rare Willie Mays cards

[VintageHoarder]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Classically bad reasoning backed up by factual errors:

1. If the patch is from the 1951 season, it proves only that the photo was taken in 1951, not that the card was made in 1951. More likely is that the card was made for the 1952 run since Mays is not on the 1951 checklist and was voted ROY for 1951. ESCO was not in the habit of producing cards of untested rookies, but would have added a ROY to the run for the next season.

2. Contrary to your statement, Mays did play in 1952. He played in 34 games. In fact, in his last game in 1952 he was given an ovation at Ebbets' Field in recognition of his service.

3. The fact that you "don't care what the checklist indicates" is irrelevant. The checklist exists and Mays is not on it.

I understand that you have a financial stake in proving that the cards you hoarded are Mays rookies, but the facts do not support your statements.

Oh, you mean the checklist you provided thats been scribbled on and altered? The same checklist where Philadelphia was scribbled out to jot down the 1951 New York Giants team Card? That card also has Mays and it specifically says "1951 New York Giants National Champions." That card also is not originally printed on the checklist, but you or someone else made sure it was there. The checklist was jotted on and altered,, indicating that you yourself (or someone else) does not trust the checklist. That team card sayd 1951 on it,, but you going to dispute that, too,, even though its been altered in and fixed to suit the checklist? The facts are there with the patch. The patch does exist and it was only used in 1951, regardless of whether the card was 1952 or not. You or I cannot prove the exact year it was printed, just the same as we can't prove the Giants team card was or wasn't printed in 1951. It does say "1951" at the bottom and has the exact same print of Made in USA on it. From the best of my knowledge, people take this at face value and do not argue whether something is or isn't when facts are presented.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by VintageHoarder

Oh, you mean the checklist you provided thats been scribbled on and altered? The same checklist where Philadelphia was scribbled out to jot down the 1951 New York Giants team Card? That card also has Mays and it specifically says "1951 New York Giants National Champions." That card also is not originally printed on the checklist, but you or someone else made sure it was there. The checklist was jotted on and altered,, indicating that you yourself (or someone else) does not trust the checklist. That team card sayd 1951 on it,, but you going to dispute that, too,, even though its been altered in and fixed to suit the checklist? The facts are there with the patch. The patch does exist and it was only used in 1951, regardless of whether the card was 1952 or not. You or I cannot prove the exact year it was printed, just the same as we can't prove the Giants team card was or wasn't printed in 1951. It does say "1951" at the bottom and has the exact same print of Made in USA on it. From the best of my knowledge, people take this at face value and do not argue whether something is or isn't when facts are presented.

Don't trust the checklist. That's a new one.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[VintageHoarder]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Don't trust the checklist. That's a new one.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Somebody didn't trust it or it wouldn't have been altered. 🤷Alterations are clearly made on it.

[ALBB]

" Fraid not" ! LOL

as kids that was used a lot....went back and forth arguing with a pal - " fraid not..fraid so..fraid not.... the good ole days LOL

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by VintageHoarder

Oh, you mean the checklist you provided thats been scribbled on and altered? The same checklist where Philadelphia was scribbled out to jot down the 1951 New York Giants team Card? That card also has Mays and it specifically says "1951 New York Giants National Champions." That card also is not originally printed on the checklist, but you or someone else made sure it was there. The checklist was jotted on and altered,, indicating that you yourself (or someone else) does not trust the checklist. That team card sayd 1951 on it,, but you going to dispute that, too,, even though its been altered in and fixed to suit the checklist? The facts are there with the patch. The patch does exist and it was only used in 1951, regardless of whether the card was 1952 or not. You or I cannot prove the exact year it was printed, just the same as we can't prove the Giants team card was or wasn't printed in 1951. It does say "1951" at the bottom and has the exact same print of Made in USA on it. From the best of my knowledge, people take this at face value and do not argue whether something is or isn't when facts are presented.

The checklist could only have been made after the 1950 season because the Phillies and Yankees were the teams and that was the 1950 WS. As for the scribblings, that's not a valid argument: I could have made those yesterday. If you write "1951" on a card it doesn't mean the card is a 1951.

[VintageHoarder]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The checklist could only have been made after the 1950 season because the Phillies and Yankees were the teams and that was the 1950 WS. As for the scribblings, that's not a valid argument: I could have made those yesterday. If you write "1951" on a card it doesn't mean the card is a 1951.

Maybe 1950, but I doubt it was anything after. There's Phillies and Yankees team cards in this set from late 40s/1950. Im just saying there's also a Giants 1951 team card that Exhibit made, which you or someone scribbled that particular card onto the checklist. Doesn't matter when the scribbling/alterations was made....point I'm making is that the 1951 Giants team card obviously doesn't belong to this particular set or it would've been printed on the checklist by Exhibit Supply Co. You jotting that team card in or making any other alterations on that checklist, doesn't validate it and make it part of the set. Furthermore, I don't see a date or anything on that checklist that indicates it's a 1951, or therefore, any particular year for that matter. There's no proof anywhere that these can be dated, and that's obviously including the checklists that were made. Altering a checklist to call it 1951, doesn't make it a 1951. It just simply means you scribbled and altered a checklist and made it inaccurate. Im just calling it as I see it. Whether these are 1951 or 1952, they're neat cards and are definitely very undervalued.

[frankh8147]

I just wanted to take the time to thank you both for my new 1951 - 1953 Exhibit Mays cards (arriving in a few days). I truly love this site

[Exhibitman]

Dude, you're just digging yourself a bigger hole. There is proof of dating, right on the cards themselves. ESCO made two team cards each year: the pennant winners in each league from the prior season (stopped in 1956). Here's the 1952 printing of the Yankees card:



Notice that it says "1951 World Champions"? Well, when did the Yankees become the 1951 champs? In October 1951. Here's the 1949 Cleveland Indians card:



See the split legend at the bottom? That was a feature of only the 1949 print run. That card shows the 1948 champs from a 1949 printing. I wish it was a 1948 because it would have Paige and Doby rookies.

If you actually look at the Phillies card:



It designates the team as 1950 NL champs. It is from the 1951 print run. Not 1950 because they wouldn't have known who was going to win the 1950 pennants until the season was over.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but the facts are what they are. Your refusal to recognize them just makes you look like you are cravenly trying to boost the value of the Mays cards you are hoarding.

[VintageHoarder]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Dude, you're just digging yourself a bigger hole. There is proof of dating, right on the cards themselves. ESCO made two team cards each year: the pennant winners in each league from the prior season (stopped in 1956). Here's the 1952 printing of the Yankees card:



Notice that it says "1951 World Champions"? Well, when did the Yankees become the 1951 champs? In October 1951. Here's the 1949 Cleveland Indians card:



See the split legend at the bottom? That was a feature of only the 1949 print run. That card shows the 1948 champs from a 1949 printing. I wish it was a 1948 because it would have Paige and Doby rookies.

If you actually look at the Phillies card:



It designates the team as 1950 NL champs. It is from the 1951 print run. Not 1950 because they wouldn't have known who was going to win the 1950 pennants until the season was over.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but the facts are what they are. Your refusal to recognize them just makes you look like you are cravenly trying to boost the value of the Mays cards you are hoarding.

Fair enough...I see your point. Its very flattering that you think I have the power to instantly influence value on a card, but unfortunately, I'm not Gary V. I never once said this is THE rookie of Mays, but it is most definitely HIS ESCO ROOKIE. It'll never be the value of his Bowman rookie, but it is undoubtedly his Exhibit rookie.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Dude, you're just digging yourself a bigger hole. There is proof of dating, right on the cards themselves. ESCO made two team cards each year: the pennant winners in each league from the prior season (stopped in 1956). Here's the 1952 printing of the Yankees card:



Notice that it says "1951 World Champions"? Well, when did the Yankees become the 1951 champs? In October 1951. Here's the 1949 Cleveland Indians card:



See the split legend at the bottom? That was a feature of only the 1949 print run. That card shows the 1948 champs from a 1949 printing. I wish it was a 1948 because it would have Paige and Doby rookies.

If you actually look at the Phillies card:



It designates the team as 1950 NL champs. It is from the 1951 print run. Not 1950 because they wouldn't have known who was going to win the 1950 pennants until the season was over.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but the facts are what they are. Your refusal to recognize them just makes you look like you are cravenly trying to boost the value of the Mays cards you are hoarding.

Adam:

I of course agree with all you have said on this subject. It is hard for non Exhibit guys to fully understand the intricacies of all things ESCO!

I and a few others have been working on a year by year checklist for the Exhibits. FWIW we have the first Mays card issued in 1953.

Why? Well, he would not have been issued in 51 as he was an unknown rookie. The 1952 set we believe was issued in B&W as is evidenced by the two 1951 team cards and others issued in B&W, but no Mays in B&W with the Made in U.S.A. Thus 1953 was the Mays "rookie" Sepia Exhibit card with the Made in U.S.A designation.

[VintageHoarder]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Adam:

I of course agree with all you have said on this subject. It is hard for non Exhibit guys to fully understand the intricacies of all things ESCO!

I and a few others have been working on a year by year checklist for the Exhibits. FWIW we have the first Mays card issued in 1953.

Why? Well, he would not have been issued in 51 as he was an unknown rookie. The 1952 set we believe was issued in B&W as is evidenced by the two 1951 team cards and others issued in B&W, but no Mays in B&W with the Made in U.S.A. Thus 1953 was the Mays "rookie" Sepia Exhibit card with the Made in U.S.A designation.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Why would they make 1952 B&W cards of Mantle and Mays' teammate, Monte Irvin, but none of Willie Mays himself? Mays, if I recall correctly, was the 1951 ROY. Meanwhile, Mantle was not, and Irvin wasn't even in the discussion. Yet, cards were made of them in 1952 and not Mays? It just doesn't make much sense, and I just don't think it's possible to pin every card in this set to an exact date, regardless of how big of a professional you like to consider yourself to be. The evidence provided just doesn't all add up to me.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Adam:

I of course agree with all you have said on this subject. It is hard for non Exhibit guys to fully understand the intricacies of all things ESCO!

I and a few others have been working on a year by year checklist for the Exhibits. FWIW we have the first Mays card issued in 1953.

Why? Well, he would not have been issued in 51 as he was an unknown rookie. The 1952 set we believe was issued in B&W as is evidenced by the two 1951 team cards and others issued in B&W, but no Mays in B&W with the Made in U.S.A. Thus 1953 was the Mays "rookie" Sepia Exhibit card with the Made in U.S.A designation.

I'm down with that.

The fact is a nice Mays is still a solid early Mays card.