rare Willie Mays cards
 

Looking for a couple hard to find Willie Mays cards-

1958 Packard Bell Mays
1964 meadow gold Mays
1967 T punch out Mays

Do not collect Mays specifically, these are from sets


https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...res/img006.jpg
https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...res/img017.jpg
https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...sSheets004.jpg
https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...res/img287.jpg
https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...res/img366.jpg
https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...res/img367.jpg

Arm Variant

https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...psa13ee72c.jpg
https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...psa270bbc9.jpg
https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...pschhevhhv.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ys%20proof.jpg

1950s Exhibit Willie Mays pre-production piece or proof. Different card stock, different size and cut than regular issue but definitely a first-generation printing.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...comparison.jpg

Side by side with a regular card.

Mays
 

Wow, there are some rare birds there no doubt, Ive been fortunate enough to have landed most of those also

Its these few killers ( Packard Bell, Meadow gold, 67 T punch outs)...that are ...killing me ! LOL

Still hoping to find and buy them

This one just arrived .... trying to find more info on the set

Attachment 444515Attachment 444516

All the info you need to know is my address.

As we discussed, phenomenal card.

Lol
Thx Peter

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Great Mays!

rare Mays
 

still searching for Willie Mays -
Packard Bell
Meadow Gold

The "Made in USA" is his rookie. I acquired nine of these...super undervalued Mays rookie that everyone is sleeping on.

'fraid not. Here is the 1951 issue checklist:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ard%20edit.jpg

It is early but consensus among those who study the cards is that "Made in USA" was used from 1951-1953, so between that and the checklist, not a RC but definitely an undervalued early card.

This is an Exhibit rookie. Mays, for one, didn't play in 1952 or 1953, due to being drafted to the Korean War; secondly, the anniversary patch on his sleeve on that card was only worn in 1951. This patch was to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the National League, which was celebrated in 1951. American League also had a patch for that year, and Mantle can be found in this set with his patch, as well. I don't care what the checklist indicates...that patch says it all.

i've got both variations...tough issue!! And this photo!

Classically bad reasoning backed up by factual errors:

1. If the patch is from the 1951 season, it proves only that the photo was taken in 1951, not that the card was made in 1951. More likely is that the card was made for the 1952 run since Mays is not on the 1951 checklist and was voted ROY for 1951. ESCO was not in the habit of producing cards of untested rookies, but would have added a ROY to the run for the next season.

2. Contrary to your statement, Mays did play in 1952. He played in 34 games. In fact, in his last game in 1952 he was given an ovation at Ebbets' Field in recognition of his service.

3. The fact that you "don't care what the checklist indicates" is irrelevant. The checklist exists and Mays is not on it.

I understand that you have a financial stake in proving that the cards you hoarded are Mays rookies, but the facts do not support your statements.

Oh, you mean the checklist you provided thats been scribbled on and altered? The same checklist where Philadelphia was scribbled out to jot down the 1951 New York Giants team Card? That card also has Mays and it specifically says "1951 New York Giants National Champions." That card also is not originally printed on the checklist, but you or someone else made sure it was there. The checklist was jotted on and altered,, indicating that you yourself (or someone else) does not trust the checklist. That team card sayd 1951 on it,, but you going to dispute that, too,, even though its been altered in and fixed to suit the checklist? The facts are there with the patch. The patch does exist and it was only used in 1951, regardless of whether the card was 1952 or not. You or I cannot prove the exact year it was printed, just the same as we can't prove the Giants team card was or wasn't printed in 1951. It does say "1951" at the bottom and has the exact same print of Made in USA on it. From the best of my knowledge, people take this at face value and do not argue whether something is or isn't when facts are presented.

Very cool!! I love that action shot! Exhibitman, I could be wrong, but I think the checklist you have is the 1947-1950 checklist. At least this is the case,, according to Keyman Collectibles. That's the only set noted by them with 64 cards.

Don't trust the checklist. That's a new one.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Somebody didn't trust it or it wouldn't have been altered. 🤷Alterations are clearly made on it.

Mays
 

" Fraid not" ! LOL

as kids that was used a lot....went back and forth arguing with a pal - " fraid not..fraid so..fraid not.... the good ole days LOL

The checklist could only have been made after the 1950 season because the Phillies and Yankees were the teams and that was the 1950 WS. As for the scribblings, that's not a valid argument: I could have made those yesterday. If you write "1951" on a card it doesn't mean the card is a 1951.

Maybe 1950, but I doubt it was anything after. There's Phillies and Yankees team cards in this set from late 40s/1950. Im just saying there's also a Giants 1951 team card that Exhibit made, which you or someone scribbled that particular card onto the checklist. Doesn't matter when the scribbling/alterations was made....point I'm making is that the 1951 Giants team card obviously doesn't belong to this particular set or it would've been printed on the checklist by Exhibit Supply Co. You jotting that team card in or making any other alterations on that checklist, doesn't validate it and make it part of the set. Furthermore, I don't see a date or anything on that checklist that indicates it's a 1951, or therefore, any particular year for that matter. There's no proof anywhere that these can be dated, and that's obviously including the checklists that were made. Altering a checklist to call it 1951, doesn't make it a 1951. It just simply means you scribbled and altered a checklist and made it inaccurate. Im just calling it as I see it. Whether these are 1951 or 1952, they're neat cards and are definitely very undervalued.

...
 

I just wanted to take the time to thank you both for my new 1951 - 1953 Exhibit Mays cards (arriving in a few days). I truly love this site :D

Dude, you're just digging yourself a bigger hole. There is proof of dating, right on the cards themselves. ESCO made two team cards each year: the pennant winners in each league from the prior season (stopped in 1956). Here's the 1952 printing of the Yankees card:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...%20Yankees.jpg

Notice that it says "1951 World Champions"? Well, when did the Yankees become the 1951 champs? In October 1951. Here's the 1949 Cleveland Indians card:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ians%20AEC.jpg

See the split legend at the bottom? That was a feature of only the 1949 print run. That card shows the 1948 champs from a 1949 printing. I wish it was a 1948 because it would have Paige and Doby rookies.

If you actually look at the Phillies card:

https://vintagecardprices.com/pics/1590/71706.jpg

It designates the team as 1950 NL champs. It is from the 1951 print run. Not 1950 because they wouldn't have known who was going to win the 1950 pennants until the season was over.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but the facts are what they are. Your refusal to recognize them just makes you look like you are cravenly trying to boost the value of the Mays cards you are hoarding.

Fair enough...I see your point. Its very flattering that you think I have the power to instantly influence value on a card, but unfortunately, I'm not Gary V. I never once said this is THE rookie of Mays, but it is most definitely HIS ESCO ROOKIE. It'll never be the value of his Bowman rookie, but it is undoubtedly his Exhibit rookie.

Adam:

I of course agree with all you have said on this subject. It is hard for non Exhibit guys to fully understand the intricacies of all things ESCO!

I and a few others have been working on a year by year checklist for the Exhibits. FWIW we have the first Mays card issued in 1953.

Why? Well, he would not have been issued in 51 as he was an unknown rookie. The 1952 set we believe was issued in B&W as is evidenced by the two 1951 team cards and others issued in B&W, but no Mays in B&W with the Made in U.S.A. Thus 1953 was the Mays "rookie" Sepia Exhibit card with the Made in U.S.A designation.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Why would they make 1952 B&W cards of Mantle and Mays' teammate, Monte Irvin, but none of Willie Mays himself? Mays, if I recall correctly, was the 1951 ROY. Meanwhile, Mantle was not, and Irvin wasn't even in the discussion. Yet, cards were made of them in 1952 and not Mays? It just doesn't make much sense, and I just don't think it's possible to pin every card in this set to an exact date, regardless of how big of a professional you like to consider yourself to be. The evidence provided just doesn't all add up to me.

In this day where sets are fairly comprehensive and "rookies" have become important cards - sometimes being made before the player has actually played a real game- it can be had to imagine not making a card of a player who was ROY.

But there's lots of reasons why they might not have.
Like Mays might not have signed with them.
Or they may have not wanted to pay Mays extra- If I remember right Mays insisted on more than the usual contract with Topps.

Or some other reason. 53 Bowman also missed Mays, as well as Williams and Robinson, all established stars.

True. ESCO was on a tight budget, but they clearly got Mays in the set. It's just really unclear as to exactly when these cards came out. To the best of my knowledge,, ESCO didn't follow any particular pattern in producing any particular cards. They had no intentions of dating them neither, but it's cool they exist and it gives everyone an affordable option aside from the mainstream issues.

Well, when you turn up a Mays Exhibit in B&W as were issued in 1952 as is evident by the 51 pennant winners cards being in B&W LMK and we can have a discussion.

Seems you have been provided with tons of information here that you refuse to acknowledge for your own distorted thinking/fantasies/financial interests. I expect your next post will say FAKE NEWS about all this information as it is coming from us who consider ourselves "BIG PROFESSIONALS" as you term us. I would suggest you get a new adding machine since all the evidence presented does not add up to you!

I'm down with that.

The fact is a nice Mays is still a solid early Mays card.

Perhaps you shouldn't be trying to add anything up at all, because You CANNOT prove this to be the case with every single card in the set! That's my point! ESCO never followed any particular pattern for releasing their sets, so therefore, it's impossible to date all these cards to an exact year. How do you know the sepia-colored Mays wasn't released sometime in 1952 with the other B&W cards in the set? Where is actual evidence that shows the sepia-colored Mays being a 1953? Since you're the "professional", this shouldn't be a hard question to answer. Don't tell me something is what it is if you can't provide concrete evidence to back it up.

1952 B&W Mays?
 

Ok, I think I mightve found a B&W Mays. Certainly looks that way when compared to the sepia, anyway.

The top photo is hard to make out, but the second one is more noticeable. The raw one on the left appears more B&W when compared to the PSA one on the right.

First to reply to an earlier post where you said:

How do you know the sepia-colored Mays wasn't released sometime in 1952 with the other B&W cards in the set? Where is actual evidence that shows the sepia-colored Mays being a 1953? Since you're the "professional", this shouldn't be a hard question to answer.

The simple answer is you can't print a sheet of all B&W cards and have ONE of the cards be sepia. Each sheet is printed the same way. Be it sepia or B&W. All cards on that sheet will be the same

Your "B&W" above is not B&W. I can point out tons of examples of different tints of sepia. These could be different print runs, how far into a print run the sheet was printed as ink was running low and the big difference is when the same sepia card was issued (printed) in different years.

Below is an example of what I am talking about. Four different tint Mantles with the same Made in U.S.A. we are talking about. B&W bottom right.

So, even though this is a different tint Mays, we aren't going to acknowledge its anything different? Its obvious the sheets were printed in B&W, but my point is: it still doesn't explain if Mays ended up being printed sometime that same year in 1952 with sepia. Furthermore, are you saying they dedicated to sepia-colored sheets for Mays alone? If not, who else was included? This is just all speculation and it's just what the hobby has come to accept. I've been an outlier in this matter, but mostly only due to lack of evidence. It is what it is. 🤷It's still a rookie-era card, nonetheless.

Also, do take a look at this Dodgers team card from eBay. I do believe Keyman Collectibles themselves label this as a 1949 from the notations. As you can see, the card itself is stamped by Exhibit, noting them as the 1949 National League champs. This proves my point that not all of these cards can be labeled accurately by just one or two cards in this set. It seems Exhibit didn't follow any pattern in printing and printed as they needed cards. Assuming Keyman Collectibles is correct in this labeling,, this also proves that Exhibit didn't necessarily delay production of all their cards into the following year. This would prove, rather, that they did in fact produce some cards within the same year. I do also believe Yankees had their 1949 World Series team card labeled/notated just the same. This fact alone also proves that the "information" originally provided, is actually flawed. Not arguing, I'm just hoping that the people interested enough in these sets will see that there's more than meets the eye and I think we have gotten too used to just being complacent in accepting what people think rather than what they know.