NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on Ebay
Pre-WWII Cards
Post WWII Cards
Vintage Memorabilia
Babe Ruth Cards
Ty Cobb Cards
Lou Gehrig Cards
Mickey Mantle Cards
Goudey Cards
Bowman Cards
T205s on Ebay
Tobacco "T" Cards
Caramel "E" Cards
Vintage Baseball Postcards
Football Cards on Ebay
Exhibit Cards
Strip Cards
Baking Cards
Sporting News
Playball Cards on Ebay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)

View Poll Results: Which set is better to collect next? (PSA 4 or 5)
1948-49 Leaf 12 19.05%
1952 Topps 30 47.62%
Both are great. Doesn't matter. 21 33.33%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-23-2018, 09:13 PM
jnewman27 jnewman27 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 3
Default 1948-49 Leaf vs. 1952 Topps

Hi all. Looking for opinions on which is a better set to start collecting next. Clearly, I see the appeal of the 1952 Topps set, but the Leaf set has some great names that the 1952 set doesn't have (Dimaggio, Musial, Ruth, Williams) and both sets (in my opinion) are beautiful.

Anyone have any strong opinions either way on pros/cons of collecting either? Is one much more rare than the other? Anything I'm overlooking that could/should make one a dealbreaker over the other?

FWIW, I'd be going for PSA ~4 with the 1952 Topps and PSA 5 for the 1948-49 Leaf (I don't have six figures to put into this).

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-23-2018, 09:50 PM
KCRfan1 KCRfan1 is online now
Lou Simcoe
L0u Sim.coe
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 1,456
Default

Do you already have the '52 Mantle? If not, plan on about 25-30K for that card alone in PSA 4. The card may run even more if the eye appeal is great.

If you're not prepared for that single expense, I believe the decision between the two sets ( 52 Topps or 48-49 Leaf ) is settled and you're building the Leaf set.
__________________
My new found obsession the t206!

Last edited by KCRfan1; 09-23-2018 at 09:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-23-2018, 10:06 PM
CW's Avatar
CW CW is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,369
Default

Well, if we're talking about single expenses, the Leaf set also has the legendary Paige card, which will also run quite the pretty penny in PSA 5.

So there's that.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-23-2018, 11:03 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is online now
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,208
Default

I'd rather have Leaf. Not as many commons to waste money on LOL. Williams, Musial and Robinson rookies, DiMaggio, and Paige I think marginally wins on player selection too, notwithstanding the 311.
__________________
My avatar is a painting by my son, a recent art school graduate.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-24-2018, 06:05 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KCRfan1 View Post
Do you already have the '52 Mantle? If not, plan on about 25-30K for that card alone in PSA 4. The card may run even more if the eye appeal is great.

If you're not prepared for that single expense, I believe the decision between the two sets ( 52 Topps or 48-49 Leaf ) is settled and you're building the Leaf set.
PSA Paige is 20k+ and much harder to find. You can pick up a Mantle whenever you want. You are also looking a 5k+ for a centered Jackie Robinson. The Leaf high numbers are also going to be harder to find and more expensive than 52 Topps. The 52 Topps will be an easier set to put together, you are just looking at 407 cards vs. 98.

I personally would do the 1952 Topps set. However, I think the 1949 Leaf set is one of the ugliest sets ever made. I also can't stand the set being skip numbered. You will have card number 168, but need to figure out which 70 numbers don't exist. I also understand it is one of the classic sets in the hobby because of the Paige and Jackie rookie cards. I just did the 1949 Bowman set instead because I was doing a Bowman run and it had those two rookies plus others, such as Duke Snider, that Leaf didn't.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-24-2018, 09:21 AM
jnewman27 jnewman27 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 3
Default

I really liked the 1949 Bowman, but I don't think it has Joe Dimaggio, Ted Williams and Babe Ruth (Obviously, Babe isn't a card while he was playing, but it's still a great card).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-24-2018, 11:33 AM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 5,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
I'd rather have Leaf. Not as many commons to waste money on LOL. Williams, Musial and Robinson rookies, DiMaggio, and Paige I think marginally wins on player selection too, notwithstanding the 311.

Isn't Williams rookie the Playball?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-24-2018, 11:50 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B View Post
Isn't Williams rookie the Playball?
Yes and Musial is 1948 Bowman, 1949 Leaf is a "2nd year" card. Paige, Robinson, Doby, Kell and Newhouser are the HOF rookies in the set. All but Newhouser are also in 1949 Bowman.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-24-2018, 12:14 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is online now
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B View Post
Isn't Williams rookie the Playball?
Yes, obviously. Sorry if my grammar was ambiguous, I meant
Williams
Musial and Jackie rookies
Should have used a semi colon
__________________
My avatar is a painting by my son, a recent art school graduate.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 09-24-2018 at 12:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-24-2018, 12:18 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is online now
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
Yes and Musial is 1948 Bowman, 1949 Leaf is a "2nd year" card. Paige, Robinson, Doby, Kell and Newhouser are the HOF rookies in the set. All but Newhouser are also in 1949 Bowman.
I believe the market still considers Leaf as a rookie card, no?
__________________
My avatar is a painting by my son, a recent art school graduate.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-24-2018, 01:37 PM
pokerplyr80's Avatar
pokerplyr80 pokerplyr80 is offline
je.sse @rnot
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: California
Posts: 3,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
I believe the market still considers Leaf as a rookie card, no?
48 Leaf Ted William's a RC? I would assume no.
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others.

http://www.collectorfocus.com/collection/pokerplyr80
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-24-2018, 02:26 PM
Lorewalker's Avatar
Lorewalker Lorewalker is offline
Chase
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerplyr80 View Post
48 Leaf Ted William's a RC? I would assume no.
LOL. No he was referring to Musial.
__________________
( h @ $ e A n + l e y
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-24-2018, 03:15 PM
pokerplyr80's Avatar
pokerplyr80 pokerplyr80 is offline
je.sse @rnot
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: California
Posts: 3,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorewalker View Post
LOL. No he was referring to Musial.
That makes sense. I have considered the leaf Musial a RC and believe most of the hobby does as well.
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others.

http://www.collectorfocus.com/collection/pokerplyr80
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-24-2018, 05:15 PM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 5,202
Default

I voted for "doesn't matter" I like both sets for different reasons.


There are certainly fewer Leaf cards, so as someone already pointed out, not as many commons to buy.

Now if you get into varieties, Leaf is loaded with them. probably 4-5 versions of each of the regular cards. I haven't checked for them in the SPs, but Leaf was pretty* sloppy, so one or two on each wouldn't be a surprise.


Of course, the Topps then has 2 Mantles, 2 of all the low numbers, and a bunch more. Their sloppiness was just more subtle.



*"Pretty " sloppy = they apparently had no quality control at all. And the guys making the art into plates must have been totally hammered.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-24-2018, 05:29 PM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
I believe the market still considers Leaf as a rookie card, no?
Does the market still consider the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays cards rookies even though they had 1951 Bowman cards? I remember people calling 1987 Topps Mark Mcgwire and Jose Canseco cards rookies too.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-24-2018, 05:36 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is online now
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
Does the market still consider the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays cards rookies even though they had 1951 Bowman cards? I remember people calling 1987 Topps Mark Mcgwire and Jose Canseco cards rookies too.
No, it doesn't, to my knowledge. But it's a different question, I am not arguing right or wrong, just asking what the market's view of it is and I think most people still consider Leaf to be a 1948 or 48-49 issue.

I rest my case.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1948-Leaf-S...EAAOSwTGVbo~Sr

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1948-Leaf-S...cAAOSwEDtblJc6

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1948-Leaf-4...ss!02465!US!-1

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1948-LEAF-G...0AAOSwlGxZmjar
__________________
My avatar is a painting by my son, a recent art school graduate.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 09-24-2018 at 05:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-24-2018, 07:33 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 7,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
No, it doesn't, to my knowledge. But it's a different question, I am not arguing right or wrong, just asking what the market's view of it is and I think most people still consider Leaf to be a 1948 or 48-49 issue.

I rest my case.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1948-Leaf-S...EAAOSwTGVbo~Sr

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1948-Leaf-S...cAAOSwEDtblJc6

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1948-Leaf-4...ss!02465!US!-1

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1948-LEAF-G...0AAOSwlGxZmjar


Well Peter, most people are absolutely WRONG.....if they "consider Leaf to be a 1948 or 48-49 issue."

The 1949 LEAF BB cards are strictly a 1949 issue. I can write pages proving this fact here; however, I refer you (and any other doubters here) to my OLD CARDBOARD (Issue #9)
article (8 pages) which provides a history of the 1949 LEAF BB set.

Which of these 2 sets is easier ? While the 1952 TOPPS set comprises of 407 subjects (4 times as many cards as the 1949 LEAF), the TOPPS set is easier. The 2nd series (so-called
Short Prints) of 49 subjects (including Paige) of the LEAF set are extremely difficult to find. And of course they are quite expensive ($400 - 500 for commons).



1st Series (issued Spring 1949) …………………………...………… 2nd Series (issued Summer 1949)
. .


Incidentally guys,
The true 1st cards of Yogi Berra, Gil Hodges, Ralph Kiner, Stan Musial, Jackie Robinson, and Bobby Thomson were issued in the 1947 BOND BREAD set (48 cards).
These are my very first BB cards, which I collected as a very young dude.





TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-24-2018, 10:22 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is online now
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,208
Default

Ted, to your knowledge how did people get it so wrong then? It's not like this is ancient history or anything. Who started designating them as 1948 and why didn't someone immediately correct it as whenever it happened, surely there were many people who knew better?
__________________
My avatar is a painting by my son, a recent art school graduate.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 09-24-2018 at 10:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-24-2018, 10:32 PM
Lorewalker's Avatar
Lorewalker Lorewalker is offline
Chase
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 209
Default

Some cards show a copyright of 1948 and some show 1949. I just did a quick search on ebay and read backs of 5 or 6 cards (far short of the complete set) and they reference stats from the 1948 season. Which would imply these would actually be, as Ted suggests, a 1949 issue. Gonna go read the article he wrote so I can learn more.
__________________
( h @ $ e A n + l e y
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-24-2018, 10:33 PM
pclpads pclpads is offline
Dave Foster
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: left coast
Posts: 809
Default

To do a full Leaf set would cover all the variations and the SP's. The latter will eat up your wallet if you can find them and find them in better grades. The '52T, including the high series are more common, pricey, yes, but more common to find than the Leaf SP's.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-24-2018, 11:54 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 7,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
Ted, to your knowledge how did people get it so wrong then? It's not like this is ancient history or anything. Who started designating them as 1948 and why didn't someone immediately correct it as whenever it happened, surely there were many people who knew better?

Peter

My recollection is that PSA (whenever they first started) started labeling these LEAF cards "1948" on their flips. I (and others old dudes like me) informed them that these LEAF cards
were never issued in 1948. The response I got from PSA was their usual BS..... "that's your opinion, but we have ours and it's 1948". No amount of logic to convince them that it was
strictly a 1949 issue was acceptable to them.
Meanwhile, Jim Beckett corrected his Price Guide to reflect a 1949 issue. And, Bob Lemke's Standard Catalog of BB Cards also identified this LEAF set as a 1949 issue.

Peter..... in each of the two series of this 98 subject set 67 % of the cards have a Copyright date of 1948, and the other 33 % are dated 1949. You're a lawyer, have you ever seen a
Copyright date stamped in advance ? I don't think it is legal to stamp a 1949 Copyright on a product that was supposedly issued in 1948.

Furthermore, certain bios of some of the subjects clearly tell us it was impossible for these cards to have been issued in 1948. One of the best examples of this is Lou Boudreau....A.L.
1948 MVP. Well, MVP awards were announced in mid-December 1948.
Another example of this is shown here on the Satchell Paige card. Note the last sentence.... "Should sizzle into his old stride this year".

Here is a LEAF printing detail that absolutely proves these cards were issued in 1949.....In 1948, the backs of Leaf's Boxing and Football sets were printed on WHITE cardboard stock.
In 1949, LEAF switched to printing the backs of their BB and Football cards on GRAY cardboard stock. Duuuuh ! ! Are their any LEAF BB cards with WHITE backs ? ?

Hey guys, I could go on, and on trying to convince you....but, it's bed time now. Have a Good Nite.


.





TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-25-2018, 06:48 AM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is online now
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,208
Default

Ted -- what about old price guides (I am sure they existed in the 50s and 60s) and old ads etc., what year did they identify the Leafs as being from?
__________________
My avatar is a painting by my son, a recent art school graduate.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-25-2018, 08:29 AM
bobsbbcards's Avatar
bobsbbcards bobsbbcards is offline
Bob F.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 458
Default

I just updated my 49 Leaf Spreadsheet with today's VCP prices. Using $26,000 for the Paige (i.e., there are no recent sales for PSA 5's), the price for a complete set (with variations) in PSA 5 is $65,999. If you want to round that to $66,000, you won't be too far off.

PSA 4 set - $49,968
PSA 6 set - $106,546
PSA 7 set - $202,228
PSA 8 set - $473,477

Edited to add: I voted both

Last edited by bobsbbcards; 09-25-2018 at 08:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-25-2018, 08:36 AM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 6,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pclpads View Post
To do a full Leaf set would cover all the variations and the SP's. The latter will eat up your wallet if you can find them and find them in better grades. The '52T, including the high series are more common, pricey, yes, but more common to find than the Leaf SP's.
If variations are included, and if that includes the 131- 180 gray backs in the 1952 set, they are much scarcer and harder to find in decent grades than the high number cards. Plus the issue of two variations of the Mantle, Thompson and Robinson. Then too, there is that Bartirome card

And then too there is Bob who is always clouding debates with facts

Last edited by ALR-bishop; 09-25-2018 at 08:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-25-2018, 09:17 AM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 7,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
Ted -- what about old price guides (I am sure they existed in the 50s and 60s) and old ads etc., what year did they identify the Leafs as being from?
Peter....I just checked-out my old Price Guides, and here is my answer to you:

1979 Sport Americana BB card (1st Jim Beckett) Price Guide …...1948-1949

1987 SCD (1st Bob Lemke) Price Guide...… 1948-1949

Also, if I recall correctly Burdick, Frank Nagy, etc. referred to these LEAF cards as 1949.


Now, can you please answer my question. I will reprise it from my previous post...…

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post

Peter..... in each of the two series of this 98 subject set 67 % of the cards have a Copyright date of 1948, and the other 33 % are dated 1949. You're a lawyer, have you ever
seen a Copyright date stamped in advance ?
I don't think it is legal to stamp a 1949 Copyright on a product that was supposedly issued in 1948.
Thanks


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-25-2018, 11:51 AM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 7,347
Default

Hey guys,


Kudos to SGC......they finally got it correct. These LEAF premiums (7" x 5 1/2") were enclosed in the 24-count wax-pack boxes under the wax-packs.
They were given out to the lucky kid that purchased enough LEAF packs which emptied the box. So, these premiums are indeed a 1949 issue. But....
SGC identifies the LEAF BB cards as "1948-49 LEAF GUM CO." Very, very inconsistent ! ! When will these grading companies get it right ? ?



.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-25-2018, 12:20 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is online now
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,208
Default

Ted, I certainly would think that the copyright date would not be intentionally misrepresented, aside from legality what would be the point? But I guess the 1948 copyright on so many of the cards must be the source of the confusion.
__________________
My avatar is a painting by my son, a recent art school graduate.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 09-25-2018 at 12:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-25-2018, 01:29 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 7,347
Default

"Confusion" only to those unfamiliar with the production of this set of cards, Peter.

In 1981, I was doing research for my article in BASEBALL Cards Magazine regarding 1949 BOWMAN vs 1949 LEAF sets. I interviewed former senior employees of both of these
Gum Co. The LEAF employee was involved in the original production of these cards. She told me that the majority of the Rights to the images and the bios of the players were
obtained during 1948 (hence 1948 Copyright). And, the remaining players were obtained in early 1949 (hence 1949 Copyright).

I very well recall as a kid that the LEAF cards were available in March - April 1949 in my neighborhood in Hillside, NJ. I have compared this date with other veteran collectors in
the hobby, and they concur with this release date (collectors from St Louis to Boston).

I have never, ever met anyone who said they acquired these cards in 1948.

We were all too busy collecting 1948 LEAF Football cards. Their Hi # series was issued circa December 1948.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-25-2018, 02:00 PM
RedsFan1941 RedsFan1941 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 925
Default

Grading companies are guilty of many mistakes. “Blaming” them for labeling 1948 Leaf baseball cards isn’t one of them. I collected cards back in the mid 70s and went to small shows along with the larger ones in Cincinnati and Plymouth, Michigan. EVERYBODY referred to these cards as “1948 Leafs.” This was at a time when the cards were only 30 years old. I have a hard time believing all of those hobby veterans were wrong.
__________________
R0nnie L3hman
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-25-2018, 02:16 PM
irv's Avatar
irv irv is offline
D@le Irv*n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 3,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsFan1941 View Post
Grading companies are guilty of many mistakes. “Blaming” them for labeling 1948 Leaf baseball cards isn’t one of them. I collected cards back in the mid 70s and went to small shows along with the larger ones in Cincinnati and Plymouth, Michigan. EVERYBODY referred to these cards as “1948 Leafs.” This was at a time when the cards were only 30 years old. I have a hard time believing all of those hobby veterans were wrong.
Well, I hate to jump in here, but if I had to listen to only one person on here with regards to postwar cards, Ted would be the guy.

Many on here have vast knowledge, or far greater knowledge than myself, and Ted is definitely one of those guys who I listen to and don't question. (jmo)
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-25-2018, 02:31 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is online now
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsFan1941 View Post
Grading companies are guilty of many mistakes. “Blaming” them for labeling 1948 Leaf baseball cards isn’t one of them. I collected cards back in the mid 70s and went to small shows along with the larger ones in Cincinnati and Plymouth, Michigan. EVERYBODY referred to these cards as “1948 Leafs.” This was at a time when the cards were only 30 years old. I have a hard time believing all of those hobby veterans were wrong.
I have no reason at all to doubt Ted, but that's what's so confusing (to me anyhow), this isn't ancient history at all. It would be like someone today getting the date wrong on an 80s issue.
__________________
My avatar is a painting by my son, a recent art school graduate.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-25-2018, 03:52 PM
RedsFan1941 RedsFan1941 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irv View Post
Well, I hate to jump in here, but if I had to listen to only one person on here with regards to postwar cards, Ted would be the guy.

Many on here have vast knowledge, or far greater knowledge than myself, and Ted is definitely one of those guys who I listen to and don't question. (jmo)
that is certainly your choice. you can understand why people would choose not to just accept everything a person says as the truth, i hope.
__________________
R0nnie L3hman
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-25-2018, 06:50 PM
irv's Avatar
irv irv is offline
D@le Irv*n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada.
Posts: 3,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
"Confusion" only to those unfamiliar with the production of this set of cards, Peter.

In 1981, I was doing research for my article in BASEBALL Cards Magazine regarding 1949 BOWMAN vs 1949 LEAF sets. I interviewed former senior employees of both of these
Gum Co. The LEAF employee was involved in the original production of these cards. She told me that the majority of the Rights to the images and the bios of the players were
obtained during 1948 (hence 1948 Copyright). And, the remaining players were obtained in early 1949 (hence 1949 Copyright).

I very well recall as a kid that the LEAF cards were available in March - April 1949 in my neighborhood in Hillside, NJ. I have compared this date with other veteran collectors in
the hobby, and they concur with this release date (collectors from St Louis to Boston).

I have never, ever met anyone who said they acquired these cards in 1948.

We were all too busy collecting 1948 LEAF Football cards. Their Hi # series was issued circa December 1948.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsFan1941 View Post
that is certainly your choice. you can understand why people would choose not to just accept everything a person says as the truth, i hope.
There are many on here who have a wealth of information that makes me envious but not many (that I am aware of?) can actually say they remember purchasing these cards when they were young.

That in itself trumps others who are only going by what is written and what they heard from some other collectors who likely weren't around then or didn't collect back then.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-25-2018, 07:17 PM
CMIZ5290's Avatar
CMIZ5290 CMIZ5290 is offline
KEVIN MIZE
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: VALDOSTA, GA.
Posts: 5,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsFan1941 View Post
that is certainly your choice. you can understand why people would choose not to just accept everything a person says as the truth, i hope.
Words of wisdom Ronnie.... Ted is as knowledgeable as it gets and knows more than you forgot....Have a nice day!

Last edited by CMIZ5290; 09-25-2018 at 07:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-25-2018, 07:26 PM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 6,042
Default

I do not collect the Leaf sets with the exception of 1960 but am aware of similar debates on the year of issue of some Topps test sets and Fleer issues from the late 60s an 70s. Dave Hornish has been a great source of info for me on those debates. Ted too, especially on Bowman sets. I find the debates interesting and enjoy reading them. For myself as a collector since 1957, the exact year of issue is not a crucial issue, but understand why it may be for others.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-25-2018, 07:29 PM
Lorewalker's Avatar
Lorewalker Lorewalker is offline
Chase
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 209
Default

In my last post on this thread I mentioned that I had looked at the backs of 6 cards from the set. I have since looked at another 20. All reference 1948 stats. Still far from every card in the set but it makes it hard to argue this was a 1948 issue when stats are showing from that season. I suppose an argument might be able to be made it was a 48 and 49 set is any of the other backs reference stats from the 47 season. Would not make a heck of a lot of sense for a card co to release a set, at the end of the calendar year, after the season concluded...Winter is a long time for baseball fans.
__________________
( h @ $ e A n + l e y
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-25-2018, 08:30 PM
RedsFan1941 RedsFan1941 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irv View Post
There are many on here who have a wealth of information that makes me envious but not many (that I am aware of?) can actually say they remember purchasing these cards when they were young.

That in itself trumps others who are only going by what is written and what they heard from some other collectors who likely weren't around then or didn't collect back then.
that was kind of my point in referencing the baseball card shows from the 1970s. there were a lot of people in those rooms who collected cards in the 1940s and 50s.

i'm not saying ted is incorrect on this one. just that it's ridiculous to think that professional graders are the ones who started calling them 1948 Leafs. everybody 40 years ago called them that. if ted remembers buying cards in the 1940s, i'm sure he remembers that fact from the mid 1970s.

and i'll stick with my premise about not taking everything someone says as the gospel, whether it's ted or whoever.
__________________
R0nnie L3hman
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-25-2018, 08:35 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 7,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
I have no reason at all to doubt Ted, but that's what's so confusing (to me anyhow), this isn't ancient history at all. It would be like someone today getting the date wrong on an 80s issue.

Peter
This LEAF set has been confusing to many who did not collect these cards in 1949. As I said in a previous post here....Beckett's 1979 Price Guide was not sure what year to assign
to this set, so they started the 1948-49 identification. And, it stayed that way until the mid-1990's......when Beckett corrected it to 1949. Bob Lemke's Standard Catalog is correct
with the 1949 date.

I was surprised that there was not a reply to my Post #26. So let's try this again. Shown here is a LEAF premium (7" x 5 1/2") which was enclosed in the same 24-count wax-pack
box that the LEAF cards were packaged in. SGC has correctly labelled it 1949 LEAF. But this is at variance with SGC's labelling of the LEAF BB cards as 1948-49 LEAF GUM CO.

These two pieces should have identical labelling. This is a one example of how the grading companies are screwed up on this subject.


. .



This discussion has become tiresome. If some of you still question the information which I've imparted in these Posts, then counter it with some meaningful replies.
Otherwise, take your "negativism" elsewhere. It's not needed here.

In any event, I refer you to my OLD CARDBOARD (Issue #9) article (8 pages) regarding the 1949 LEAF BB set. I received a tremendous amount of compliments
on it. Contact Lyman Hardeman for back copies of this magazine.

Thanks Dale (#30) and Al (post #35) for the kind words.....I really appreciate them.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-26-2018, 09:50 AM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 7,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorewalker View Post
In my last post on this thread I mentioned that I had looked at the backs of 6 cards from the set. I have since looked at another 20. All reference 1948 stats. Still far from every card in the set but it makes it hard to argue this was a 1948 issue when stats are showing from that season. I suppose an argument might be able to be made it was a 48 and 49 set is any of the other backs reference stats from the 47 season. Would not make a heck of a lot of sense for a card co to release a set, at the end of the calendar year, after the season concluded...Winter is a long time for baseball fans.

Hi Chase

You make a great point here. And, anyone with modicum of common sense would realize this.

Furthermore, I can add this fact to the argument.....LEAF launched their 98-card Football set in the Fall of 1948. The 1st series of 49 cards were available in October - November.
They issued their 2nd series in December. There is NO WAY that they could have produced the BB set in that timeline. The 1948 Football set was very popular and LEAF was busy
printing tons of FB cards.

Thanks Chase for your very astute input to this conversation.


And, thanks to CMIZ5290 for your compliment.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-26-2018, 11:32 AM
Exhibitman's Avatar
Exhibitman Exhibitman is offline
Ad@m W@r$h@w
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
Posts: 7,075
Default

Leaf boxing was issued both with white and gray stocks. I am collecting a white stock set. The famous Graziano SP that was pulled very early in the print run, possibly before the cards were issued, is a white stock card.

As for the OP, the 1952 Topps set is one of the nicest looking sets ever issued. The Leaf set is fugly. I prefer this:




to this:



every day of the week.
__________________
Please visit my web site: www.americasgreatboxingcards.com
So... move out of your studio apartment! And try speaking to a real live woman, and GROW THE HELL UP! I mean, it's just baseball cards dammit, IT'S JUST BASEBALL CARDS!
10% off any BIN in my eBay store (user name: exhibitman) for N54 members buying direct from me through this site instead, just PM me.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 09-26-2018, 02:25 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 7,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post
Leaf boxing was issued both with white and gray stocks. I am collecting a white stock set. The famous Graziano SP that was pulled very early in the print run, possibly before the cards were issued, is a white stock card.

As for the OP, the 1952 Topps set is one of the nicest looking sets ever issued. The Leaf set is fugly. I prefer this:




to this:



every day of the week.

Hi Adam

The 1948 LEAF boxing cards were the very first color Sportscards which I collected (at age 10). I completed both WHITE and GRAY versions.
The WHITE backed cards were 1st available in the Summer/Fall of 1948. This date is confirmed by Tony Zale's bio, which reads that he beat
Graziano in their final match (KO in the 3rd Round) on June 10th 1948.


Adam, as you know, these cards were extremely popular (nationwide). LEAF continued printing them into 1949. And, that's why there are cards
with both WHITE and GRAY cardboard stock. LEAF printers switched to GRAY stock in 1949 for their BB and FB cards (and these Boxing cards).



1948 issue .................................................. ....... 1949 issue




Hey guys,
For those of you still yearning for a LEGITIMATE 1948-1949 set, this Boxing set is the one you are looking for.
NOT the BB card set.






TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Last edited by tedzan; 09-26-2018 at 08:09 PM. Reason: Correct typo.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-26-2018, 02:41 PM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 6,042
Default

"To me, boxing is like a ballet...except there's no music....and no choreography...and the dancers hit each other".....Jack Handey
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-26-2018, 03:22 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsFan1941 View Post
Grading companies are guilty of many mistakes. “Blaming” them for labeling 1948 Leaf baseball cards isn’t one of them. I collected cards back in the mid 70s and went to small shows along with the larger ones in Cincinnati and Plymouth, Michigan. EVERYBODY referred to these cards as “1948 Leafs.” This was at a time when the cards were only 30 years old. I have a hard time believing all of those hobby veterans were wrong.
I agree with Ronnie I don't think the grading companies should be
at blame for a cataloging error.

PSA uses the catalogs as their reference and I know from personal experience they won't grade a card that isn't cataloged.

I don't know about the newest version but although they mention that it is
believed that they were not released until 1949 they still have the cards listed
as 1948 and the premiums listed as 1949 in the 2016 edition.
img611.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-26-2018, 04:05 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 7,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Peter
This LEAF set has been confusing to many who did not collect these cards in 1949. As I said in a previous post here....Beckett's 1979 Price Guide was not sure what year to assign
to this set, so they started the 1948-49 identification. And, it stayed that way until the mid-1990's......when Beckett corrected it to 1949. Bob Lemke's Standard Catalog is correct
with the 1949 date.

I was surprised that there was not a reply to my Post #26. So let's try this again. Shown here is a LEAF premium (7" x 5 1/2") which was enclosed in the same 24-count wax-pack
box that the LEAF cards were packaged in. SGC has correctly labelled it 1949 LEAF. But this is at variance with SGC's labelling of the LEAF BB cards as 1948-49 LEAF GUM CO.

These two pieces should have identical labelling. This is a one example of how the grading companies are screwed up on this subject.


. .



This discussion has become tiresome. If some of you still question the information which I've imparted in these Posts, then counter it with some meaningful replies.
Otherwise, take your "negativism" elsewhere. It's not needed here.

In any event, I refer you to my OLD CARDBOARD (Issue #9) article (8 pages) regarding the 1949 LEAF BB set. I received a tremendous amount of compliments
on it. Contact Lyman Hardeman for back copies of this magazine.

Thanks Dale (#30) and Al (post #35) for the kind words.....I really appreciate them.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Hey Pat

The STANDARD CATALOG of VINTAGEBASEBALL CARDS (Bob LEMKE) on Page 241 lists the LEAF BB SET as 1949.

What catalog are you talking about ?


T-Rex
.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-26-2018, 04:46 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Hey Pat

The STANDARD CATALOG of VINTAGEBASEBALL CARDS (Bob LEMKE) on Page 241 lists the LEAF BB SET as 1949.

What catalog are you talking about ?


T-Rex
.
September 29 2016 edition
DSCN0618.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-26-2018, 07:46 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 7,347
Default

Well, since Bob Lemke no longer edits this Price Guide, the LEAF BB card set has been INCORRECTLY changed to 1948.
There was no one more knowledgeable than Bob Lemke when it came to BB card dates. This change is mis-leading.

Anyhow. at least they have the LEAF premiums correctly dated as a 1949 issue. Which leads me to ask you this, Pat.

Enclosed inside each 24-count box of LEAF wax-packs was one of the nine premiums. I recall this well as a kid buying
LEAF packs. So, how can anyone in their right mind claim that these BB cards are not a 1949 issue ?

And tell us.....what year do you believe these LEAF BB cards were issued ? ?









TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-26-2018, 09:54 PM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 6,042
Default

I do miss corresponding with Bob over card issues, and still use the last Catalog he edited, along with the last Catalog with post 80 issues. Who is the current editor ?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-27-2018, 06:48 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsFan1941 View Post
Grading companies are guilty of many mistakes. “Blaming” them for labeling 1948 Leaf baseball cards isn’t one of them. I collected cards back in the mid 70s and went to small shows along with the larger ones in Cincinnati and Plymouth, Michigan. EVERYBODY referred to these cards as “1948 Leafs.” This was at a time when the cards were only 30 years old. I have a hard time believing all of those hobby veterans were wrong.
This is funny, because collecting in Illinois in the 70s, everybody called them 1949 cards. We were taught that the card year was the next year after the last year of stats. The cards had 1948 stats, thus 1949 cards. I find it hard to believe that no one in Michigan or Ohio turned the cards over and read the backs.

This was my first 1949 Leaf card. The back reads "Made debut in 1947 as first baseman. Hit .296...chosen 'rookie of the year.' Last season again hit .296..." So as a teenager collecting in the 70s, the card has stats from 1947 and last year 1948, so the card is a 1949 Leaf. I am confused as to why this is so hard. Why would a company write last year in reference to 1948 if they made the cards in 1948?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2018-09-27_06-37-16.jpg (77.0 KB, 45 views)
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-27-2018, 08:09 AM
jchcollins's Avatar
jchcollins jchcollins is offline
J0hn Collin$
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 1,090
Default

"Both are great, doesn't matter."

Unfortunately, both of these sets even in lower grade are still way too expensive for me to make an honest effort at going after. Right now I'm focusing on '56 and '67 Topps.
__________________
Mid-grade HOF postwar singles. All types of vintage Cubs...
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-27-2018, 08:57 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Well, since Bob Lemke no longer edits this Price Guide, the LEAF BB card set has been INCORRECTLY changed to 1948.
There was no one more knowledgeable than Bob Lemke when it came to BB card dates. This change is mis-leading.

Anyhow. at least they have the LEAF premiums correctly dated as a 1949 issue. Which leads me to ask you this, Pat.

Enclosed inside each 24-count box of LEAF wax-packs was one of the nine premiums. I recall this well as a kid buying
LEAF packs. So, how can anyone in their right mind claim that these BB cards are not a 1949 issue ?

And tell us.....what year do you believe these LEAF BB cards were issued ? ?





TED Z

T206 Reference
.
I don't know Ted I was only commenting on the finger being pointed
at the grading companies.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
1948-49, 1952 topps



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1948 & 1949 LEAF FB cards....show us your LEAF's tedzan Football Cards Forum 29 12-28-2016 04:51 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 PM.


ebay GSB