Decoding the “why” of 1948/1949 Leaf Sets

[G1911]

Originally Posted by yanks87

The baseball set was definitely distributed in 1949. Between the backs of the cards write ups, to Ted's anecdotal stories, to the lawsuits that ensued from Bowman, they came out in March of 1949. There is no way that I could think of that a Candy company would push a card set in 1948 during the X-Mas selling season, not only would it not make sense, it wouldn't sell. They were a spring issue.

That said, there was work that went on in 1948 on the set, and I have a theory that they produced a small run salesmen's sample set of cards for their candy distributors. In my mind, this would be a solid explanation for not only the Graziano, and blue background Joe Louis in the boxing cards, but it would also explain the Hal Newhouser alternate front, which carries the exact same back information as the short print card that has a 1948 copyright. It certainly doesn't excuse the 1948 date that the industry puts on the set, I don't think that will change any time soon, with as you said a lot of people investing money in the fact that it was a '48 issue.

In addition to this blue Louis I'm not familiar with, there is also an odd red background Al Hostak (white stock) that appeared not long ago. We speculated it might be related to the Graziano on the boxing board. https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=333719. This card might prove helpful to your project.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by G1911

In addition to this blue Louis I'm not familiar with, there is also an odd red background Al Hostak (white stock) that appeared not long ago. We speculated it might be related to the Graziano on the boxing board. https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=333719. This card might prove helpful to your project.

Greg - thanks for this. I just cracked the shell on the boxing set, it's great to get these insights. Below is the picture of the Joe Louis that I missed on eBay, now I wish I would have pursued it a little more aggressively.

What I am realizing is that Leaf's card production was in a constant state of flux. I recently picked up a lot of the 1948 Pirate cards, and according to Ted Z, these hit first. The puzzling thing about the lot is that 10 of the 15 cards in the lot are unnumbered. The spacing on the top line was changed to accommodate the addition of the numbers. My thought here is that they pushed out an initial run, and realized by numbering them (skip numbering in reality) kids would chase the set. So that was changed moving forward. There are only 4 total cards graded by PSA with no number, so the run must have been relatively small. Chalk it up to more variations on the ever changing Leaf sets.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by yanks87

Greg - thanks for this. I just cracked the shell on the boxing set, it's great to get these insights. Below is the picture of the Joe Louis that I missed on eBay, now I wish I would have pursued it a little more aggressively.

What I am realizing is that Leaf's card production was in a constant state of flux. I recently picked up a lot of the 1948 Pirate cards, and according to Ted Z, these hit first. The puzzling thing about the lot is that 10 of the 15 cards in the lot are unnumbered. The spacing on the top line was changed to accommodate the addition of the numbers. My thought here is that they pushed out an initial run, and realized by numbering them (skip numbering in reality) kids would chase the set. So that was changed moving forward. There are only 4 total cards graded by PSA with no number, so the run must have been relatively small. Chalk it up to more variations on the ever changing Leaf sets.

Thank you, I totally missed that Louis. My collection mostly ends at 1912 but I’ve done a couple leaf sets and casually pick up oddities (I was the underbidder on that Fitzsimmons blank back). Love that PSA just slabs it as a normal card lol. That the colored background is shaped and designed to fit around both Louis and Hostak show it is not an ‘error’ and another cards blue layer added or something, but intentionally designed for these cards. I wonder if we will find similar versions of the other white background boxers.

In addition to the purple/red glove differences in some of the cards the Jeffries and Greb cards come in what seem to be to me intentional design changes, with their shirts in white, blue, or with only half of it blue. Just in case that is a helpful change to note for your research. EDIT: So does Lou Ambers, forgot him originally.

[Exhibitman]

That Louis is fantastic. My hunch is sample or prototype. The white stock makes sense since that appears to be the earliest stock used.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by G1911

Thank you, I totally missed that Louis. My collection mostly ends at 1912 but I’ve done a couple leaf sets and casually pick up oddities (I was the underbidder on that Fitzsimmons blank back). Love that PSA just slabs it as a normal card lol. That the colored background is shaped and designed to fit around both Louis and Hostak show it is not an ‘error’ and another cards blue layer added or something, but intentionally designed for these cards. I wonder if we will find similar versions of the other white background boxers.

In addition to the purple/red glove differences in some of the cards the Jeffries and Greb cards come in what seem to be to me intentional design changes, with their shirts in white, blue, or with only half of it blue. Just in case that is a helpful change to note for your research.

There's no shortage of oddities in Leaf. My thinking is that there is probably a full sheet of salesman samples for the Boxing, Football, and Baseball cards. The ones that have serious changes, like background colors or different fronts were corrected in the main run of the cards. If this is the case, the rest of the cards that filled the sheet probably look like the main run of the cards, like a Sid Luckman, which would explain why there is a such a low population on certain cards that don't conform to the rest of the set. Thanks for sharing your insights, this all helps to dial in a solid theory!

[tedzan]

And then, there is BLUE or no BLUE.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by tedzan

And then, there is BLUE or no BLUE.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I love that Platt card. If ever there was an example of letting the ink run out, there it is!

[G1911]

Here's another interesting Leaf that may be useful. The Great John L is supposed to look like the normal card on left (though not miscut!). This copy on right has him without the blue pants. However, I do not believe this is really an 'ink ran out' situation because the outline of his pants and belt is still in bold blue. If blue ink was out, it shouldn't be outlined instead of filled in in the normal shade and depth of color.

Unlike the Hostak, Louis and Graziano's, this Sullivan is a gray stock card.

I have always been suspicious of the Graziano. The picture quality is so different from every other card in the set.