I Prefer My Cracker Jacks Stained

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by CrackaJackKid

The 1914s were only obtainable by buying a box of cracker jacks. The 1915s were also inside the boxes but yet if you sent in 100 coupons or 1 coupon and 25 cents they would send you the entire set. So lots of 1915s are caramel stain free.

Perfect! I know '14s are right side up, and '15s are upside down, but are the checklists the same?

[CrackaJackKid]

Negative.
1914-144 players
1915-176 players
With some interchanging between the sets of some players not reappearing in 1915.

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Perfect! I know '14s are right side up, and '15s are upside down, but are the checklists the same?

1914 had 144 Players with a few guys exclusive to the set like Chance, Cashion, and couple others, plus Mathewson image different.

1915 had 176 Players. Most of same players as 14' with a few changes and additional high number cards, different Pratt and Mathewson images.

[CW]

Great thread! Your Cobb is amazing, Orlando! I also got a kick out of crackajackkid's "6 thousandths of an inch" trivia answer.

Back in 2007, at the DHL All-Star Fanfest for the MLB All-Star Game, Hunt Auctions held a live auction which featured a group of unstained 1914 Cracker Jack cards. It featured no less than 10(!) Cobbs, all with the same printing "defect": a small smudge in the red background over the word "Cracker".

Dean H. here on Net54 sent me the scans from the catalog years ago, so thanks to him for preserving the details of this amazing auction (the pricing notations are his. Ah, if only to have a time machine!).

Many of the cards were graded by SGC, and the intro paragraph to the auction lot mentioned that the cards came from the estate of someone in the printing business. Who knows the true story behind these cards. Perhaps similar to the cards from the Black Swamp find, it's possible that these cards were snuck out the back door at the printing company. Maybe not every 1914 Cracker Jack card saw the inside of a CJ box, and maybe not every unstained 1914 CJ is altered. For full disclosure, I am biased here since I own one of the cards which originated from this auction.

Here are some of the scans from the catalog, with the last shot being a composite photo I made up featuring all 10 Cobb cards.

[CW]

And a couple from the personal collection. The Tinker is primarily unstained, except for a caramel smudge by his top button.

[rainier2004]

Alright Chuck, you got me. Using the word every is dangerous...

So there is the complete set of 1914s that were cut and never saw the inside of the box, past that it all becomes debatable at best. Cobb was the stud of the day and it would make sense that someone got that pile out of the backdoor. But even that Tinker, as small as it is, there is a stain. Also, just b/c stains may not be evident in scans, lots of CJs still show light staining in hand or under a loop.

[CW]

Agree, Steve, and you know much more about this set than I'll ever know. The unstained, unaltered examples are far and few between.

BTW, my post wasn't meant to be in a "you guys are all wrong" tone, but rather an attempt to point out a rare instance in the hobby and share some info. It's also amazing to see all those Cobbs line up like that.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by CW

Agree, Steve, and you know much more about this set than I'll ever know. The unstained, unaltered examples are far and few between.

BTW, my post wasn't meant to be in a "you guys are all wrong" tone, but rather an attempt to point out a rare instance in the hobby and share some info. It's also amazing to see all those Cobbs line up like that.

Oh no, your post didn't come across like that, it just point out why words like every, all, never, etc. are generally not correct. Seeing those Cobbs is crazy, also they came from the exact same run with that pattern. Nice score to get one back then opposed to now...your Cobby is so sweet!

[garymc]

The grouping of three are 15's, the two are 14's.......they are stained and beat up a little but I love them and grateful to have them in my collection !!!

[yanksfan09]

Nice Yankees there Gary.

[canjond]

Some more stains...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by canjond

Some more stains...

Nice one Jon, I am a bit envious on that one.

[canjond]

Originally Posted by Leon

Nice one Jon, I am a bit envious on that one.

Thanks Leon. Wasn't this yours at one point?

[marcdelpercio]

I prefer mine stained AND notarized

The seal reads: "William H. Dye Notary Public Cattaraugus Co."

[CW]

Nice! You don't see many notarized baseball cards. (seriously, that's a pretty cool defect)