View Single Post
  #15  
Old 03-06-2022, 06:05 PM
VintageHoarder VintageHoarder is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post
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.

Last edited by VintageHoarder; 03-06-2022 at 06:07 PM.
Reply With Quote