Quote:
Originally Posted by boneheadandrube
Yeah, its not artistically sophisticated like D304 (1911-1914).
It could be that some of the reasons people don't like it are why it was never produced. Many of these crude(ish) period sets that came with different advertising backs (E92,E101,E102, E104/D359 Etc) probably started out as a printing company trying to sell time on their machines.
They send out sales people with prototypes or samples and see if you can get businesses to either buy the cards you created with just blank backs or you can add their business name for a price. Thats the formula that Felix Mendelsohn (sp?) used for all the 1916-1917 sets at least. Maybe this one never got off the cutting room floor but someone kept the prototype sample.
It could also explain why there are stars included in the player selection, easier to sell to a potential customer? Might be easier to find source photo's of stars as well...just spitballing ideas here instead of the easy "Nah, doesn't look right to me" parroting.
|
Brunners may have been ugly, but still had a more layered print process than this.i also did not say it wasn’t real, I said I would not be comfortable on faith and no supporting evidence as to period. Did you read it?
Are you personally involved with this item? With 400 posts in 14 years and 6 just on this thread it’s a little odd.
__________________
- Justin D.
Player collecting - Lance Parrish, Jim Davenport, John Norlander.
Successful B/S/T with - Highstep74, Northviewcats, pencil1974, T2069bk, tjenkins, wilkiebaby11, baez578, Bocabirdman, maddux31, Leon, Just-Collect, bigfish, quinnsryche...and a whole bunch more, I stopped keeping track, lol.
|