View Single Post
  #15  
Old 04-18-2017, 12:41 AM
whiteymet whiteymet is offline
Fr3d mcKi3
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: whiteymet
Posts: 1,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbegs View Post
Fred,

I am aware of all your good work. And the dating of the Mantle photo seems plausible though I don't know if it's 100% conclusive. My sister in law makes the same face in every photo she posts on snapchat and Instagram so I'd be comfortable with 90-95%.

Hope that's ok. Also, I know people had mentioned contacting General Mills - what about tracking the photo from the photographers end?

I hope this is all ok - I own one now and I'm not trying to mess with its 1951 designation. I suppose without proof from General Mills or Wheaties this will be a 1951 'card.'

Thanks to those who posted theirs. Anyone else got one?
Tim:

I did no work. Only asked the question. Others DOCUMENTED WHEN the photo was taken.

It's no skin off my nose if you accept it it 100% or the 90-95% you are comfortable with.

Just curious how you can not be 100% when the photo was taken at the World Series in 1952. What more do you need to convince you?

You say your sister in law makes the same face in all her photos? Is her entire pose the exact same? Her eyebrow not raised in one? Her elbow in the same exact position, her lips parted the same, her fingers on the same exact place on her bat, her hat the same distance from her ear?

Get what I am driving at?

When is your birthday? How can you be sure? Your parents told you, but other than that what proof do you have? I would be skeptical if I were you. :>) just as you are about when the photo was taken.

I do agree that it is too late to change any designation for the set. It will always be 1951 Wheaties even though there is now proof ( in some of our eyes) that it can't be 1951, and I have seen no proof it is even a Wheaties issue. It looks more like an early version of the Jay publishing photos to me.

Fred
Reply With Quote