1926-1929 Exhibits Postcard back

[ls7plus]

Very, very scholarly, Exhibitman! Can't thank you enough for all of this valuable information.

Larry

[greenmonster66]

delete

[smtjoy]

Thanks for the post Adam, excellent article. Great to learn a few more things about a set I really like.

[fkw]

Adam dont know if you seen this one before, with the 2 colors

I dont know who owns it, Ive had scans of it for a few years now.



to me these upside down mix color etc cards may have been designed to be cut into individual "cards" like a strip card ??? Then when they werent too popular maybe Exhibit Supply Co went and designed the true strip cards... the W517 and W517 minis ???

[Exhibitman]

Frank. that one is #5 image on my site.

I don't think these were made to be cut up--they have PC backs which would be ruined, plus all of the cards I've seen that were designed to be cut apart say so somewhere on them:

[triwak]

Terrific info on this thread! The Big Train says, "Thanks!"

[martin neal]

I would also like to say thanks to Adam for such a great post.

[DaveW]

I'd also like to add my thanks to Adam for sharing his vast knowledge with us.
He's a great resource for the hobby and Exhibit card collectors. Now that I've buttered him up a bit, I'd like to pick his brain a bit more. How do you tell the difference between the different years of issue? I've looked at the Old Cardboard gallery and I can't tell the difference between the 1921, 1922 and 1923/4 issues. They all have names in script with printed position, team and league with some cards borderless and some not. Is there a good way to tell? Thanks for any info,
- Dave

[Exhibitman]

Yeah, there is, but you have to handle the cards to see the differences: (1) some cards weren't issued before, and (2) the reissued cards had different cropping, teams and/or borders. In fact those dummies at PSA got it wrong on one of the most important cards of all, the 1923-24 Babe Ruth. This one for sale in Legendary is a 1921, not a 1923-24 as PSA slabbed it:



The Ruth was borderless in 1921 and has a border in 1923-24.



The 1st thing to do is figure whether you have a card that was not issued at all in 1921-22. Like these:







If the guy was in the 1921 set, more than likely ESCO took the old picture and played with it, like the Ruth. Or this Veach:

1921



1923



Also note the "AL" use in 1923 instead of the "Am.L" in 1921

[sterlingfox]

If there are blank-backed or “correspondence” cards for a particular player who has a putative “rookie” card in the set, only those cards, not later cards with the “not to be used” backs, are their actual rookie year issues. This has a great deal of importance with Gehrig. I have yet to see a blank-backed Gehrig card. I think it very likely that any Gehrig card that has a blank back is a 1925 issue, while any card with a legend on the back is a 1926 or later printing. Since Gehrig’s 1925 regular issue card is a rookie and sells for thousands of dollars, dating the Gehrig in this set is critical.

Sorry for resurrecting such an old thread, but there appears to now be evidence of a blank backed Gehrig in existence.

I wish it wasn't priced into the stratosphere by Dean's (23K!!)... would seriously consider picking it up if it were priced fairly.

[Snapolit1]

In my book these are about as cool as cool gets. Love the photos and the color variations are awesome. These are friggin' works of art.

[Exhibitman]

That's really interesting. That card does not look right to me. The print quality is lesser than I would expect, like a second generation card.




Also, the back cardboard looks too coarse for an Exhibit card.

I always thought this Gehrig image was taken later and used on later cards. Like for this 4 on 1:




or the W517

Then there is the Gehrig batting and Gehrig silhouette.



I don't know of any silhouette card being preceded by a second pose.

The portrait used to make the card needs further research. Here's why:

--MEARS sold an 11 x 14 portrait from The Sporting News as a 1925 Conlin (7/31/2011 auction...for only $118!).
--The 1991 Conlin cards list it as a 1927.
--It is in the book about Conlin's baseball images too: does anyone have access to one?

Anyone got a handle on other Conlin resources? If we can pin down the date the picture was taken we can rule out any earlier cards using it.

[Snapolit1]

Adam, you’re the man on these issues. I bought your book and it was a pleasure to read.

One question unrelated to discussion above: it seems to me that
Certain exhibits issues are really prone to browningn that looks like water damage. Like the 1921 Ruth, in my mind one of the absolute beauties. Do you know why that staining seems to affect some cards more than others. Or maybe you don’t agree with this at all.

Steve

[Exhibitman]

I don't think they are more vulnerable year over year. One of the nice things about them is the consistency of the card stock. The degree of aging has to do with storage more than anything else. Like any other pulp product, how the acid affects the paper is largely environmental.

[ls7plus]

Occasionally, it is very educational to resurrect an old post. Interesting info all the way around, guys, and thanks! Plus, having collected quite a few of the key cards since my original post those years ago, I agree with Adam that the Gehrig portrait does not look right. The print quality does not seem up to par at all, IMO. Might well be worth someone's while to try and pull a fake for big bucks (not pointing fingers at the seller at all, who, if this is the case, is likely an entirely innocent party), as an ExMt example of the card just sold for almost $7300 in a PWCC auction. Those were $1200-$1500 cards 5-6 years ago!

Best wishes to all,

Larry