1962 Salada Coins

[JCRedbird]

Needing some help understanding the Salada checklist. I know the first issue was 180 coins and then expanded to 200 with the entry of the Mets and 45s. Each team had 10 coins but I believe only 13 of the 20 were new players (8 Houston and 5 Mets). I’ve read that 21 players were added with the new issue and 21 were dropped from the original 180. Finally my understanding is there are 221 different players excluding team changes, variations, etc. Somebody help me. I can’t make this math work. Anyone have a list of the players that were dropped and those added?

[UKCardGuy]

Hi Richard,

There were 180 coins initially released. They added 20 for the 2 new expansion teams. They also took the opportunity to correct 21 errors in the first release.

So 180 original + 20 for the expansion teams + 21 for the correction= 221

[JCRedbird]

Thanks, and perhaps the checklist I’ve been using is wrong. But the 20 players added were not all new to the checklist. For instance #123a Zimmer was in the original 180 as a Cub and was then shown (123b) as one of the 10 Mets in the 200 edition. I believe only 13 of the 20 players comprising the Mets and 45s checklists are “new” players. Only 5 Mets are “new” and 8 45s are “new”. Several articles I’ve read have said 21 players were dropped from the original 180 issue and 21 new (different) players were added for the 200 edition. But to bring the total number of different players to 221, then 28 new players would have to be added. What am I missing?

[Cliff Bowman]

Interesting subject, I know on the Cubs the original print run had Ed Bouchee, Richie Ashburn, Don Zimmer, Ernie Banks as an outfielder, and Andre Rodgers as a shortstop, on the next print run Bouchee, Ashburn, and Zimmer were discontinued as Cubs and replaced by Jim McKnight, Bob Will, and Billy Williams, the Banks was changed to shortstop and the Rodgers was changed to first base to keep a player at every position for the plastic shield that held the coins, I presume.

[bobsbbcards]

Here’s the checklist from Keyman Collectibles:

http://keymancollectibles.com/miscel...nschecklis.htm

[UKCardGuy]

I probably should have been clearer in my original post. I believe there are more than 221 coins if you include the variations/errors. I was only explaining how the expansion teams and the updates got from 180 to the total of 221 the op was mentioning.

My checklist for the 1962 Salada includes 269 coins (with all the variations) which is 5 more than Keyman Collectibles. These are the 5 not in the Keyman Collectibles list:

• 64b Bobby Richardson (Black Disc)
• 64c Bobby Richardson (Red Disc)
• 64d Bobby Richardson (White Disc)
• 126b Joe Jay (Brown Sleeves)
• 192b John DeMerit (no glove)

This thread has some great info. https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=281441

If Whiteymet sees this thread, I'm sure he can provide more clarity.

[GasHouseGang]

Every thread needs some pictures. Here's a 1962 Salada presentation set that was recently sold.

[cubman1941]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I probably should have been clearer in my original post. I believe there are more than 221 coins if you include the variations/errors. I was only explaining how the expansion teams and the updates got from 180 to the total of 221 the op was mentioning.

My checklist for the 1962 Salada includes 269 coins (with all the variations) which is 5 more than Keyman Collectibles. These are the 5 not in the Keyman Collectibles list:

• 64b Bobby Richardson (Black Disc)
• 64c Bobby Richardson (Red Disc)
• 64d Bobby Richardson (White Disc)
• 126b Joe Jay (Brown Sleeves)
• 192b John DeMerit (no glove)

This thread has some great info. https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=281441

If Whiteymet sees this thread, I'm sure he can provide more clarity.

I believe I have one more for your list - 207 Billy Williams was done in both red and blue disc's.

[Cliff Bowman]

It wasn't uncommon for these to be put in the wrong color plastic holder during production and on top of that anyone could remove a player disc and put it in any color plastic holder right now if they wanted to.

[cubman1941]

Rog that. Looking at the Presentation Box the Cubs should only be Red. In addition then, the Bobby Richardson's are not varations. Thanks.

[JCRedbird]

Thanks. I had seen that thread which really prompted my question. Sources always refer to the 21 coins dropped and the 21 new coins added. Likewise there’s agreement that there are 221 different players in the checklist disregarding variations, team, changes, poses etc. But since players such as Zimmer who is on the Mets checklist in the 200-coin edition is not “new”since he is shown as a Cub in the 180-coin issue, so he doesn’t add to the different player count. In addition to Zimmer, 4 other Mets players are in the 180 set as are 2 of the Houston players. So 7 players represented on the 2 expansion teams are not “new” players. So…..to get to 221 different players seems like 28 “new” players (not including Mets or Colt45s) had to be added. At the end of the day, the checklist of 221 different players is straightforward but it would be interesting to know which 21 players were dropped when the second edition was produced.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by JCRedbird

(I)t would be interesting to know which 21 players were dropped when the second edition was produced.

I could do it team by team but I don't know if anyone wants 18 more posts on this thread, but I did the White Sox and came up with this: the original 10 position players for the plastic shield were Sievers 1B, Fox 2B, Aparicio SS, Carey 3B, Lollar C, A Smith OF, Minoso OF, Landis OF, Pierce P, Wynn P. When the lineup was updated in the 2nd printing Buzhardt replaced Pierce at Pitcher, C Smith replaced Carey at 3rd Base, Cunningham replaced Sievers at 1st Base, and Fl Robinson replaced Minoso at Outfield, so Pierce and Sievers were removed from the set, and Minoso and Carey changed teams. So that means Richie Ashburn, Ed Bouchee, Billy Pierce, and Roy Sievers are four of the players removed from the set after the first printing, I would have to do it team by team to figure out the other players who were removed completely after the first printing.

[Cliff Bowman]

I did five more teams, the Dodgers, Angels, Pirates, Phillies, and Red Sox, and the Red Sox are the only one of those teams that had players removed after the first printing, a 1st Baseman (Vic Wertz), an outfielder (Jackie Jensen, I think), and a pitcher (Tom Brewer, I think). The Pirates didn't have a single player changed throughout all of the printings. That makes seven players removed after the first printing so far.

[whiteymet]

Hi Gang:

As Jim said above you can read a lot about the 62 Salada coins in the link he posted to an earlier conversation here on Net 54..I am advanced Salada collector going all the way back to 1962 when I was 12 and buying Salada tea and Junket custard to get the coins. All my extended family also saved the coins for me.

To start off I'll try to answer the OP Richard about the numbers. I say I'll TRY because it gets very complicated and will depend on what each collector will want to chase.

Richard asked what the 21 coins were that were dropped. they are #'s 2, 4, 6, 11, 18, 26, 30, 60, 66, 70, 73, 79, 84, 89, 104, 116, 121, 148, 162, 171 and 179. These are the 21 Short Prints.

I have copies of company records where for example one internal "memo" dated January 18, 1962 notes " I am enclosing four more photos of baseball players for substitution in the second run, namely

Howie Bedell 217 OF Mil. Braves Replacing Gino CimoliBob Will 218 OF Chicago Cubs Replacing Richie Ashburn Dallas Green 219 P Phila. Phillies Replacing John BuzhardtCarroll Hardy 220 OF Boston Red Sox Replacing Jackie Jensen

On the top of the memo is handwritten Change#9 Second Run

A good checklist is in the SCD Standard Catalog. If you read the description it says there are 221 different players but when you include variations there are 265 coins. These variations are the red and white buttons on Angels and others, Team changes after trades like Minoso with the Cardinals and White Sox, players changing teams due to expansion Hodges with the Dodgers and Mets etc. However if you count those listed in the catalog and my count is correct you will see 268! I believe this is because of three "new" variations I found in the early 2000's after 40 some years from when the coins were issued and reported them to Bob Lemke who was doing the update of the catalog in SCD. When they printed the later editions of the Standard Catalog they used the old wording but added the three coins to the checklist without changing the 265 number.

The three new variations were 9 Lemon, "Jim" at center of ear, 46 Duren red buttons name far from ear, and 113 Bailey "C" level with ear.

To further complicate the matter if you continue to read the description in the SCD Catalog you will read the following:

" Many of the players in the 180 series can be found with variations in the placement of the front typography relative to the colored portrait. Though these variations seem to affect a tiny percentage of some players' 180 coins, they are in most cases too difficult to distinguish except by direct comparison between specimens and are of interest only to the most dedicated Salada collectors".

What is unsaid, is that the noted three "rarest" coins, 48 Williams name on right 53 Brandt Orioles. and 113 Bailey "C" level with ear are ALL part of this early printing group as are the Lemon and Duren noted above. And there are MORE! So even that 268 number is incorrect.

As noted in the SCD description above some of the early prints also include different placement on the front typography. For instance, the 53 Brandt Orioles beside having the "s" in Orioles his name and position is also moved farther from his face than on the common coin.

Two of the early print coins that are much easier to see than just moving the name and position is the Cunningham with the Cardinals with his name above his ear or even with his ear. And Killebrew with his name and position on a different angle. I have only seen two of these in all my years

Over the years after looking at tens of thousands of these coins I have been able to identify some 30 other early prints not checklisted.

Should I continue??? There are also a VERY SMALL number of coins issued with what are called Clip On Backs where the plastic shell has a clip back. Mostly Red Sox are seen with this clip back but a few Phillies and Tigers have been seen as well. Seems all are dark blue shells, but one lt blue shell has been seen.

Then there are "variations like the Geiger "O" on cap and Heist with a "necklace"!!

Below you will see some examples of those and others I have noted above. I hope this helps, but I assume I have only confused you more.

[JCRedbird]

Thanks a lot! This list of short prints was a home run! I appreciate everyone's help.

[Nokegchris]

I have a question perhaps someone can answer. I understand the 180 vs 200 backs and how they came about. My question is for the coins 1 - 180 is the 180 or 200 back more rare? I put together a set off eBay and at the end of the day only ended up with 5 coins that were 180 backs. While some people list the back type on the listing .... there does not seem to be a price difference.... but If I only randomly got 5 180 backs out of 264 purchased it would seem to indicate the 180's are rarer. It looks like both versions of many of the variations were produced with both backs which is interesting. For example I have a Zimmer Cub and Met variation both with 200 backs .... so even when they added the expansion teams and changed the backs to declare the new 200 total they continued to make the Cub version with the new 200 back even though they added the Met version with the 200 back. Given the nature of collecting one would think both versions of the first 180 coins would be listed and the lower "print version" would have a premium attached. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Anyone have info on this??

[Cliff Bowman]

The 180 backs are definitely rarer than the 200 backs, there is no disputing that. I remember years ago I saw a Houston player with a 180 back on eBay which should technically be impossible, either they used a leftover 180 back at the factory or someone switched the player disc into the 180 back coin later on, it was probably the former.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Nokegchris

I have a question perhaps someone can answer. I understand the 180 vs 200 backs and how they came about. My question is for the coins 1 - 180 is the 180 or 200 back more rare? I put together a set off eBay and at the end of the day only ended up with 5 coins that were 180 backs. While some people list the back type on the listing .... there does not seem to be a price difference.... but If I only randomly got 5 180 backs out of 264 purchased it would seem to indicate the 180's are rarer. It looks like both versions of many of the variations were produced with both backs which is interesting. For example I have a Zimmer Cub and Met variation both with 200 backs .... so even when they added the expansion teams and changed the backs to declare the new 200 total they continued to make the Cub version with the new 200 back even though they added the Met version with the 200 back. Given the nature of collecting one would think both versions of the first 180 coins would be listed and the lower "print version" would have a premium attached. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Anyone have info on this??

Chris:

As Cliff said the 180 shells are most definitely rarer than the 200 shells. It all has to do with the timing of when Salada converted over from the 180's to the 200 shells. I MAY have that info in my company records which I can not access currently. However, there are many more 200 backs that were produced/issued.

As for your Zimmer question above, again it is a matter of timing, as well as you have to remember the coins were printed someplace and the plastic shells somewhere else. It is moat likely that they could have had for example 5000 sheets printed with the Zimmer, Hodges Dodgers, Neal Dodgers etc. when they first got in the "new" 200 shells. So they would have just inserted the coins from these "old" 5000 sheets into the new 200 back shells once they ran out of the 180 back shells.

The Zimmer with the Cubs was issued first in the 180 shell, then at some point it was decided to go to the 200 back. Most likely once the Mets and Colts expansion teams were announced, but before any artwork could be changed from the Cubs to the Mets as they later did. In my eyes because of this the Cubs Zimmer is much tougher to find than the Mets for the simple reason the Mets coin was in production for a longer period of time. And again as Cliff noted you won't find a Zimmer Mets in a 180 shell unless someone switched them out.

As I think I mentioned in my earlier post I have internal records saying to drop for example Ashburn for Bob Will. This had a date on it say Feb 14, 1962. A new batch of printing of the coins could have been ordered 3/1 with the Ashburn being dropped and Will added along with the the other changes. These dates are just pulled out of the air by me.

Hope this convoluted information makes sense to you. Short answer 180 back coins are rarer in number, but most people collecting the set do not care which back their coins have.

Here are photos of an original sheet and an original sheet with the 21 changes. The Colts and Mets were printed on their own sheets.

Just two mentions for a quick reference to tell the difference between the two sheets. Bottom row shows the Giants. On the first sheet fourth in from the left you see Harvey Kueen. and the row above Cardinals first on left is Cunningham. On the second sheet these two have been replaced by Pagan and Minoso respectively. You should be able to see the other changes on the two sheets

[Nokegchris]

Great info and thanks so much for the response!! Yeah I can see on the two sheets the Zimmer is gone on the second sheet. I wonder how tough it would be to build a set of 180 backs on the first 180 coins. I assume that many of the rare variations were on the first printing but also did not exist throughout the first printing (as you indicated they occurred during a test/proof run). Best to you and thanks again!!

[Nokegchris]

So I'm working on building a 180 back set ..... continuing on with the conversation above. Interestingly I found both versions of the Early Wynn coin with a 180 back. Do you think this was switched or produced that way? Also I assume all the variations not caused by the expansion draft were only produced with one back style .... like the red button vs white button, the name variation, the Oriole vs Orioles etc .... or do you think some were produced with both backs?? Also are these variations also found in the Canadian coins??? Kind of an interesting group of coins with not a lot of easily available info. I guess with "oddball" sets it runs under the radar!!!

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Nokegchris

So I'm working on building a 180 back set ..... continuing on with the conversation above. Interestingly I found both versions of the Early Wynn coin with a 180 back. Do you think this was switched or produced that way? Also I assume all the variations not caused by the expansion draft were only produced with one back style .... like the red button vs white button, the name variation, the Oriole vs Orioles etc .... or do you think some were produced with both backs?? Also are these variations also found in the Canadian coins??? Kind of an interesting group of coins with not a lot of easily available info. I guess with "oddball" sets it runs under the radar!!!

I'm pretty sure the 1962 Sherriff Canadian issue has zero variations, but anyone could put any player disc into any empty 1962 Sherriff coin and make their own 'variation'.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Nokegchris

So I'm working on building a 180 back set ..... continuing on with the conversation above. Interestingly I found both versions of the Early Wynn coin with a 180 back. Do you think this was switched or produced that way? Also I assume all the variations not caused by the expansion draft were only produced with one back style .... like the red button vs white button, the name variation, the Oriole vs Orioles etc .... or do you think some were produced with both backs?? Also are these variations also found in the Canadian coins??? Kind of an interesting group of coins with not a lot of easily available info. I guess with "oddball" sets it runs under the radar!!!

The original 21 dropped coins were available in both 180 and 200 backs. As you noted the 21 coins that took their place only come in 200 backs.

The rare coins Williams name on right, Brandt OrioleS, Bailey C level with ear and others that are all part of the early test printing only come in 180 backs.

As Cliff noted there are no variations in the Shirriff set and you will find none of the dropped 21 coins in that set.

The red buttons/white buttons gets a little confusing. The early test prints with 180 backs of those where there are variations have red buttons only. But you can find later printings of red and white buttons in 200 backs.

However the 180 back set has all red buttons and the Shirriff set has all white buttons.

Got it?

[Nokegchris]

Great info and thanks so much!!!
What do you think about the two different poses of Early Wynn coins I got both with the 180 back. Produced that way or switched by someone at some point???

[toppcat]

I will add that you can mix and match the paper inserts in shells at will.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Nokegchris

Great info and thanks so much!!!
What do you think about the two different poses of Early Wynn coins I got both with the 180 back. Produced that way or switched by someone at some point???

The Wynn with hands over his head was produced first as you can see in the sheet above with the dropped 21 coins. And the Wynn portrait is on the later sheet.

That being said since we don't know when Salada switched over from the hands over head to the portrait I guess it is possible that both Wynn could have been issued in 180 shells. However if the switch came when Salada was still producing 180 shells you would expect the hands over the head to be much scarcer than the portrait. I have not found that to be the case.

The flip side is can you find both versions in 200 shells. I believe you can which leads me to think the portrait you have in a 180 shell was most likely "flipped" as Dave notes above