Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   The Card Collectors Bulletin- Aug. 1, 1944, Whole No. 31 (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=136974)

Leon 05-17-2011 08:25 AM

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


http://luckeycards.com/ccb31page1.jpghttp://luckeycards.com/ccb31page2.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/ccb31page3.jpg

barrysloate 05-17-2011 09:03 AM

Looks like N162 was called Goodwin #120 back then.

Keep these coming Leon- they are terrific.

Mrc32 05-17-2011 11:03 AM

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

SteveMitchell 05-17-2011 08:08 PM

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

Gradedcardman 05-17-2011 08:16 PM

Great
 
Leon,

Great stuff !!

T206DK 05-17-2011 08:24 PM

these are fabulous ! thanks for posting them Leon:D

teetwoohsix 05-17-2011 10:40 PM

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

Sincerely, Clayton

4815162342 05-18-2011 07:13 AM

Piling on with another thanks!

Leon 05-18-2011 07:23 AM

your welcome
 
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

http://luckeycards.com/ccb31page4.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/ccb31page5.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/ccb31page6.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/ccb31page7.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/ccb31page8.jpg

Mrc32 05-18-2011 07:58 AM

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 05-18-2011 08:17 AM

same bat time same bat place.....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrc32 (Post 894916)
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 05-18-2011 08:29 AM

Liberal use of the royal we.

barrysloate 05-18-2011 08:35 AM

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 05-18-2011 08:36 AM

"we"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 894928)
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 05-18-2011 08:41 AM

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

Peter_Spaeth 05-18-2011 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 894931)
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 05-18-2011 08:56 AM

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

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 05-18-2011 09:06 AM

debatable?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 894935)
As long as we're vaguely on the subject, you do know that "your welcome" is incorrect.

of course.....common mistake :(

Leon 05-18-2011 09:10 AM

absolutely
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 894938)
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 05-18-2011 09:11 AM

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

Leon 05-18-2011 09:16 AM

reasoning
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 894946)
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. :D

barrysloate 05-18-2011 09:17 AM

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 05-18-2011 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 894948)
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. :D

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. 05-18-2011 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 894951)
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 05-18-2011 09:27 AM

Also:

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

Jaybird 05-18-2011 12:56 PM

I could read this stuff all day! Thanks

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

Kawika 05-18-2011 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybird (Post 895019)
I could read this stuff all day! Thanks

Your welcome.

bh3443 05-18-2011 05:57 PM

Wayside Inn!
 
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 05-18-2011 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 894950)
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?:confused:

judsonhamlin 05-18-2011 07:03 PM

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 :D

barrysloate 05-19-2011 04:48 AM

I give up Peter, why?

autograf 05-19-2011 08:48 AM

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

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_4...4/s400/T69.jpg

bh3443 05-19-2011 01:23 PM

Thank you!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by autograf (Post 895244)
For Bill.........
T69 Helmar Historic Homes..............
Pretty easily found on ebay.........not very expensive.........
The Kimball album is another story..........

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_4...4/s400/T69.jpg

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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:06 PM.