales, and the the "C - 1941" symbol was 75% of sales. 2. My cards were only purchased graded here, so cannot provide info on this 3. There really was no "premium" for the "C" (copyright) symbol, but as these were much less common, it took me far longer (actually years) to find the card that fit my collection with this variation. David |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
from the Standard Catalog
__________________
Member of OBC (Old Baseball Cards), the longest running on-line collecting club www.oldbaseball.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks both. That makes sense. My Ted has the 1941 btw. Of the 47 cards I have between 1-48, 25 of them, or 53% have the 1941. If we take that and the research done by Dave H, that would suggest that the 1941 cards are slightly more prolific in the early series. Not enough data to conclude that so it would be nice to hear other people’s set breakdown — at least those like me who were unaware of the variation.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I just thumbed through my set. 31 of the 48 cards have @1941
Larry
__________________
Member of OBC (Old Baseball Cards), the longest running on-line collecting club www.oldbaseball.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I am messing around with Excel, trying to determine the relative scarcity of #49-72 vs 1-48. If both the first printing in 1941 and the second printing in 1942 was the same size in total, based on an estimate that the '@ 1941' comprise ~60% of the total final population of 1-48 (using the above 3 data points to estimate this), this would imply that overall 49-72 is 2.5x more scarce than 1-48 (inclusive of the "@" and "@1941" population). However, we only could conclude that if we make the very big assumption that both print sizes were the same.
But we have another piece of data: Based on the pricing of commons in various price guides I have seen, the 49-72 series doesn't provide that level of difference in value -- typically from what I have seen the later series commons sell for 1.25x to 1.5x that of 1-48. Which would suggest that the second printing (the "@" only cards in 1942), which contained 1-72 might have been somewhat larger than the initial printing of 1-48. I guess I would conclude that the second printing was between 1 and 1.5x as big as the first printing. If it was more than 1.5x bigger we would have more '@' in the 1-48 population during our informal survey because it would overcome the fact that there were 50% more cards to print (1-72) in the second printing. This all assumes that they printed a uniform # of each card # in each printing and there were no SPs. Clearly I have too much time on my hands on a rainy Wednesday. Last edited by Kutcher55; 10-27-2021 at 02:39 PM. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Here the wantlist of a friend
1941 Playball with 1941 copyright: NEED 17 20 22 26 27 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 43 45 47 1941 Playball w/o copyright: NEED 1 2 4 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 21 23 24 30 31 32 42
__________________
Member of OBC (Old Baseball Cards), the longest running on-line collecting club www.oldbaseball.com |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Variation in size on 1940 Playball | snagltooth | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 07-07-2020 09:49 AM |
1939 joe dimaggio playball psa 2.5 QUESTION | soxfan1986 | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 05-08-2015 07:20 AM |
PSA Copyright question | smotan_02 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 15 | 03-01-2013 03:22 AM |
copy/copyright question | Ladder7 | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 11 | 05-03-2012 07:29 PM |
1941 Playball - Variation - Flaws - Fakes or ??? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 12-04-2006 11:03 PM |