![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() ![]() ![]() These guys are left: ![]() ![]() ![]() These cards are left: ![]() ![]() ![]() Sisler's card does have a chin cleft, which would be something notable to a sketch artist, and his card was used in the production of Rice's card, so right handed throwing could be explained from that. But Joe Judge's card has a pronounced cleft, lefty at bat. I also think laughing Larry goes with "Burns" because a nickname is something a sketch artist would chase for the adoring quality.... |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Greg: I know zero about the Big Head issue and have nothing to contribute to this thread other than to say your efforts are extraordinary and much appreciated, I hope your recovery from back surgery goes well and has an excellent outcome, all babies are cute but yours is beyond beautiful, and here's wishing you a Happy Father's Day.
David McD. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
David, thank you very much
![]() ![]() Last edited by Clutch-Hitter; 06-20-2010 at 04:24 PM. Reason: forgot photos |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Greg,
I bought a very large group of stirp cards from a NY auction, I mean close to 100+ all in one lot. I think there were 3 big heads might have been 4. If this was a NY issure I would of expected a lot more. Also I think we would see the Ruth card more if it was a local NY think and that card does not show up at all. I have always thought of the set as being "made up" meaning that nothing really was made to match and that it was more of a generic looking set. I think by doing less work on the set it would have cost less to make and if someone just wanted to do thi fast and on the cheap this is the type of product that would have come out. Back the Ruth, those apear to be Red sleeves and socks, so that would put him with the Sox and not Yankees right? Can't we use this to narrow that date. Since he is in a hitting pose and not pitching it would likely have been late in his Sox days when he was moving from pitching to hitting. I think the best chance to id the date is the uniforms, but if things were done so roughly I am not sure they would be acurate anyway. This might just be one of those things we never id or confirm a date on like the 1915 W-Unc. James G
__________________
WTB Boston Store Cards esp Ruth, Hornsby and 1915/16 UNC Strip cards and other Boston Store's too. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The fact that Ruth and Mays are not wearing those bold red/white pin stripes indicates Ruth had not yet made the switch, but as you said, had established himself as a hitter. The fact that Bodie is wearing the pin stripes dates this issue post-1918, so either 1919-1920. Your points make me lean toward 1920 firmly. The quantity of the Big Heads in your New York find sounds correct to me, and actually makes me further believe New York. In general, in my experience, there are not three Big Heads for every 100 frequently seen strip cards, such as w516. The scarcity of the set leads me to believe local (regional) only distribution, and if that is the case, New York IMO is a no doubter because of those bold stripes. However, scarcity is not why I said New York; I said New York because of those uniforms (that weren't really uniforms). The New Yorkers wearing those bold stripes were not superstars like Johnson, Cobb, Sisler (by then), Hornsby, etc, but they were significantly included for a reason, and that reason was because they were local stars (like Paul whats-his-name that played for the Yankees late 90's early2000s). While Paul was an awesome player (anyone who remains in the show as long as he......), he was not a superstar in the country, only in New York. Paul was "adored" in New York. The "+" symbols on the borders of only nine cards out of twenty cards in the set seems significant. I don't think this set was complete, and your point, that more would have survived if from New York makes sense. I don't think many were made and many that did survived........ Do you have any idea about the "+" symbol? Rice's card was developed out of, or led to the development of, the Sisler card, and because Sisler's card has a "+", and Rice's card didn't, it may indicate that one or the other was added after the fact in order to make the set larger with well known players included from other teams. Your point from a couple months ago, specifically that Schalk is the only Black Sox player, also makes 1920 more firm in my mind. I am firm on this also: The heads were magnified so the faces, including the details of the faces, could be seen and identified. But like Matt said (and my wife), it appears the drawings were completed first, then the names later, which led to mis-identification. I've been thinking that other than the wrong names on the pictures, the art was well done, with the intended cartoonish effect. Those "+" symbols; if we could figure those out............But the date seems crystal... Thanks James |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'm having trouble with your reasoning for 1920 as the release date, and hardly consider that finding to be "crystal". First, if the New York players were given bright, bold contrived uniforms to stand out from the rest, than Mays and especially Ruth should be donning them as well. As you know, Ruth was sold to the Yankees right after Christmas in 1919. The acquisition was considered quite a coup for the Yanks, and I would have to believe that if the idea was to highlight the New Yorkers, he would have been front and center. You recognized in your last post that Mays and Ruth were not shown in the red and blue--how do you reconcile that with 1920 as a release date?
The other point that you made for 1920 is the inclusion of Ray Schalk as the only White Sox player, somehow suggesting that the Black Sox were deliberately omitted. The scandal, while suspected during or shortly after the 1919 World Series, did not break until September, 1920, with indictments issued the following month. The identity of the culprits was far from fixed in 1920, at least until almost year end, so leaving them out of the set cannot be due to criminal activity. Moreover, why not include sqeaky clean Eddie Collins, a HOF caliber player by 1920? It may just be that only one White Sox player was to be included and Schalk was chosen. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Todd, glad you're back!!
“Crystal.” I’ve never used that word in my speech. Good points, which included some information I didn't know. The 1920 date is based on the uniforms, but using a one year delay......which as you said, should have nothing to do with the black sox (I now know). Should we return to 1919-1920, with the primary reason being the selection of players along with their respective uniforms, or should we settle on '19? I really want to know what you think about all this. Ruth and Mays should be wearing those stripes (especially Ruth!), but they're not....They're Red Sox..... So what about Mr. Konetchy? Does he belong with Baker or not, what do you see on that? |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1919 Mayfair Novelty Co generic strip cards | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 15 | 01-24-2011 11:46 PM |
1920 W519 and 1921 W551 Strip Cards HOFs FS/T | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 02-13-2007 08:00 PM |
Some questions about strip cards | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 08-29-2006 02:19 PM |
Vintage Index (pre 1920) for 2006 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 02-19-2006 05:53 AM |
over 1000 Strip cards/E-card/Cuban cards for sale | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T | 3 | 09-17-2005 08:34 AM |