Let�s rehash the Bond Bread controversy.

butchie_t · #1 12-11-2024, 06:11 PM

The attached scan is from the Sacred 2011 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards Edited by the His Excellency Demigod Bob Lemke.

Page 42 of the hymnal. The write up is word for word the same in both books. The only difference is that the 24 Square-Cornered Cards were dropped from being listed.

Take a look at the bottom of the right side of the scan.... 24 Square-Cornered Reprints.

Things that make ya' go hmmmmmmm.......

Butch

Exhibitman · #2 12-12-2024, 07:38 AM

One of the problems inherent in this sort of analysis is that it is inductive: we generalize from specific items to the entire issue. That works to a limited extent when there are limited options. Ted's logic on the issues can be broken down as follows:

I collected the rounded corner, glossier, thicker cards from bags of bread in 1947.

I did not collect the square cornered cards on thinner stock from bags of bread in 1947.

Therefore, the latter were not produced in 1947.

You see the error? Putting it in a different context, I didn't collect 1972 Topps high numbers in 1972, not because they were not produced in 1972 but because I was seven and they weren't available in the two or three candy stores where my parents took me to buy cards in 1972. I got my first ones in 1977 when my aunt in DC sent me a shoebox full of cards she found in an antique store, and they were mostly 1972 Topps and mostly final series 1972 Topps (having multiple Carew, Traded and Awards cards in 1977 in my neighborhood in Encino CA in 1977, not a bad thing).

One thing I like about the hypothesis that Bond licensed the cards from Aarco rather than owning the IP on them is that it fits with the physical evidence that allows for other issues and variations that Aarco licensed, like the 2x sided perforated sheets that were made under the Elgee name. Similar to the many brand variations on the Mendelsohn cards in the 'teens.

Among the variations is the possibility that Bond specified what it wanted for its cards: rounded corners and a specific card stock and finish. My very first books were self-published before on-demand publishing existed, so I had to have them printed and then sell them myself at retail. I sat down with the printer and decided on the parameters of the product: the binding, the paper, etc. That's how printers know what to print. They produce proofs (the uncut cover proof from my first printed book is in a frame at my office), have the customers review them, and nail down the approved specs before they run the items. Printers can handle different stocks and finishes, so it seems reasonable that Aarco could make both cards that are intended for the bread bags and cards that are not, at the same approximate time, depending in the customer's desires. It also allows for the stock variation in the Festberg find: different specs. Rather than allowing for this possibility, Ted went with the exclusive conclusion he favored.

The Cooper thing is another inductive leap that never sat well with me. Cooper with Cincy, that's an anachronism for a 1947 card, but Cooper with NYG is not. An earlier potential does not rule out a later one, only vice versa does.

Also, I brought to Ted's attention that there are movie stars with the same rounded corner-different stock. He was surprised to hear this. Again, he never saw them so he was unaware of them. Understandable since we were just kids when we got our various product cards out of the bags. I never knew there were two editions of the Kellogg's ATG 3D cards, because I got mine from Danish Go Rounds (my mother's idea of a breakfast) in 1972 and had never seen the 1970 Rold Gold pretzel cards. Why? Because we didn't buy Rold Gold pretzels in 1970. Visual Panographics made both sets using the Xograph technology and licensed them to different companies at different times with just the copyright dates changed.

Now, before anyone leaps to Ted's defense because he isn't here to defend his positions himself and I didn't challenge him when he was alive, a word of explanation is in order. Ted was aggressively adamant about his analysis, and I (and other collectors who discussed it back in the day) did not consider it to be a worthwhile use of time and energy to battle with him over these rather arcane issues. When dealing with Ted, the least disruptive course was to inject facts when possible and not engage in the melees that invariably followed flat-out telling him he was wrong.

On the issue of the Standard Catalog, a bit of context may be useful. The catalog was put together by Bob Lemke using the work product of "principal contributors". Like me. Around 20 years ago, I got sick of the same BS in the Exhibit card listings year after year and Bob offered to let me try to fix it. The way Bob did it, pre-digital, was to send out a printout of the listing and you would annotate it and send it back. I fixed a lot of problems with the listings and added in a lot of variations, but my work was incomplete and sometimes inaccurate. That's the nature of the beast: we all try to build on and refine the work of our predecessors (shout out to Elwood "Woody" Scharf here). There was also a limit to what the editors of the catalog would or could fit into the header, so the catalog was not a place for nuanced discussions. Nobody who was willing to do the work knew anything more, so my version got into print and stayed in print. My work with the issues in my Exhibit book was partly done to better document and explain these cards. In other words, what has become 'canon' with collectors via the Standard Catalog is merely the collective work of collectors like me. It isn't fixed, it isn't divinely inspired, so it isn't the final word on any subject. There is only one final word on a subject, and we all know who has it: our wives.

Johnphotoman · #3 12-12-2024, 09:00 AM

Thanks, Exhibitman, My upcoming post deals with much of what you just said. I
will make many of the points you just did. Thanks John

Johnphotoman · #4 12-12-2024, 11:01 AM

Here I will go over cards we can disqualify or rule-out in my opinion as Bond Bread…and cards that have been described or called the 1980 Festberg find.

These BB and Festberg cards are associated with Bond Bread cards…just because they share the same images. In fact they share the same script in the names on the cards, right down to the misspelling of their names. As we can read in (6th edition 2016) Standard Catalog) thanks to Pat R. This is where the hobby has made the mistake in identifying the true Bond Bread cards. Somehow because a set looks like “Bond Bread” cards and has the same images they became Bond Bread cards. Just because cards look alike does not make them the same.

Let’s nor forget that Bond Bread did not manufacture or print their own cards. They had to get permission to use the images on the cards. The company or people who had the images, probably licensed out those images to many different people and organizations to use.

It could be that Aarco playing card company had the rights to the images (license) and is the printing Co. that printed up all the many varieties of cards we have. But that is just a theory. We know the Exhibit Supply Co., printed up the 1947 Bond Bread Exhibits, which has many of the same images that Bond Bread used.

So what are the cards we can rule-out as Bond Bread cards? Any cards that were not inserted into loaves of Bond Bread. Except the Jackie Robinson 1947 Bond Bread 13 card issue.

We can rule-out any of the box set cards:

1 Set of 48 issued in four boxes of 12 (Series 1-4) labeled “Collectors & Traders Sport Star Subjects.” single sided, printed on bright white stock, die-cut corners (round). These are the original cards printed in 1947 before Bond Bread contacted Aarco Playing Card Co. of Chicago. The cards appear identical to the Bond Bread cards inserted into loaves of Bond Bread, the only difference is the paper stock. It is my guess that Bond Bread asked for their cards to be produced in the same manner, but with different stock, (cream white stock) using the same image.

2 Set of 48 issued in four boxes of 12 (Series 1-4) labeled “Collectors & Traders Screen Star Subjects. Single sided, printed on bright white cardstock with “rounded” corners, the same stock as the Sports Star Subjects cards are one.

3 Perforated sheets squared corners:“ 46 trading Cards Assorted Subject- Sport-Hollywood-Cowboys” These cards were distributed through businesses like Hess Shoes in Baltimore Maryland.

Perforated, dual-sided cards issued in Sheets these sheet have pictures on front and back. These cards are known as “W571/D305 1947 Bond Bread perforated, due-sided cards”. Although this set was given the title of Bond Bread cards in the Standard Catalog of Vintage Baseball cards-4th edition as “W571/D305 1947 Bond Bread perforated, due-sided cards” The very set Ted Z implied were 1949-1950 Sports Star cards. I guess he did not know that the cards were given the title of Bond Bread in the catalog, (4th edition). Ted Z did post his information in 2009, I do not know if the cards were designated as W571/D305 cards in early catalogs. If someone has a catalog from 2009 or older can you check and post what it does say.

No doubt you're wondering how can I rule-out the W571/D305 cards as Bond Bread cards? When in fact they are given that title in the catalog. Because we have new facts, we know the perforated, due-sided cards were given out as whole sheets. Under the name of “46 Trading Cards Assorted Subject- Sport-Hollywood-Cowboys”. Not as Bond Bread.

Please note my comments: "We know the Exhibit Supply Co., printed up the 1947 Bond Bread Exhibits, which has many of the same images that Bond Bread used." ....Should read- It is believed that the Exhibit Supply Co., printed the 1947 Bond Bread Exhibits, but this is now debatable..

I do plan to go over the differences in the variety of paper stock used, up next the Festberg cards.

Exhibitman · #5 12-12-2024, 10:05 PM

"We know the Exhibit Supply Co., printed up the 1947 Bond Bread Exhibits, which has many of the same images that Bond Bread used."

We do? I've never seen any evidence of that. The physical characteristics of the cards do not match ESCO products. Please elaborate.

Johnphotoman · #6 12-13-2024, 06:26 AM

This information about the Exhibit Supply Co. printing what we call "Bond Bread Exhibit"" -come from old-timers I have talked to, many different articles I have read. I do not believe I have seen any of the information challenged. But I have not done any research into them. I just assume the information I had was correct since it's backed up by so many people.

Looking back, and reading some of what you have posted, I will update and edit my comments. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Maybe you can post what you know and understand. I find it to be very interesting. To tell you the truth I never really believed the Exhibit Supply Co. were Bond Bread cards. Thanks to you, not only is there the possibility that they are misclassified and identified, but it is possible The Exhibit Supply Co. did not print the cards.

Thanks John

Pat R · #7 12-13-2024, 09:36 AM

I'm not claiming that this necessarily pertains to the "Exhibit Bond Bread" cards but here are some ads for cardboard from 1946-47 that is the same size as Exhibit uncut sheets.

Chicago
Exhibit Supply Co. Chicago_Tribune_1946_04_14_72.jpg

Detroit
Exhibit Supply Co. Detroit_Free_Press_1946_04_29_Page_18.jpg

St. Louis
Exhibit Supply Co. St_Louis_Post_Dispatch_1946_04_26_Page_39.jpg

Chicago
Exhibit Supply Co. Chicago_Tribune_1947_08_13_44.jpg

Johnphotoman · #8 12-19-2024, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

"We know the Exhibit Supply Co., printed up the 1947 Bond Bread Exhibits, which has many of the same images that Bond Bread used."

We do? I've never seen any evidence of that. The physical characteristics of the cards do not match ESCO products. Please elaborate.

Exhibitman- very nice Exhibit cards. I think there is some confusion by what I said. I never thought that the Exhibit cards were Bond Bread. I did not mean to imply that Exhibit cards were the same as the Bond Bread cards. What I said was: "Let’s nor forget that Bond Bread did not manufacture or print their own cards. They had to get permission to use the images on the cards. The company or people who had the images, probably licensed out those images to many different people and organizations to use.

It could be that Aarco playing card company had the rights to the images (license) and is the printing Co. that printed up all the many varieties of cards we have. But that is just a theory. We know the Exhibit Supply Co., printed up the 1947 Bond Bread Exhibits, which has many of the same images that Bond Bread used."

I only used the term (1947 Bond Bread Exhibits), because that is how they are identified. The point that I was trying to make ... is that Aarco playing card company printed the Bond Bread cards, and ESCO printed the Exhibit cards, which are identified as 1947 Bond Bread Exhibits. I am sorry If I imply that Bond Bread cards and Exhibit cards were the same.

My question goes back to my point... does this mean the Exhibit cards shown here are from ESCO? And Does this imply - that they printed the Exhibit cards, classified as 1947 Bond Bread Exhibit? Can you clarify? Thanks John.

Johnphotoman · #9 12-20-2024, 08:48 AM

butchie t- In post #2 through #15 in this thread, we were having a conversation on a set of cards you purchased back in May of 1990 from the Baseball Card Society.

Question: In the original thread posted by rdwyer-post 200, he posted a letter from the Baseball card society. Do you remember that letter and is it the same letter you posted in this thread #15?

Question: Do you remember Ted Z's response to that letter?

I quoted Ted Z's response and evaluation of that letter in the original thread in post #12 of this thread. I quoted Ted Z exactly word for word.
For some reason I can not find that post by Ted Z, but this is what he said about that letter.

"This document appears to be the evidence regarding the source of the RE-printed "1947 Bond Bread" cards which David Festberg discovered in a NJ warehouse in the 1980's. It is not dated, however in its text it implies a circa 1980's date, which does coincide with Festberg's find. Plus, the fact that 24 cards are being advertised. The original BOND BREAD set of cards consists of 48 cards.

When I first saw these cards in the early 1990's at the Philly Show, I purchased several of them. When I got home, I compared them to my original 1947 BOND BREAD cards, which I collected in my youth. And, it was very obvious, that these were inferior reproductions." TED Z

I read the letters, and nowhere does it say anything like Ted Z said!

Question: Am I wrong or am I missing something here? And is it because of what Ted Z said about that letter: you said in post #412- �Here is my Jackie Robinson, front and back for comparison. I purchased this along with the other 23 way back in May of 1990 from the Baseball Card Society. What I know up to now, it is part of the Festberg find.�

butchie t, I believe you have a different set of cards, then the ones we see all the time, and they are definitely not from the Festberg find, more to come on this, I will explain. For now I await your answers. Thanks John

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bond Bread again.	Johnphotoman	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	6	02-06-2022 09:28 PM
Bond Bread Tin	incugator	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	28	11-29-2021 10:33 AM
Bond Bread or Bond Homogenize Bread	Johnphotoman	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	10-24-2021 05:53 PM
SGC and Bond Bread	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	15	03-04-2006 06:32 PM
1947 bond bread	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	21	06-21-2005 08:27 PM