1954 All Star Photo pack questions

[sb1]

I suspect the use of the "All-Star" moniker might have been loosely applied. Hard to say for sure why these regional stars might have been included??

I can say for certain, no 1950's Chicago Cubs Team issue photos have the players name in a white box like the Banks. I am pretty comfortable including the players with the box located in different locations as part of this issue.

I guess the only way we would know for sure is if one were to locate an opened or confirmed untouched pack. I do know that one sizeable group that I obtained with an envelope, touted as being original did have a Banks in the group.

We may never know, especially since they did print the names of the players on the envelope, just the teams.

[AustinMike]

As I mentioned previously, most of the Yankees included in the "1954 All-Star" sets sold in auctions mentioned above most likely came from the 1956 Yankees team photo set. I think as proof of this, Jerry Lumpe did not play in the majors until the 1956 season. Johnny Kucks did not play in the majors until the 1955 season. Therefore, there is no way they would be included in a 1954 set.

[sb1]

It would be so much easier if they measured and listed the sizes. The 1956 are larger than the 1954's. In some images you can clearly see size differences when side by side.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by sb1

It would be so much easier if they measured and listed the sizes. The 1956 are larger than the 1954's. In some images you can clearly see size differences when side by side.

I agree. I'm just curious about all these 1954 All-Star sets with the larger photos in them. Don't the sellers notice the different sizes? Also, why are there so many sets with the larger photos? Why are the larger photos being added? So many questions, so few answers.

[AustinMike]

Another duplicate post.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by sb1

I do know that one sizeable group that I obtained with an envelope, touted as being original did have a Banks in the group.

I wish I could accept that as definitive proof that the Banks belongs in the set (or rather, that it doesn't, since it wasn't in the envelope that I got with the 18 1954 All Stars, and that would mean I bought an incomplete set, LOL!!).
But I can't, because otherwise I'd have to accept that Bob Lemon was part of that set as well, because I received a Bob Lemon included in my envelope when I bought my 1954 All Stars. But Lemon simply couldn't have been part of the set. It is much larger than the others photos, and has a signature in script across his body rather than his name printed in a box in the lower right corner (or anywhere for that matter). The fact that you can't find an example of a Banks in any Cubs team issue is probably more compelling from an evidence standpoint (although I guess it's possible it came from another all star set or possibly was a stand-alone photo used as a promotion for signing at a store opening?).

Yup, I noted as well that the only definitive proof would be obtained in a "break" of a sealed envelope. I did purchase a 1949 Cleveland Indians unopened photo pack recently, so I believe there could be some out there...

It would be nice to have some closure regarding this set!!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

I did purchase a 1949 Cleveland Indians unopened photo pack recently

How do you know? Right now it is Schroedinger's picture pack: could be a 1949, could be a stack of blank paper in there.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

How do you know? Right now it is Schroedinger's picture pack: could be a 1949, could be a stack of blank paper in there.

Schrodinger's picture pack! I like that! And the reference is not lost on me.

As you well know, the best one can do is assess the integrity of the container, as one might do for much of the unopened material that a buyer hasn't seen packaged with their own eyes (or cannot view through the wrapped with a high-intensity light). Sure, we try to create theories from best available evidence. But even if you have a real unopened rare pack and you're trying to base a conclusion about a set on it, you really can't. If a card isn't in there, you need to reproduce the event to make sure there wasn't an error at the company level. That, along with the memory of the many times I've pulled non-mint cards out of packs from packs I purchased myself from boxes at the candy store during the year of issue, is the reason why I don't buy much in the way of vintage unopened product. I only buy when I feel like I'm getting a great deal, can be reasonably sure that the pack hasn't been opened, and also never bet more than I feel I can lose in the gamble.

[Exhibitman]

Ahh an optimist. You probably think the cat is alive. I always assume it is dead; that's what pulling six Sixto Lezcano cards and not a single Nolan Ryan in all the packs I busted in 1976 will do to a young boy's impressionable mind...

[sb1]

Another oversize one in Leland's, SGC labeled 1954??

https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=117239

[1966CUDA]

Just found this... list of players shows 19