1948-49 Leaf vs. 1952 Topps

[tedzan]

"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
.

[RedsFan1941]

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.

[irv]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

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)

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by irv

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.

[irv]

Originally Posted by tedzan

"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
.

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

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.

[ALR-bishop]

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.

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by irv

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.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

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!

[Lorewalker]

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.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

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
.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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
.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

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
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

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.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

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?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by rats60

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?

Hi rats60......thanks for your comments.

I completely agree with your logic. In fact, I have been saying the same as you. However, there are a few on this forum that don't accept it. I guess they just want to be contrarians.
They appear to think that the Grading Companies are infallible; therefore, any fact we provide is ignored by them (or they just don't understand).

As we have said, if collectors read the backs of these 1949 LEAF cards, they will see the player's 1948 stats. Furthermore, no one can argue with the Lou Boudreau and Frank Gustine
bios where events as late as December 1948 are described. Here they are......


MVP in 1948 (announced in mid-December 1948) …... Gustine traded to Cubs on December 8, 1948 .……. "Should sizzle into his old stride this year" (1949)
. .



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[RedsFan1941]

i am not saying that Ted’s theory about the year of issue is incorrect. i am saying he is wrong in placing blame on PSA, SGC, etc.

i know for a fact, because I was there, that 20 years before grading companies existed, collectors and price guides referred to the Leaf set as being issued in 1948. I bet ted knows this too if he was collecting in the 70s.

[tedzan]

Ronnie

I did collect Sportscards in the 1970's. My first price guide was the Sport Americana BB card Price Guide by Jim Beckett. And, it lists this LEAF BB card set as 1948-1949.
I told Jim (a good friend of mine) that this set was strictly a 1949 issue. Eventually, Jim corrected his Guide to reflect the 1949 date.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[RedsFan1941]

just took a quick look through some of my guides from the 1970s. The first edition of the Sport Americana Baseball Card Price Guide, published by Jim Beckett and Denny Eckes in 1979, listed Leafs as being issued in 1948-49.

The second edition of the Sports Collectors Bible, published in 1977, lists 1948 Leafs.

The Stirling Sports Card Catalog, published in 1977, lists 1948-49 Leafs.

I am not saying these guides are right, only that Leafs were referred to as issued in 1948 long before PSA and SGC were on the scene. So to blame the grading companies for this possible mistake, is unfair.

[Lorewalker]

I am fascinated by this, Ted, so I have now read the backs of 62 different cards from the Leaf set. To further my earlier point on my previous post, all 62 cards refer to the 1948 season and either list stats or highlight an event of that season. On one of the cards, #66 Orval Grove, which bares a 1948 copyright date, it actually refers to a "winter deal" that brought Early Wynn to the Indians.

I looked up the date of that winter deal and it took place on Dec 14, 1948. There is just no conceivable way that these cards were issued at anytime in 1948. I don't think Vistaprint and Fed Ex were around in 1948 where these cards could have been printed, packed and distributed between Dec 15 and Dec 31.

In case that is not convincing can anyone name a card issue that was released in a particular calendar year in which the stats referenced the season of that same year? It has been the practice of all card companies to release cards in the calendar reflecting the previous season's stats, etc.

This is absolutely not a 1948 issue. It is a 1949 issue and only 1949. I do not know copyright law but there has to be some legal explanation for some cards to bare the 1948 date and why some show 1949. If the presence of the 1948 copyright date is the only factor that determines that this is a 1948 issue then the hobby has the wrong date on this Leaf set.

[Exhibitman]

The copyright date reflects the year the item was submitted to the Library of Congress, not the date of commercial issue of the set. I can copyright a book today and not offer it for sale until next year.

Beware of errors of inductive reasoning: Reference to an event on a card indicates only that the copy on the card was drafted no earlier than the day after that event, not that it was issued on a specific date after that. For example, referring to a December 8, 1948 trade on a card means that the card bio was written some time after 12/8/48. Saying it was issued in 1949 is an assumption based on the likely date of issue given that bio; not saying it is wrong, just that it is not direct evidence. What if Leaf rolled out the set for Christmas? It would be a 1948 issue.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

i am not saying that Ted’s theory about the year of issue is incorrect. i am saying he is wrong in placing blame on PSA, SGC, etc.

i know for a fact, because I was there, that 20 years before grading companies existed, collectors and price guides referred to the Leaf set as being issued in 1948. I bet ted knows this too if he was collecting in the 70s.

Beckett listed it as a 1948-49 set not a 1948 set. The card pictured in the price guide is Joe DiMaggio. The first line of the bio is "Smashed out 39 home runs (tops) and 190 hits for a .320 average last season." Those are his stats from 1948. How is a card a 1948 card when it lists his 1948 sets as being last year?

We are asking common sense questions. How is it placed as a 1948 set when (all?) current players have 1948 stats and several refer to those stats as last year? Who changed the year from 1948-49 and what was the basis for that change? When I collected, it was never referred to as a 1948 set. How is it that kids can read the backs of the cards and figure out they are 1949 cards, but dealers and (serious?) collectors never read the backs of cards and just called them 1948? PSA from the earliest time called them incorrectly 1948, so don't they at least have some responsibility for the error? We all know the power of their flip and with some simple research they could have got it right.