Zeenut checklists

[brianp-beme]

Hi Michael, definitely it would be great to get a photo representation of all the 1933-36 Zeenut with coupons. I am not a Zeenut coupon collector myself, and only have one Zeenut with coupon throughout the years. My cards were typically in the hands of coupon greedy kids who tore the bottom half of the card off to remove the coupon.

As far as the Woodall throwing card is concerned, I think Horne was correct. Below I have included a scan of a printed off scan of both Woodall throwing cards, April 1st 1935 and April 1st 1936. I measured both, and the earlier one does measure about 1/32" larger, from the top of Woodall's cap to bottom of his shoe. Perhaps you have a (within the) year variation, which as far as I know until now has not shown up in the 1933-36 set. For example, if a couponed card is a smaller picture in one year, another size for that year has not been found It would be nice to see your two Woodall cards in comparison.

Brian

[rsst206]

Here are a few not on your list

[rsst206]

here are a few more

[abctoo]

Originally Posted by rsst206

here are a few more

Your scans are just great, a lot better than most auction houses. And the kicker is four 1933 black & whites with coupons that expire April 1st 1934.

They didn't print just a couple of cards on a sheet, so there must be many more 1933 Black & White's with April 1st 1934 expiry dates. But where are they?

I think we have to consider the 1933 Zeenut "Sepia" cards as part of the set. Those are obviously distinguishable without a coupon. The 1933 Black & Whites are out there, but back then the coupons probably went for a lot candy.

1933 was the 20th anniversary of Zeenuts using coupons on cards (first issue with coupons was the 1913 series). I wonder what type of promotions Zeenuts had at the time. A lot of coupons sure were torn off.

I am going to put out a more simplified list showing only those cards with coupons we already have scans of (and will update it regularly). That way, anyone with a couponed card not on the list could post a scan.

I think I should include the 1933 sepia cards, as well as the 1937-38 cards with coupons that expire Oct 30th 1937. What do you think?

Mike

[abctoo]

I was going over 1933 Zeenut Sepia cards that have coupons that expire April 1st 1934 to figure out how to combine all of the Zeenuts cards that expire on April 1st 1934 together. I found the coupon variations shown below. While the text of both coupons is printed in black, the one on the right also has a sepia color overprint that the one on the left doesn't have. Is this just a aberration or do other 1933 Zeenut sepia cards come with different colored coupons?



Mike

ADDED ABOUT AN HOUR AFTER INITIAL POST:

So far, I've found the following variations in the 1933 Sepia coupons:
(1) Sepia Block on Coupon with Black Text
(2) Sepia Block on Coupon with Sepia Text
(3) Black & White (B&W) Coupon with Black Text
(4) B&W Coupon with B&W Text (the offer expires line may be in Sepia)

I have different scans of Brubacker, Ray (Oakland, Mgr) cards with Sepia Coupons, one with Black Text and another with Sepia Text.

I did not distinguish if the Block on the Coupon was printed in both Sepia and B&W,, and put those into the Sepia Coupon group.

[brianp-beme]

Just to see if we are describing the same thing, I have posted two 'size' variations of Garibaldi (I wish they were all this easy to differentiate). This is just one scan, so as to not get any size distortion. I would call the card on the left 'small' and the card on the right 'large' due to the relative size of the player's image on each card. Is this how you classify them as well?

Brian

[philliesphan]

Mike-

All my coupon'ed Sepia's seem to be Sepia at the bottom.

I'm not sure I'd characterize those two Sulik's as being different, as the one on the left is much richer in terms of contrast and darkness throughout the card, not just in the coupon

[abctoo]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Just to see if we are describing the same thing, I have posted two 'size' variations of Garibaldi (I wish they were all this easy to differentiate). This is just one scan, so as to not get any size distortion. I would call the card on the left 'small' and the card on the right 'large' due to the relative size of the player's image on each card. Is this how you classify them as well?

Brian

That's the $64 question! The one on the right you posted above is obviously a larger pose than the one on the left. Horne's 1970's list has only the 1935 Garibaldi card ("offer expires April 1st 1936") and calls it the "large" pose, but gives no indication of the date of a "small" pose. Currently, I have only two different Garibaldi's scanned, the 1935 one ("offer expires April 1st 1936") and the 1937 ("offer expires Oct. 30th, 1937").



The one you pictured on the right appears similar to the 1935 Garibaldi ("offer expires April 1st 1936"). While at first glance, the card on the left of your previous post looks like the 1937 one of my scan, you'll notice the shape of the boxes containing the player's name are different on these two cards. The box on the 1937 issue of my scan is square, while the corners on the box of the first card pictured in your scan are each cut off making the box an octagon (a box style used on many 1930s cards through those with offers that expired Oct 1st 1936). So we now have two similar "small" poses issued in different years.

Anybody have any suggestions on a one or two word phrase we can use to differentiate these three cards (and perhaps a fourth one that might show up)?

Mike

ADDED AFTER INITIAL POST:

I forgot to mention Art Garibaldi's relevant playing history. He played for Sacramento from 1931 through part of 1936, with the rest of 1936 (6-20 to 9-27) with the St. Louis Cardinals, then returned to Sacramento for 1937. In 1938, he played for the Columbus Red Birds. It would be easy to assume the missing coupon on the unidentified card you posted was a 1935 one ("expires Oct 1st 1936"), but with Garibaldi's playing record with Sacramento I think we should wait until an actual coupon shows up. I too wish the 1930's Zeenuts cards "were all this easy to differentiate."

[rsst206]

here are some more 1933 Sepia

[abctoo]

I've just updated the list in Post #27 (that's in Post #27, not #22) above to show all of the scans we now have. Please see the new comments about the 1933 Sepia variations that occur only in the coupons.

Please post any image of a Zeenut card with a coupon that is not on the list. While we are approaching 200 different, there are still plenty to go.

Thanks from all of us working on this project.

If there is a problem with just updating the prior post at Post #27, let me know and I try to work something else out. I just thought that with new scans coming in almost every day that to repost the list too frequently might waste space in this thread.

Mike

[abctoo]

Originally Posted by abctoo

I've just updated the list in Post #27 (that's in Post #27, not #22) above to show all of the scans we now have. Please see the new comments about the 1933 Sepia variations that occur only in the coupons.

I've been thinking about the coupon varieties of the 1933 Sepia Zeenuts. While perhaps there are at least two or three different coupons to go with each player, so far all of the pictures of a player seem to be the same, i.e. not with different poses or other variations. And I believe that is consistent with the historical record of these Sepia cards.

Much detailed work goes into distinguishing the different 1933 Sepia coupons of the same player from the scans. Often the scans are not of high enough resolution to make a clear distinction as to whether a line in a coupon is printed only in Sepia or only in Black ink or whether it is a combination of one printed on top of the other.

Few of us have any problems identifying a 1933 Sepia card from just looking at its picture. Being Sepia places its year of issue as 1933. Most people don't have even a single Sepia card with a coupon, but they sure can have 1933 Sepia cards without coupons. The ink color variations occur only in the coupons and not on the player's picture and have no impact on identifying the card. It's either a Sepia or it's not.

We still need pictures of each of the 1933 Sepia cards with a coupon for two reasons. The many out there with Sepia cards without coupons can then clearly identify the player and the coupon will clearly establish the card as a 1933 issue (the coupon's last line states: "This offer expires on April 1st 1934").

I think that overburdening the List and subsequent Picture Presentation of Zeenuts with Coupons with too much detail about each color ink variation in the 1933 Sepia Zeenuts would have deleterious effect on our current project. Here, our purpose includes establishing the actual year of issue of each of the different varieties of pictures found on Zeenuts cards issued from 1933 through 1938. Thereby, the very many Zeenut cards out there without coupons can be identified as to which year they were actually issued by Zeenut.

So, I think I should revise the List of Post #27 above to show only that we have a scan of a 1933 Sepia with a coupon with an offer that "expires April 1st 1933" and need scans of the missing players. Of course, any Sepia coupon with any month, day or year other than "April 1st 1933" would be highly prized and we sure would appreciate a scan.

Keep you scans of all cards missing from the list coming. We can complete this project.

Thanks,

Mike

[philliesphan]

Arguably the best catcher to ever play in PCL:

[abctoo]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Hi Michael, definitely it would be great to get a photo representation of all the 1933-36 Zeenut with coupons. I am not a Zeenut coupon collector myself, and only have one Zeenut with coupon throughout the years. My cards were typically in the hands of coupon greedy kids who tore the bottom half of the card off to remove the coupon.

As far as the Woodall throwing card is concerned, I think Horne was correct. Below I have included a scan of a printed off scan of both Woodall throwing cards, April 1st 1935 and April 1st 1936. I measured both, and the earlier one does measure about 1/32" larger, from the top of Woodall's cap to bottom of his shoe. Perhaps you have a (within the) year variation, which as far as I know until now has not shown up in the 1933-36 set. For example, if a couponed card is a smaller picture in one year, another size for that year has not been found It would be nice to see your two Woodall cards in comparison.

Brian

Brian,

I glad you raised the question (actually several questions), because we all need to decide what to call the different varieties besides by date of issue. There are many variations besides the "poses." For "poses," I have been distinguishing the cards by whether the entire picture is more cropped than its comparator, and calling the one with more cropping the "large" size, and the other one that shows more picture the "small" one.

That brings us to another issue to resolve. We do not have the measurement of the central figure for most scans and can only make comparative sizing by making the images of the cards the same height and aligning the coupon
bars.

There's no doubt from your measurements that the Woodall image is larger in the 1935 card. From the scans below, 1935 card shows more image than the slightly more cropped 1936 one. Even though the 1936 card you pictured has a little more of the right side showing, it seems the 1935 still has a slight bit more. How do you suggest we address this? It's going to come up with lots of cards.

The end card (1935) in the first row is the same as the first card in the second row. You'll notice that 1935 card has part of the next card on the sheet printed on its right, indicating the end of the card image. While we don't yet have a piece of the next card for the 1936 one, it seems that extrapolation of the images we have indicates the 1936 card has less of the far right part of the original image than the 1935.





As to in year variations, I often think I've found one, especially when looking at small scans of large lots being offered at auction. After a long and careful examination, it never turns out to be one. It's usually just a fuzzy image of an expiration date so that on first glance a "5" looks like a "6" or visa verca.

Mike