1951 Wheaties Premiums

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

I have way too much money into these cards for them to be from any year other than 1955. So, we can we just all agree that they are 1951 issues?

Chris

I assume your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek when you said the above?

Money should have nothing to do with the truth. We should go where the evidence leads.

What is your take on what I have laid out?

Fred

[Bestdj777]

Fred,

I agree that it would be great to know more about the set even if it weren't from 1951. Although, it would obviously hurt the value if there were conclusive proof. As for what you've laid out so far, I think it is interesting but do not believe it really demonstrates anything about the actual age of the Wheaties product. There could just as easily be a mistake on the archive, etc., or it could not be a first edition photo (or whatever the photograph collectors call them)

To really figure things out, I think we would need an expert on uniforms to weigh in and determine if it is actual possible that these are 1951 uniforms for these players. I honestly just don't know enough about them myself to make a call.

And, Chris, not a chance At least not yet.

[whiteymet]

Chris:

I am NOT a photo collector or expert.

However I did a Google search for 1951 Mantle photos and the first ones shown in both home and away uniforms ALL show the patch I referenced on the left sleeve.

See: https://www.google.com/search?q=1951...&bih=549&dpr=1

Granted, the photo used in the 51 Wheaties is there as well as are many others that are obviously post 1951.

Fred

[Bestdj777]

I took a look. Most do have the patch. On the 51 Bowman cards, there are not patches on either jersey though.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

I took a look. Most do have the patch. On the 51 Bowman cards, there are not patches on either jersey though.

Chris:

True that. But the original photo used for the 51 Bowman was taken in spring training.

See:http://www.1951bowmanbaseballcards.c...am%20Photo.htm

Above has photo AND a video from the same park where the photo was taken.

Teams used last years uniforms in spring traing and unveiled new ones once the season began.

The photo used in the 51 Wheaties set was obviously taken in a big league park. So, it seems the photo was taken at a big league park, but NOT in 1951.

So how could Wheaties have printed it in 1951? And again back to my original question, WHY would they have included him in a 1951 set when he was just a rookie with rather pedestrian stats?

Fred

[Bestdj777]

I don't know why they included Mantle. My understanding is that there were big expectations for him coming in to his rookie year. If you compare a few of the cards from the 51 set with the 52 Wheaties set, you'll see the same photos were used, particularly Feller, Musial, and Campanella.

I also came across three other athletes that were included in the set: Ben Hogan (I), Jack Kramer (H), and Bob Cousy (no letter identified):

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...Uncatalogued-P

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

I don't know why they included Mantle. My understanding is that there were big expectations for him coming in to his rookie year. If you compare a few of the cards from the 51 set with the 52 Wheaties set, you'll see the same photos were used, particularly Feller, Musial, and Campanella.

I also came across three other athletes that were included in the set: Ben Hogan (I), Jack Kramer (H), and Bob Cousy (no letter identified):

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...Uncatalogued-P

Chris:

Just because some of the same photos were used for this purported 1951 set for the 1952 set means nothing. Turn it around. MAYBE the same photos from the 52 set were used for this set that may have been issued in 1954 or so. It can work both ways.

With the info you provided on the three non baseball players, I did some research on all those issued.

You mentioned you had not studied Mantle's stats for '51. I had listed them before, but let's look at his stats for 51 and later years:

Mantle in 1951 played in 96 games hit .267 w/ 13 HR's and 65 RBI's why put him in the set with other established stars?
1953 21 HR's ad 92 RBI's so so stats but I could them including him
1954 27 HR's and 102 RBI's
1955 EVEN BETTER 37 HR's and 99 RBI's

Ashburn led the league in hits both 1951 and 53 but won the batting title in 55 Toss up in my eyes

Berra won MVP in 51, 54 and 55 so he is no help in determining the year!

Musial was Musial great all through the 50's All Star every year

Campy: Like Berra won MVP in both 51 and 54 but led league in RBI's in 53

In my eyes all of the above would be candidates for either a 51 set or later.

However, The Indians clinch it for me:

The Indians had just been in the 1954 World Series and had the best record in all of baseball winning 111 games they finished third in 1951.

Bob Lemon had his best year in 1954 going 23 - 7 with a 2.72 era

Feller had a much better season in 1951 than 1954 or 55 But is a big name

Rosen was MVP in 53

The World Series and the fact that Lemon and Rosen are included leads me to place the set to 1954/55.

Now on to the non baseball:

Hogan: According to Wikipedia:

The "Hogan Slam" season

The win at Carnoustie was but a part of Hogan's watershed 1953 season, in which he won five of the six tournaments he entered and including three major championships (a feat known as the "Hogan Slam").

It still stands among the greatest single seasons in the history of professional golf. Hogan, 40, was unable to enter — and possibly win — the 1953 PGA Championship (to complete the Grand Slam) because its play (July 1–7) overlapped the play of the British Open at Carnoustie (July 6–10), which he won. It was the only time that a golfer had won three major professional championships in a year until Tiger Woods won the final three majors in 2000 (and the first in 2001).

Cousy Most Valuable Player of the 1954 NBA All-Star Game.

Kramer: Again according to Wikipedia:

He won NO tournaments after 1949 But RETIRED in 1954

So in retrospect Hogan had his best year(s), Cousey MVP of All Star Game and Kramer retired all in the 1954 time frame and not much if anything happened to them in 1951. The Indians winning in 1954 and not 1951 thus no reason to include them in a 1951 set is just more "proof" in my eyes that this is NOT a 1951 set.

With all that said, to me the inclusion of Mantle at all is the most damning evidence for this not to be a 51 set, especially with the arm patch missing. The rest is just inconclusive or pointing in the direction of a later issue.

I posted a question to those photo collectors in the memorabilia section to see if any of them had a Type 1 of the shot where they could definitively date it. No answers yet.

I am REALLY making a much bigger deal out of this than is probably needed, but things that do not make sense to me, bugs me! And for many years this has bugged me, so it is all coming to a head with all this reserach and conjecture.

Basically as stated I see NO REASON why a national company with a long history of using sports figures on their products would include an untested rookie in a set before he proves he is "worthy". So I can not see this being a 1951 issue.

Fred