|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Robert {Bigb13}</b><p>Does anyone know if this is a variation? Rob<img height="442" alt="5161_3.JPG" src="http://i7.ebayimg.com/04/i/001/2c/9b/5161_3.JPG" width="800" border="0">
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Tim</b><p>Ted Z will know for sure, but you may not get a response until you change your title to "1949 Leaf Variation?"
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Bobby I.</b><p>He was traded from Cleveland to the Cubs in the middle of the 1949 season. Could Leaf have made a change in printing?
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Robert {Bigb13}</b><p>Thats what it looks like to me. <strong>May 7, 1949</strong>: Selected off waivers by the <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/1949.shtml" rel="nofollow">Chicago Cubs</a> from the <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CLE/1949.shtml" rel="nofollow">Cleveland Indians</a>, so I guess some got out with the Cleveland logo. Rob
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Kind of a strange airbrushing, since both variations have Cleveland clearly printed across his jersey.
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Robert {Bigb13}</b><p>It is strange because the one with the airbrushing is the regular card. Rob
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Bob Manning</b><p>So let's see what's out there. Which, if either, is the odd variation? Here's mine:<br><br><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1233883888.GIF" alt="[linked image]"> <br><br>What a lousy image! But enough to show that the cap's blanked out.<br><br>What do the rest of us have?<br><br>Bob
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Rob - is this you?<br><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/1948-Leaf-72-Hank-Edwards-unlisted-variation-pair_W0QQitemZ310118724579" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/1948-Leaf-72-Hank-Edwards-unlisted-variation-pair_W0QQitemZ310118724579</a><br><br><p><br><br><br><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/mwieder" rel="nofollow">My Trade/Sale Page</a></p>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You're right- you normally see a letter taken off a card in a subsequent print run. In this case they apparently added a "C" for Chicago, but didn't alter the Cleveland jersey.<br><br>Of course the "C" could also stand for Cleveland, making it even more confusing.
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>It seems to be as much of a variation as the regognized Kent Peterson black cap/red cap variation. Nice catch.<br>-Rhett<br><img src="http://www.starsofthediamond.com/48leafpeterson.JPG" alt="[linked image]"><br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>LEAF's 1st series press runs were completed before May 1949. By May-June 1949, Leaf started releasing their<br>2nd series of 49 cards (the scarce SP cards).<br><br>This card is not a legitimate variation. It's just another one of Leaf's whacky color printing errors.<br><br>If you look closely at the red brim on his cap, it is indicative of a Cleveland cap. The "C" was there initially and<br> the normal dark blue color obscures it. I believe there were two applications of blue ink in their printing process:<br>a light blue pass, then a darker blue pass<br><br>Here's a scan of my two Musial cards that illustrates this "two blue" printing process.<br><br><br><img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/aleaftwmusial.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><br><br><br><br>Summarizing....the Edwards with the visible "C" on his cap is simply a color error that is the result of missing the<br> darker blue inking.<br><br><br>TED Z<br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>So you're telling us, Ted, that, in the initial run, Leaf intended to block out the "c" and that its presence is the consequence of a subsequent bad ink job? Any speculation as to why Leaf might want to brush the cap at the beginning of the run?<br><br>Farfel
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I don't know if " Leaf intended to block out the "c" ".<br><br>But what I do know......<br>is that the Leaf cards were printed using a 5-color process that applied two shades of BLUE ink. And, on many Leaf <br>cards the darker blue ink application (that followed the light blue pass) was omitted.<br><br>For those of you that were not convinced of this with my two Stan Musial cards in my prior post, here are some more<br>Leaf cards that hopefully will illustrate my explanation of the above Edwards card.<br><br>Here we have the very same effect on these two Joe Gordon cards (also Cleveland). The card on the left is a normal<br> Leaf Gordon card.<br> The one on the right is missing the final dark blue ink application....and therefore, the "C" is visible.<br><br><img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/a49leafgordondillinger.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><br>Likewise for these Bob Dillinger cards. The card on the left is he normal one and the card on the right is a color error.<br><br><br>These Mizell Platt cards illustrate without a doubt that the Dark Blue ink was the last color applied in Leaf's printing<br> process. <br><br><img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/abmizellplatt.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><br><br><br><br><br>TED Z<br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Another example, that lends credence to the "two blue" color factor in Leaf's printing process,<br> is this Billy Johnson with the Yellow background.<br> <br> Yellow is always the 1st color applied in the multi-color printing process.<br><br>The Light Blue ink was not applied to this card to create the normally light green background<br>color on this Johnson card.<br><br>Yet the Dark Blue ink was applied to color his cap and sleeving.<br><br><br><img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/leafbillyjohnsonsyellow.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><br><br><br><br>TED Z<br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Believe me....that Edwards card is definitely not a designed variation.<br><br>Anyhow, the red cap Kent Peterson card came about when Leaf, in the later press runs, changed his <br>cap's color to Red.<br>I can only conclude that Leaf made this change in order to be consistent with the other 3 Cinci. Reds<br> players in their 1st series, who were depicted with Red caps.<br><br>Do I know this for a fact ?<br>No....but, I very well remember 60 years ago when I collected these Leaf's as a kid, that I got several<br> Dark cap Peterson cards in early Spring of '49....when the 1st series cards were available.<br>Two months later, I was surprised to get a Red cap Peterson. <br><br>Incidently, I still have all my original cards from my youth (1947-1952).....and, these cards enable me<br> to draw this conclusion. <br><br><img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/a49leafcincireds5.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><br><br><br><br>TED Z<br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Rhys</b><p>Seems like the blue on the uniform is the same color on both but the blue on the hat is noticeably darker on the one on the right. Wouldnt the uniform blue stipes be the same dark color on the hat if it was just a darker blue being used? I am sure you are right Ted, heaven knows you have the most knowledge on this set than anyone else, just an observation. <br><br>Rhys
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Rob D.</b><p>Wouldn't it be cool to do a virtual gallery of all of the printing/color variations of the 1949 Leafs?
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Go ahead...."make my day"....when you take in to account the 101 different cards in the 1949 Leaf set and then factor in <br>the 5-color printing process Leaf employed to print these cards, the permutations are almost infinite for a "virtual gallery".<br><br>Speaking about per-"mutations"......check-out this Leaf color error......do they get any "wilder" than this one ?<br><br><br><img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/willjohnson.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><br><br><br>T-Rex TED<br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>good gosh, the people at Leaf did not really care about quality control when it came to printing.<br><br><br>you almost have to try to print that bad to get those results.<br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Red</b><p>Ted - "Believe me....that Edwards card is definitely not a designed variation."<br><br>It may not be an intended design variation but there was definitely more than one printing of Leaf cards and they were produced both ways in too large of a quantity not to be considered a collectible variation. Each type of Edwards will still be subject to differences in color, but cards like Peterson and Edwards were clearly made two different ways. The same thing goes with the red cropping variation above the name on Babe Ruth. Did they intentionally design the card to be different? Probably not but they sure made it different two ways. Like 1962 green tints the cards were just different because they made them that way. They didnt try to design them to come out different. They just came out different and are recognized and collected as variations.
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>Interesting, thanks for sharing Ted.<br><br><br>Steve
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Thanks, I really appreciate your response....for it tells me that I'm getting this info across to some on this forum.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>TED Z<br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>This comment of yours is not true for the Edwards card......<br><br>"and they were produced both ways in too large of a quantity not to be considered a collectible variation."<br><br>There are no more than handful of Edwards' that were erroneously printed as this one. I can assure you of this. In the past 32 years of collec-<br>ting these Leaf cards, I have put together 2 complete sets of 101 cards; and, an additional 4 complete sets of 49 cards (1st series only sets).<br>I have seen 100's of the 49 cards in the 1st series and dozens of the cards in the 2nd (or scarce) series. I have never seen this printing flaw<br> on an Edwards card.<br><br>Apparently, you didn't see the same type of effect on my Joe Gordon card. It is an identical printing flaw as the Edwards card where the "C"<br> is barely visible in the normally printed version....but, clearly visible in the version missing the Dark Blue ink.<br><br>Perhaps, you just clicked on the "bottom of page" link and skipped by the intervening posts.<br><br>Or, if you did see the post showing my Gordon card....you are ignoring it's similarity ?<br><br>I will reprise my scan here, just in case you missed it......<br><br>.................................. ........normal card...............................lacking dark blue color<br><img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/a49leafgordondillinger.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><br><br><br><br>TED Z<br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Love the eyes on that Dillinger card.
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Bob Dillinger-most unlikely looking major leaguer ever.
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Red</b><p>Ted. Then lets use Joe Gordon as an example. You say the normal Gordon is the one that has more blue added to hide the emblem and the one with the emblem showing isn't a variation because I guess you're just calling it a freak in printing? I'm saying that there are too many of these two cards consistently printed the same way for it to be considered just a freak in printing. A bunch were made with the extra blue, and others were made without it. Ebay is a light on examples now so the only one on now is this one.<br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220146568748" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220146568748</a><br><br>The exact same thing applies to cards like Peterson and Edwards.<br>Just because you haven't seen, realize you've seen, or come across a card like the second Edwards yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the same category as the Joe Gordon, Peterson, Ruth with the red lines, etc. There was definitely more than one printing of these cards in quantity, and differences exist between the multiple printings. Not just in lightness or darkness of ink, but if the color was ever supposed to be there at all. Subtle differences in color are different than colors that were never possibly there because of the way they were printed.<br><br>When you look at a lot of cards you do find that some of the variations are more common than others. So far the harder second type are cards like Peterson with red cap, Ruth with red lines, your Gordon, and the Edwards.<br><br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Andy Cook</b><p>Here are more color variations I have, including another version of Billy Johnson to add to the two above. Andy<br><br>[IMG]<img src="http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/vv73/Cloran86/leafmccall.jpg" alt="[linked image]">[/IMG]<br>[IMG]<img src="http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/vv73/Cloran86/leafjohnson.jpg" alt="[linked image]">[/IMG]<br>[IMG]<img src="http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/vv73/Cloran86/leafchapman.jpg" alt="[linked image]">[/IMG]<br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Red</b><p>Here for example is a clearly different printing of Luke Appling cards. One variation has no red behind the ear and no yellow vertical line above name box on right, and the other variation has red behind the ear and the yellow vertical line. The cards were clearly made two different ways. Sometimes due to quantity of listings Ebay makes it very easy to find these differences and identify what variation they made less of. Like the Ebay numbers show I believe the no yellow and red is the easier variation to find and the card with the yellow and red is the harder variation to find. I believe the same sort of ratio will also exist on cards like Peterson Red hat, Edwards, Ruth red lines, Joe Gordon, and all the others that have or havent yet been pictured on this and previous Leaf printing anomaly threads. When a variation is cataloged like Peterson then it becomes accepted and collected. Now in all the examples of the one type below you will find minor differences in coloring here and there but those are just due to too much or too little ink. <br><br>No yellow and red<br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350163485227" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350163485227</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270336066257" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270336066257</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360129106277" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360129106277</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200306096603" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200306096603</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400028312682" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400028312682</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300290013008" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300290013008</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360082107835" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360082107835</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200265130568" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200265130568</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200254726613" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200254726613</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=390016994045" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=390016994045</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260345002802" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260345002802</a><br><br>Yellow and red<br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200300893976" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200300893976</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350155670109" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350155670109</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140293566784" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140293566784</a><br><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200265130560" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200265130560</a><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>1st....let's get one thing straight, the Red cap Peterson is a legitimate variation in this set. Did you read my earlier<br> post here regarding how this variation came about ?<br><br>I recommend that you read my 8-page article on the 1949 LEAF BB set, that was published in The Old Cardboard<br> magazine (Issue #9). <br>It's the result of many years of researching this Leaf BB set. Including a lengthy conversation I had (back in 1981)<br> with a veteran employee of the Leaf Company who was involved in the production of these cards in 1949.<br><br><br>Frankly, I find it difficult discussing these points with you in a reasonable manner. Since by the remarks you are sta-<br>ting, it does not appear to me that you have read my prior comments. Then, when I bring them to your attention,<br> you go off on some other tangent.<br><br><br>Furthermore, all those Appling examples that you have provided only show me something that all serious collectors<br> of these cards already know....that Leaf either printed these cards with varying intensity of Red and Yellow inks,<br> or were just sloppy in the control of their inking process.<br><br>I hope you are not trying to convey that the minor color differences in these Appling cards are "variations" ?<br><br>If so, you are are confusing trivial color differences with true variations. There are only 3 true variations in this set:<br><br>Aberson (short sleeves)<br>Hermansk<br>Peterson (red cap)<br><br><br>One thing we know for certain, is that whatever Quality Control they had, it wasn't too stringent.<br><br>Finally....perhaps you can answer this very easy question....have you completed this 101-card set ?<br><br>In fact, I'll make it easier....how many 1949 Leaf BB cards do you have ? ?<br><br><br>TED Z<br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>sagard</b><p>This is a classic case where the market will decide if it's a valuable variation. Ted is obviously correct on how the difference between the cards was created. I tend to agree with Red that the card missing the final dark blue, makes an interesting card with the "C" exposed. However I likely wouldn't offer a premium for the card with the "C" on the hat, but I wouldn't begrudge those who would pay it or those who try to market it.<br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>You are absolutely correct, in that the market will dictate whether these crazy color errors<br>will garner a premium or not. 1949 Leaf "junkies" like me will most likely pay more than others<br> will....just to get a Leaf color error that I don't have.<br><br>Fortunately, most of the numerous ones that I do have were acquired at a modest price.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>TED Z<br><br>
|
1949 Leaf Variation?
Posted By: <b>Robert {Bigb13}</b><p>OK, Who beat me? I know I should never had posted anything but I was excited about a possible new find. Rob
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:41 AM. |