Quote:
Originally Posted by todeen
The 1940 Reds b/w set (Harry Hartman set) can routinely be found in boxed set form, with box. I would agree this was likely sold at or near the stadium.
But I have never seen a box for the 1938 set. I have never seen a complete set. This leads me to believe it is not connected with the team, the dairy connection seems more likely. Although I don't know why there is no advertisement.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
|
Interesting factor. Can also see how with the years of distribution for these three different sets/types being all together (1938, 1939 and 1940), along with their limited distribution area, only including Cincinnati Reds players, and relative scarcity overall, it makes it somewhat easy to believe that the definitively known manufacturer and distribution method for any one of those years would readily be considered the same for all three sets/types. Even if that isn't accurate.
Still, even without evidence of of a box ever being used to distribute the 1938 set/type in, the fact that the 1938 and 1939 cards are virtually the same would only support the thinking that they were produced by the same manufacturer, and therefore more likely to have been distributed in a like manner over both years. I don't know any of the distribution details myself, but you specifically mentioned not knowing of any boxes existing for just the 1938 Type 1 cards. So does that mean that there are known and existing boxes for the 1939 and 1940 sets? And if so, and never having seen one of these boxes myself, how can you tell for certain that a box used for the 1939 set could not have been used for the 1938 set? (The 1940 cards were a different size, so the box for that set clearly would not have also been used for the 1938 and 1939 sets.) And isn't it also possible that even if no box was ever used to sell a 1938 set in that for that initial year they could have used envelopes instead to sell the sets in? I know, then why are there no existing envelopes? But if they did use envelopes, they could have been unmarked and have no specific way to identify and tie them to the 1938 set then. Also, a box from back then would have a much better chance of surviving till today than a much more fragile envelope. And these cards are already scarce so the number of boxes or envelopes originally sold wouldn't have been that great to start with, further decreasing the odds of examples of either still surviving till today. Or maybe that first year they only sold the cards individually, or possibly just handed them out for a while as a free giveaway at the ballpark. All good questions I think.
Regardless, any of these theories seem a lot more plausible than the one having the French Bauer Dairy beginning production of these cards in 1938 and then distributing them, probably one at a time, with their weekly milk deliveries. And then in the following year (1939), having the Cincinnati Reds team take over the production of these cards and continue producing them using the exact same design and player images for the most part, but now selling them as a box set. Something doesn't add up. I know there is that article that you posted, that came from Chris Gamble, saying the 1938 cards were in fact made and distributed weekly by the French Bauer Dairy, but where did that item come from? I went back and reread what you had initially said about Chris' posting, and noted you originally referred to it as an "advertisement". So I immediately assumed it was likely something from a credible, contemporary source, like a local newspaper or magazine. But then looked again at the item Chris had posted, and it is most clearly not an advertisement talking about the French Bauer Dairy now giving out cards of Reds players to hopefully get more people to sign up for their weekly milk deliveries. It actually reads more like a card issue description you'd see in the SCD catalog, or an article written in some more modern card publication by a writer explaining what they thought the origins of this set were. Do you have any more info on where (and when) this article came from, and who the author is? That would certainly help to possibly add a lot more credibility and veracity to what is being said about the 1938 set in it. And since it also seems pretty obvious that article was written sometime long after 1938, why no mention in it of the 1939 set and if that shouldn't also be primarily attributed to the French Bauer Dairy as well?
The similarity of the 1938 and 1939 W711 sets definitely ties their production together, and coupled with no direct mention of French Bauer Dairy on the cards themselves or in any other contemporary advertising that anyone is currently aware of, it seems most likely the Reds team would have been the primary party responsible for their production and distribution. However, it is also still possible that some of those 1938 cards were given away by the French Bauer Dairy, perhaps in conjunction with some kind of agreement or advertising partnership they may have had with the Reds team. But again, with no other surviving examples of ads, articles or other evidence from aroung 1938 mentioning the Dairy's involvement in such a promotion, it seems less likely to have been the case that the French Bauer Dairy was the principal distributor of these 1938 W711 cards, let alone their original producer.
And lastly, there is the description given for the 1938 W711 set in the old SCD catalogs. The catalogs were (and still are) widely known and owned by serious collectors throughout the hobby, and generally regarded as one of, if not the most, accurate and comprehensive reference source for vintage cards and sets ever published. The fact that over all the years the SCD catalogs were published showing the 1938 W711 cards were from a team issued set, and no one apparently ever came forward with this alternative origin for these cards actually being produced by the French Bauer Dairy, is extremely telling in my opinion. For had this alternate origin for the 1938 cards been put forward by anyone to the SCD catalog staff, and sufficient evidence or proof of it being true provided, I feel fairly confident that SCD would have revised and corrected the set's description in their catalogs, or at least included a mention of it as a possible alternative. Bottom line is, I can't believe no one wouldn't have told this to Bob Lemke, or his successors, and doubt this would have only now been found out, after the SCD catalog stopped being published.