1949 Leaf Theory
 

I know this set is talked about a lot on the board, and I am certainly alway looking to chime in, I love the quirkiness of the production value, but also the aesthetics of the cards. Simply put, I love them.

I have been researching the set, trying to figure out what exactly went on with the printing of the cards. There is an established and accepted fact that there was a primary printing and a short printing. The theory I am working on currently is that there was an actual 3rd printing of the primary set, though this printing featured changes to the printing plates, and can be identified by the more pinkish/magenta ink. There are marked changes in many of the key cards, Babe Ruth features "lines" that connect the background field of color to the name plate, Stan Musial's and Joe DiMaggio's hats were masked off, removing the detail and allowing the background color to show through, Jackie Robinson's hat details were removed and there were the additions of lines similar to Ruth's. In my opinion, there is actually a rarity to these variations that fall in line with the "accepted" variations in the set (Aberson, Peterson, Hermanski). While mentioning the Hermanski variation, I actually think that the designation on it is wrong. When you look at the card, the registration of the name in the field of red is the same on both versions, they wouldn't have offset the name, only to correct it later. My thought is that HERMANSK is the error (backed up by the presence of the pink toned magenta), and the correct version came out in the initial run, hence the 2:1 ratio in the PSA population report. This same ration is similar to the Peterson variation in which the Red Cap is part of the second printing.

I'd love to hear other's thoughts on this. I attached a couple of examples, though I know there are more out there. Ted Z among others have alluded to this before, and Ted has posted the uncut sheet image before as well. I think that in an effort to lighten up a second run of the cards, the plates were altered specifically in the hats to allow more color through and mask off the black plate with most of the details. If true, in my mind, it would change the values of some of the key cards in the set, as they would have been essentially short print in comparison to the first roll out of the set.

Nice hypothesis but I am not into Leaf enough to get that down and dirty. Now, get me some esoteric cards, folks have barely heard of, and I am all over it.
.

very interesting theory, good research/thinking and thanks for laying it out. always more to unwravel with this set, it seems - one of the reasons why I love it!

The Hermansk answer
 

The Hermansk is not a true error but an inking problem of some sort with a clog or something like this. No question the NO I version has a deeper darker red . I’m posting some photos of a HALF version I own which is neither the Hermansk or the Hermaski but in between!!! The back also seems somewhat over inked on the top as well. See what you think……

Very interesting. Best set in my humble opinion.

1949 LEAF set
 

The Hermanski card was situated in the lower-most right corner of the 1st Series sheet. And, the "Hermansk"
cards are simply a result of printing flaws.

Here is an old photo of an uncut sheet of 1st series cards. Along with a diagram of the card #'s on their backs.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...eries1x50x.jpg
.................................................. .................................................. ...........^ Hermanski ^


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ries1x50xN.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I agree that there was some printer's error that went into the Hermanski's. It does make me wonder why "they" recognize this as an actual variation. Jury is out on this one for me, if the population didn't fall into the similar proportion as the others, I would say it is a simple printer mistake. I'll keep digging and report back with what I come up with.

1949 LEAF set
 

Brian K

You may find some answers to the questions you have regarding the 1949 LEAF set in the 8-page article
I published in the OLD CARBOARD Magazine (Issue 9). Or in the Net54 thread......
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ight=1949+LEAF


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...dnum9cover.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Any idea where I could track down a copy of that?

Here you go.
https://www.oldcardboard.com/subscriptions.asp

thank you! I ordered up a copy!

Hi Brian, could the possible third printing that you're talking about actually have been an initial printing that was a short print due to the Bowman lawsuit?

I know David has posted a couple of times that Lionel Carter wrote about someone that knew a young collector who had 33 previously unknown cards in the set.

In the January-February 1960 issue of Sport Fan, Carter had another column about 1949 Leaf baseball, announcing the discovery of 33 previously unknown cards

This is a May 4 1949 newspaper report of the court order and in the last paragraph it explicitly states names and pictures of 33 baseball players.

Attachment 544385

I do think the lawsuit had something to do with the distribution of the cards, mainly the short prints. Dr. James Beckett as well have others have said that the cards are found predominately through the Great Lakes, which would fall in line with East coast distribution shut down because of the lawsuit. I think that the 2nd printing of the first 49 happened before the short print run. I think the order of the set distribution was:
_ Leaf Pirates
_ Leaf Baseball -First 49 Print/2nd Print (First 49, this is where the PINK color appears)/Short Print 49 Baseball
_ Leaf Football and Boxing

All the sets used skip numbering, and the color composition of the cards became simpler and simpler as time went on (no more green). With the Short Print baseball into boxing and football, the color went to strictly CMYK, no color mixing.

Still working to crack the code, but learning some very interesting things. Thanks for including this.

Another piece of the puzzle is the Newhouser prototype, one of which sold in 2009 for $80k. It seems like a proof or prototype, but I do find it interesting that this is the only spot ORANGE is attempted.

1949 LEAF BB card set......
 

Hi Brian K

Hopefully, you have read my 8-page article in the OLD CARDBOARD Magazine regarding the 1949 LEAF. If you have any questions, feel free to email me.... tedzan11@comcast.net

Also, check-out this 1949 LEAF BB thread (May 2016)......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ight=1949+LEAF




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I just thought it was interesting that the newspaper article from 1949 and Lionel Carters writing from 1960 mention 33 cards and Ted's photo of the uncut sheet has 33 cards with a 1948 copyright date and 16 with a 1949 copyright date. Is it possible that they had a two 33 card sheets set up to print and maybe even printed some and then added 16 of the cards with the 49 copyright date to each sheet.

Interesting, I will have to look into that further, it may explain a couple of things, or it may just be a coincidence. Johnny Mize and Warren Spahn were at the top of the list of players that filed suit, it was settled outside of court, and Leaf agreed to stay out of the market until 1951. The cost to license players likeness in those day was around $5, and Bowman hand contracted many, so the suit makes sense. I will look further into the copyrights, and see if it coincides with the cards that actually changed. That would be a fascinating wrinkle.

Ted-
I bought the issue and read the article. Your first hand memories of purchasing the cards in 1949 is fantastic. I am working on the company history right now and putting together the theory of where the cards were printed and if that accounts for all the variations and "non-professional" printing errors. I think hands down, the Leaf QC department was not all there, and I would attribute it to the fact that I believe the cards were printed in house. During my research of the company, looking for access to an archive, (including talking to the current CEO of Leaf, who is a great nephew once removed from Sol Leaf, or something like that), I found that Leaf Brands, as it appears on the Copyright on the back of the cards was actually formed in 1947. Sol Leaf consolidated his other candy companies into one, including Overland Candy. If that sounds familiar, they produced a candy wrapper baseball card from 1938-42. I also checked copyrights from 1948 and 1949, and Leaf is not documented as having a Copyright that coincides with the one on the back of the cards. (If there are any lawyers reading this, I would love an explanation on how/why this might be).

The Overland connection provides and interesting connection to the cards. I found a box of WHOPPERS from 1947, the stock looks VERY similar to that of the cards. So if the cards weren't printed in house, whoever was printing the packing for Leaf products, I think used the same commercial lithography presses to make the cards.

That's the quick overview of where I am at, the story is getting more and more interesting, the 2nd printing is a real thing, if you look at your cards and the hats are a different color than the rest you see out there, you have a second printing. Now the trick is to see if there was a third printing, or a second printing of the short prints. I'm far from an answer, but planning to chase down some theories this spring in Chicago. Thanks again for all of your help and opinions.

1949 LEAF issues
 

Brian

People get carried too far away with the COPYRIGHT dates. They simply tell us when the player's Biographies were created.

LEAF first produced their PIRATE set in 1948 (Pirate movies were very popular in the 1940's). I clearly remember acquiring many of these colorful cards during
the Summer of 1948.

In early Fall of 1948, LEAF issued their 50 card* set of BOXERS. This set was so popular, that LEAF continued into 1949 printing up more of these BOXER cards
in the beginning of 1949.

In the Fall of 1948, LEAF issued their FOOTBALL set of 98 cards.....in 2 series of 49 cards each.

Then in early Spring of 1949, LEAF issued their 1st series of BB cards. These cards preceded the 1949 BOWMAN cards by a month (or two) in my neighborhood.
Their 2nd series (49 cards) of cards were issued during the Summer of 1949 (in limited regions of the US).

In the Fall of 1949, LEAF issued their FOOTBALL set of 49 cards


* Note....card #50, Rocky Graziano, was removed (he did not like his image).

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...leafboxers.jpg
TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Fantastic, thank you Ted. Thank you for sharing first hand knowledge of when all the series hit. I will update my notes accordingly.

Did you ever get any of the premiums? The pirate ring or the large format cards at the bottom of the baseball boxes?

1949 LEAF cards
 

Brian

I am guessing you are a Yankees fan ?
If so, you will appreciate this...when I was growing up, our home in Hillside, NJ was just 2 short blocks away from Phil Rizzuto's home. Phil was a really
great neighbor. I could devote several pages of stories regarding him. I knew Phil for many years.


Speaking about 1949 LEAF Premiums, here are some of mine......
Check-this-out, here are 2 graded examples which confirm that PSA and SGC do NOT understand the LEAF BB cards with respect to their "issued date".
These PREMIUMS were included in the same wax-pack boxes that the 1949 cards were in. And indeed, they are correctly identified with the 1949 date.
Yet, the individual 98 (and their variations) BB cards that are graded by PSA and SGC are INCORRECTLY identified as 1948, or 1948-1949 issue dates.


NOTE ----------------v 1949 v-----------------------------------------------------------------------------v 1949 v
https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...BabeRuth25.jpg https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...uGehrig25x.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...Hcaption18.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Check out my video on the 49’ Leaf Premiums

https://youtu.be/A_AukMF8vpY

Brian, do you know when they settled outside of court, it must have been quite awhile after Bowman sought the court order.

I don't, but it is fairly short runway, the cards hit in '49 and they settled on not producing cards again until '51, so I would imagine it was a quick proceeding. Honestly, Sol Leaf had run into a copyright infringement suit on the Overland side, so a quick settlement may have been the result of not wanting to get "into it" on the east coast with Bowman and the players that brought the suit.

AMAZING collection, I am BEYOND impressed and jealous. Thank you for sharing!

Ted - the premiums are fantastic, thank you for sharing. I am a Yankee fan and grew up listening to The Scooter on WPIX with Bill White. In many ways, their banter made me as much of a Yankee fan as the players on the field. His Hall of Fame induction speech is amazing, I can't even image the stories you have from living close to him. They don't make them like that anymore!

1949 LEAF set
 

Brian

Perhaps, I will thrill you with some of my Phil Rizzuto stories when I find the time.

Regarding, the BOWMAN lawsuit.....there are two stories to it. One factor deals with the Rights of the players.

The 2nd deals with the labeling on the BOWMAN and LEAF wax-packs wrappers. I will scan my two 1949 LEAF
BB wax-pack wrappers and post them tomorrow to show you the difference.

The BOWMAN lawsuit forced LEAF to modify their wrapper labeling quite fast. The wrappers containing the 2nd
Series cards (short-prints) issued in the Summer of 1949 are different.

I will post pictures tomorrow.


TED Z[/B]

T206 Reference
.

I've been working off and on doing a spreadsheet of 49 Leaf Images.

Hardly complete, and I still find new ones.
As things are now, I'm up to at least 4 different runs, maybe as high as 6.

The obvious Pink ones. these so far always have the sides to the portraits, or the lines across the ends of bats. On some cards it can be tough to spot.

The ones with lines across the bats and portraits, but with red instead of Pink.

With lines, but shaded or dark hats

Without the lines regular hats

Without lines Shaded hats.

That's all sort of preliminary. the hat shading may not be consistent, but I think it is.

Where the background does not make a line across a bat, the yellow extends to the edge, but the black does not. On ones with the lines, the yellow often doesn't extend to the edge, but I have seen at least one where it does.

Most of the easily recognizable color differences are consistent with only one version.

I believe the yellow backgrounds Like the Johnson here are a different printing where no blue was used to mix with yellow.
https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=28086

An amazingly complex set for just 50 cards. (I think of the rare numbers as their own set. )

Great research. I feel like "we" (the collectors) need to come up with a designation for how best to characterize the print runs on these. The color variations are definite flags of different runs, as different inks were used. Then we have the actual plate changes, the recognized Peterson and Aberson variations actually extend to many more. Then there are the outliers.

My thought is that the plate changes represent a definite "variation" as there was a physical change made to the printing plate, though the rest of the card stayed the same. Those variations are measurable and not as subjective as the tints of the inks, though those tints are SUPER important in decoding how many different printing runs were made. The Rizzuto that you have shown has two changes made to it (outside of ink colors), the detail of his hat was removed making it blue, and the background red was extended to the nameplate. The only other player that I have found to get this treatment is Jackie Robinson, though the Babe Ruth card has a variation where the "background connector" is added, but the hat is untouched.

Complex is certainly the best way to characterize it, as I have gotten deeper into the research I have really started to enjoy the quirkiness of the cards, outside of their value in the hobby, but also representing a fascinating time in the game.

What I'm thinking of doing is assigning a number to the identifiable plates for each basic color. So like R1 and R2 to indicate a particular red plate as opposed to another.

But that ends up making the overall "number" for a card something like
card #3 - C1 R2 Y2 K2

Which is fine for a start but awkward, and there's no real idea which should be 1 or 2 - did the ones with the extra lines come first or second?

The pink ones - actual Magenta- would probably be something like R2P...

At least it would help group things.

Most cards with anything close to the border have diferences in that area. The lines next to portraits and across the end of bats. Hats get cut down in multiple colors, and often there are three different is the hat is cut down.
Normal hat
Hat cut down background normal
Hat and background cut down
(And probably ones with the background cut down but the hat normal.

It might be possible to limit how many intermediate types I have to look for, since the typical process is to print light to dark. So YMCK or YCMK. But I suspect Leaf didn't necessarily follow that. (Fleer star stickers in 81 were sometimes printed with the blue over the black, and T206s are known with just yellow and brown, so it's not really a hard rule.

There are a few where I haven't found a difference yet.

I'm thinking the removal of details and addition of lines happened second. A smaller run, they represent about 34-36% of the population using the Peterson and Aberson as a guide. Hermanski is an oddity, I see that more as a inking error, but the population falls in line with the percentages, and I have seen that variation in the Magenta color way, but WHY would they change it to the wrong name, makes no sense.

Still a barrel of nuts to crack on this one.

Is the only known uncut sheet the one in Ted's black and white image?

1949 LEAF cards
 

Hi Brian

This illustrates the above stated 2nd lawsuit (BOWMAN vs LEAF) regarding the use of the wording " BASEBALL BUBBLE GUM "
on the wax-pack wrapper. BOWMAN claimed they owned the Copyright for that term. So, LEAF removed the word " BASEBALL "
from their wax-pack wrapper when they issued their 2nd Series of cards in the Summer of 1949.


1949 BOWMAN ------------------------------------------ 1949 LEAF 1st Series -------------------------- 1949 LEAF 2nd Series
https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...MANwrapper.jpghttps://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...x2nd%20_3_.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Isn't the last wrapper a football wrapper?

Interesting thread on an interesting set.

When I read the title I originally thought "what a great college course!".

1949 Leaf Theory - 3 Credits - Spring Semester

It’s the only one I’ve come across.

Agreed! I’ve been in full study mode this entire semester!

1949 LEAF cards
 

The wax-pack wrappers of Al Rosen's unopened find of 1949 LEAF Baseball (2nd Series, 596-cards) find, in Tampa (Florida) in 1989 were labelled "ALL
STAR Pictures".

Incidentally....Although these cards were acquired in Florida, the original provenance of this collection was the Detroit area in Michigan.
This fact sounds like another Florida acquisition that has been debated on Net54, whose provenance was originally in the northern U.S.

The Football wrappers were labelled ALL-STAR FOOTBALL in 1948. In 1949, it is my understanding that they may have been labelled " FOOTBALL ",
or " PICTURES ".


In the Fall of 1948, LEAF issued their ALL-STAR FOOTBALL GUM set comprising of 98 cards. Issued in two 49-card series. Jackie Jensen's rookie card
is in the tougher Hi # series. A great FB and BB athlete, Jackie decided in favor of Baseball when he signed with the Oakland Oaks PCL team in 1949.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ieJensen25.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...eJensen25b.jpg



ALL-STAR FOOTBALL GUM issued in 1949 (49 cards).
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...nyLujack25.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...yLujack25b.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

We are still eagerly awaiting that evidence from your research that the T206 ‘sheet’ was discovered in New York, not Florida, since you’re bringing it up.

Speaking of the uncut sheet, if it is real, it confirms the wholesale changes that were made to update the cards. The only one that is a little bit of a head scratcher is the population of the Aberson sleeve variations.

In the image, it shows the 3 "accepted" variations:
Aberson - Short Sleeve PSA/SGC Pop: 95/29 - 124 total
Peterson - Dark Cap PSA/SGC Pop: 144/16 - 160 total
Hermanski* - Full Name PSA/SGC Pop: 231/97 - 328 total

The Variation populations on these:
Aberson - Long Sleeve PSA/SGC Pop: 154/24 - 178 total
Peterson - Red Cap PSA/SGC Pop: 86/24 - 110 total
Hermansk* - Missing I PSA/SGC Pop: 97/4 - 101 total

In theory the total number of Aberson short sleeve cards should be higher than the long sleeve, but from the looks of it, older grades did not delineate between the two versions for both grading houses. I put the * on Hermanski as it really falls into the category of "inking error" to me. If the numbers tell the story, there is a slightly smaller population of the second printing, but if you search the bigger cards, the variations seem to be much more rare than 30%. On a quick visual search of Heritage past sales, 156 Jackie Robinson's sold (not accounting for doubles) only 17 are from the second printing (no hat detail, color bar connecting background to name plate). That to me shows rarity in variation.

The research continues.

1949 LEAF set
 

Brian
Excuse me for correcting you.....but the Aberson (Short-Sleeve) version is the variation. The long sleeve-version was printed in the initial press runs.

I recall having several Long-Sleeve versions in my collection when I recovered my 1949 LEAF cards in 1977. No Short-Sleeve Aberson's were in 100's
of 1949 LEAF cards.

Furthermore, no Peterson with the Red Cap in my original 1949 LEAF collection.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

The population would back that up, but the sheet image does not as the short sleeve version is shown with the original run. All part of the puzzle I guess!

1949 LEAF set
 

Brian

I'm assuming you are referring to my photo of the 1st Series sheet I posted in Post #6 (earlier in this thread).

If so, that 49-card sheet is a 2nd printing version. It was on display in the 1988 National Show in Atlantic City.
If I recall correctly, the Kent Peterson card on this sheet has a Red Cap.
And the Hermanski card is spelled correctly.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...eries1x50x.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------^ Hermanski ^


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ries1x50xN.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

The mystery deepens. If only it was in color, it would answer a lot of questions. Maybe the Aberson was corrected in the 2nd printings, and the hats were all changed in the 3rd printing. to my eye the Peterson looks black, but for certain, all the rest of the cap colors that would change in the final printing, are all still black in that image.

There are several facts that show that the third wrapper is a Leaf football Wrapper and not a baseball wrapper.

1. I don't think the wording on the Leaf Wrapper was an issue with bowman it wasn't even mentioned in the article I posted about the court hearing.

2. Even if it was an issue I don't think they could have done anything about it based on the court information from when Bowman sued Topps.
But the term "baseball" is not subject to monopolistic appropriation by the plaintiff. The term is generic and descriptive; nor is there any proof that as used by the plaintiff it acquired secondary significance as indicating the source or origin of the gum sold. Nor is there any secondary significance arising from the designation of the product in connection with the name of any famous player. The case might be different if the plaintiffs were selling a product under the designation of some one name. Such use might readily build up good will, and an invasion on the part of one not privileged to use the name would be subject to restraint. In the circumstances of this case though, we have no such situation. On the contrary, the facts and applicable law fall readily within such authorities as Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111, 59 S. Ct. 109, 113, 83 L. Ed. 73, in which it was held that *948 "Shredded Wheat" was a generic term, not subject to exclusive appropriation by the original maker of the product. The court said:

3. The wrappers in the 2nd series Rosen find say "All Star Baseball Bubble Gum"
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...e/large/0a.jpg[/IMG]
https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=44356


and an August 18 1949 ad about packages of Leaf Baseball cards that they were giving out specifically states "a package of Baseball Bubble Gum".

Attachment 544820


This older thread that no longer has the images has a discussion on the 1949 football packs https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...highlight=Leaf

1949 LEAF set
 

Brian

There ain't no "mystery"......these 1949 LEAF cards were available in our neighborhood in NJ as early as March 1949. Us kids went from collecting the LEAF Boxing cards
right into the LEAF Baseball cards. And I was fortunate, my Mom and Aunt stored my entire Sportscard collection in our attic, while I was in the Air Force for 4 years. So,
when I started collecting again in '77, my huge collection provided me a certain provenance to determine what was issued (and when). Furthermore, over the years I've
compared notes with other old-timers (like me), and we agree.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I found a scrapbook at a tag sale earlier this year with some 49 Leaf premiums inside of it. Soaked them out easy peasy. 5 minute bath and they floated right off the page.

Ted, not questioning your experience, provenance or otherwise, I think it is vital to composing the "full story", I am just trying to crack the code of why and when the changes were made to the cards. The pictures, population reports and anecdotes are all we have to go off of, so there is still some mystery to the 1949 Leaf set.

I'm heading to Chicago this spring to check out items from the Leaf estate, hopefully this will help to round out the story starting where they were produced in Chicago. I hope that I will be able to connect what I find there with your reporting and somewhere in between we can get a clearer picture of how they rolled off the presses and if it was the lackluster sales or a new art director that lead to the changes that were made.

No mystery in your stories, those are solid, but there are still some things left to figure out about this set/brand.

Thanks again for all the replies!

What a find!! They are fantastic! Through looking at other Leaf products, these resemble the Spearmint gum ads that ran at that time as well. Thanks for sharing.