1950's Rawlings Store Ads ??

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Picked these up recently. Supposedly, these are in-store Rawlings ads from the 1950s. The first is Mantle-Bauer from 1954. The second is Stan Musial from 1958. Each measures 8.5 x 11, give or take a 1/16th of an inch. The paper is fairly heavy stock (but still paper, not cardboard) and the backs are completely blank (with same color and slight toning as the fronts).

I picked these up from a good seller, along with a number of other 50s-60s photo/card premium items (stadium issues, etc.) that I know are real, so I don't have reason to question whether these are real, other than my own ignorance. So, I figured I'd check to see if anyone knows more about these, and if I should be concerned about authenticity. Thanks for any help!

Mickey Mantle - 1954?


Stan Musial Rawlings Ad - 1958?

[Archive]

Posted By: John Harrell

These are very likely the real deal. Most sold on Ebay are copies, especially if sold by a certain seller or two. The usually go for 25 to 50 bucks depending on condition.

John

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Thanks John, that's encouraging. Is there anything about the reprints that make them easy to distinguish from the real thing?

When I received these, I was happy to see that the wording is in very heavy black -- really solid. There are dot patterns elsewhere on the ad (which I suppose is typical), but the words are very solid. If it was a modern reprint, I think the words would show a dot matrix pattern on close inspection, but that's just a guess.

Also, the toning is very, very slight, and even. Definitely not the typical overdone aging you see on many faked items.

[Archive]

Posted By: John Harrell

Typically it is the "aging" that gives them away. A real ad of this kind will have even toning, with no real splotches. Uneven toning is usually distinct (one part having been exposed and another, not) so that there appears to be a distinct line drawn (a newspaper that has had a portion exposed to air and the rest covered). I got many of mine from scgaynor before the glut of copies hit Ebay.

John

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

were from the 'barn find' of Louisville Slugger ads in Indiana circa mid-1980's. I bought about 2000 of them from the original person and subsequently sold them to Lelands. I never saw color versions for any of them and suspect they are all original. The H&B ads were all 11x17 while the Rawlings ads were 8.5x11. I still have about 40-50 total left from the batch I had at one time. They are great collectibles and generally pretty reasonable in price.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Solid ink for the printed text, like at the bottoms, is not proof of authenticity, but is a positive sign. The image parts should have dots, that's no problem.

Computer printers, photocopiers and Xeroxes don't have brown ink, so a brown reprint from them would be filled with tiny dots of many colors. If the ink is genuinely, solidly brown (or whatever it appears to be in the scans), that again is not proof of authenticity but is a positive sign. Would automatically rule out computer print et al.

As already noted, much faked toning on reprint signs and such resemble bad staining, like someone spilled tea on it or there was a flood in the basement. Genuine toning is typically smooth and evenish throughout the item. It's not something you can duplicate with Earl Gray and gravy.

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

I was hoping David would see this post and share his views on the print process -- thanks.

Tom and John -- I have a few more questions, if that's ok.

What condition were the pieces in the Indiana find? After I received these, I was pleasantly surprised there were no condition problems, other than a touched corner or two. If most of the Indiana find was near mint, then that would explain it.

What other players appear in these ads? Or are they too numerous to identify?

Any history behind the Indiana find? Did these belong to a former salesman, or sporting goods store employee?

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

In Indiana were all toned about the same. Even toning with few real defects. At least I culled out any defects when I bought them from the original seller. If I'm not mistaken, I think Lelands may have sold the ones to Scott or he may have bought them from Lelands when he had SCGAYNOR up and running. Circa 1996-1998 timeframe.

I originally contacted the seller at a flea market in Louisville where I bought 10-15 of them and then was told he had thousands of them. Not sure how many he had after I'd bought the ones I bought but I know it was still a lot of them. I had about 15-16 different versions including 4-5 of the 1/2 sheets like the ones you pictured.

They sold, at times, on ebay in excess of $40-$50 or more. I've subsequently seen some in the Hunt Auctions here in Louisville do exceptionally well given how many of them there are out there. I think a lot have been absorbed into collections and the price started to come back up on them a little.

The original seller lives in Southwest Indiana. They also had some SPOT ON mint 1948 Leaf BB cards (lot of SP's) but knew what they were worth. Wish I could have pried them out for a reasonable price.

I never louped them to see the dot pattern although David is an expert on the printing nuances of stuff like this. I always had my doubts that they were issued for sure in the 1950's but never found anything to refute that claim. There was one that pictured Ted Williams & Vern Stephens I think for the 1946/1947 or so batting championship. It was in with others that were to have been from the mid-1950's or so. They all had the same look, feel, etc, so that was what led me to believe they may have been printed at a later time. Just a personal hunch.

There are a couple others that you see from time to time that are the death of Ty Cobb and death of Babe Ruth. Those are more period to the actual events (1960/1948 or so I think) and printed on different paper than the bulk of these 11x17 H&B and 8.5x11 smaller prints. The Cobb is on a lighter color paper and the Ruth seems to be on a paper that has a different 'feel' in it.

Anyway, I think they are great collectibles and very affordable regardless of the exact date of printing. I'm not sure anyone will ever really know but I never saw a colorized ad of any of the posters that led me to believe that the b/w ones we're talking about were anything but real...........

JMO.............

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Many thanks Tom. Great information. If you have scans of some of the others (including the larger H&B ads), I would love to see them.

I bought these to frame and hang in my son's room. I think I got a bargain compared to what these have sold for in the past. Of course, now I'll make sure not to hang them in direct sunlight.

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

Some of them are far more common than others, but none of them are rare. I think that the toughest one was the one with Ruth from the 1948 movie. Most of them are mint, which kind of scares people who don't know the history into thinking that they are reprints. I ran into that from time to time when I was selling them years ago.

There are some that had some weird toning though. The toning almost looked like splotches on the surface and they had a weird kind of almost glossy coating. I have no idea why.

They were obviously stored in stacks for decades and some of the signs on top of the stacks were toned so badly on the edges that they fell apart when touched. The signs in the middle were as nice as they day that they were printed.

I am surprised that anybody would reproduce these, there are so many originals that it would not seem cost effective.


Another item that people often think is a repro but is 100% authentic and vintage is this Mathewson piece

http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=502&lot=57

I was with Josh Evans doing a buy show when a guy walked in with 6 or 7 of them. He thought that they were beer coasters. Those 6 or 7 were all that came out, but because they were so mint, they fooled people into thinking that they were repros.

If you know how to tell the difference between an item that is printed or copied, and know old paper stock, you will not get fooled often, even when an item seems too "mint".

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Thanks Scott.