Show me your 1933 Goudey #47 Heinie Manush

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

The 1933 Goudey #47 Heinie Manush has two variations, although I don't think the variations are cataloged. One variation has a fence on the upper left area of the card, the other does not. My gues in seeing some is that neither is as tough as the other. My other guess is also that the one with the fence was printed earlier than the one without the fence, not that makes a big difference.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I don't look at your bum, bum-looker! Cheeky monkey!

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

King, that's a beauty. I wonder why they removed the fence from the artwork; perhaps they felt Heinie's name couldn't be read clearly with the fence in the background.

Mine does have the fence at the top:

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimi

Great looking Manushes, guys! So crisp! I'm very jealous!

Jimi

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Here's my Lo# Manush....it not only is missing the fence....but also the blue ink.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Ted, this one stole the blue from your card!

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I have seen many, many 33G's in the process of putting together two 239-card sets.
I have never, ever seen a "blue bio" back.....that is sooooo cool.

I can only conclude....that somehow the yellow inking phase was missed in the print-
ing process of creating the green lettering.

Great stuff.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry

What are the chances that the back of that card came into contact with something that faded or changed the color from green to blue? Like a chemical?

[Archive]

Posted By: PaulPaulPaul

I don't know much about printing, but I don't think Goudey would use a two-color printing process to create the green ink on the back. When you are printing just one color, especially text, you just mix a batch of the color and then print it. You don't print yellow over blue to make green. At least I don't think so.

Maybe the guy mixing the green ink was a little drunk that day.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

In the 4-color process, Yellow is always the first color ink to be applied. And, Blue (cyan) is the final inking in this process.
This is my understanding how the fronts are printed.

I agree that the lettering on the backs should be a single color pass.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: RC

I like the fence, unfortunately my Manush doesn't include one.

RC

edited for spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Ted, is it possible to tell if your card had the fence or not? I wonder if there are other differences.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

"perhaps they felt Heinie's name couldn't be read clearly with the fence in the background."

Eric, that would be my guess too, I don't know though.
FWIW, the 1933 World Wide Gum also has the fence.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Perhaps the field depicted was renovated in 1933 and they changed the image for accuracy...

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

That blue back card is interesting.

I dont think they used blue and yellow to make green because you would be able to see this on cards where they didnt get the registration perfect. I also dont think it was faded by anything, its too consistent in color and the paper looks alright. I think it was more like the clown in charge of filling the ink grabbed the wrong color for that batch of sheets.... Sort of like the red E92 Croft Candy cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

You asked.."Ted, is it possible to tell if your card had the fence or not? I wonder if there are other differences."

1st......My card is simply a color printing error.....the last ink application in the 4-color printing process is BLUE.
And, the printer short-changed this one. This one is quite unique; but, is only a mistake.

I've seen many Manush (#47) cards, they all have a varying intensity of blue in the upper part of the card. The
deeper the blue, the more visible the fence design. The pale (or faded) blue does not reveal the fence.

2nd......As you know, there is a 3rd Manush card in this set issued after the 1933 World Series ended (card #107
from the last series). Are there any printing variatios associated with that one ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

Here is the #107 Manush card. As Ted said, this card was from the 10th and final sheet of 24 cards that were produced for the 240-card 1933 Goudey set. As with all of the cards that appeared on the last 3 production sheets, it lacks the red "Big League Chewing Gum" label across the bottom. I am not aware of any printing variations associated with this one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

ERIC

Great looking LAST SERIES card of Manush.....the only interesting factor about it, is its Low # (107). That is this Manush, along with 14
other Lo# cards were issued in this last series in November 1933.

In a prior Thread some have noted that Leaf Gum's "skip-numbered" Sportscards were a "nasty" trick. Well, in 1933 Goudey was the first
Gum Card Co. to print BB cards with missing numbers. Finally, in the last two series these Low #s were issued in the Fall of '33.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

When you think about it, that method seems to have been the "in" marketing method of the era.

US Caramel did it twice in their non-sports American Heroes (Presidents) series (few Mckinley's) and again in their sports cards (few Lindstrom's). Gum Inc. did it in their
Wild West cards (few #25's-Premium redemption card).

But Goudey seemed to pull two tricks, they issued the cards in skip-numbered fashion, and then didn't issue the Lajoie at all (that year).

Thank God, for us set collectors, that the card manufacturers got over that trend.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Ted, by your post, I was hoping you had found a variation to #107! We've discussed the sheets and printing dates before. One thing I've wondered - the last Goudey series wasn't in until very late 1933. Many kids probably didn't even get it until 1934, in the cold winter months. I guess that shows how popular baseball was back then since Goudey thought they could still entice collectors to buy more with the exclusion of #106.

For full disclosure - I own the blue back #47 Manush. From the experts I've talked to (thanks guys, you know who you are), it looks like it was a color difference in the ink when it printed. I'm having computer issues right now, and the inside of my house is being painted, so it may take me a while, but I'll posts scans of the card in its SGC holder in a bit.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I have only been on this Forum a little over 2 years......but, I would guess that most 33G collectors are
familiar with the 22 Lo#s of this set that were not issued until the 9th & 10th sheets were printed. But,
occasionally it's worthwhile to reprise this fact for new collectors tuning in, who aren't so knowledgeable.

The real mystery of the 33G cards that I've never gotten an answer to is.....why were the last 72 cards
printed without the "Big League Chewing Gum" strip on their fronts ?

Anyone have a definite answer to this mystery ? ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

scans of the blue back with two regular backs, one with the fence, one without. Thanks to Todd S. who was the first one to notice the variation and point it out to me. When I talked to other Goudey collectors, none of them had noticed the variation before.

I'll let you guys decide how the blue back became blue. I know at least one prominent dealer who thinks the card was altered, but other experts I've talked to (including SGC) thinks it's a legitimate print with just an odd ink or solvent involved during the time of printing.