Question on 41 Playball Copyright Variation

[Kutcher55]

Hoping someone can educate me or direct me to a prior thread that covered this topic. I was just made aware of a variation in the '41 Playball set. To be clear, I'm not talking about the paper version -- that is a separate topic. Instead I'm curious about the difference between the cards that have just the "C" (copyright) symbol on the back lower left corner as opposed to the cards that have the "C - 1941" symbol. I checked my set and 25 of my 71 cards (I'm one card short) have the '1941', all of them within the early (#1-48) part of the set so I suspect the variation was not extended to cards 49-72 but I would like to confirm this. Additional questions.

1. Is one version rarer than the other?

2. Are there differences in the card stock and/or size of the cards? When I did an informal survey of my own set it appears as though the ones with just the 'C' have slightly larger dimensions and aren't quite as bone-white as the ones that include 1941. This might just be coincidental because I only looked at a handful of cards.

3. Is there any value difference between the two versions, particularly on the key cards?

Any other info the experts might be able to share is greatly appreciated!

[Harford20]

Although my data is limited to a single 1941 card, #14 Ted Williams, I tracked sales of the variations over several years. My data was limited to graded cards due to the vast number of reprints for this set (and what I was planning on purchasing).

1. For Ted, just the "C" (copyright) symbol was about 25% of the graded card sales, and the the "C - 1941" symbol was 75% of sales.

2. My cards were only purchased graded here, so cannot provide info on this

3. There really was no "premium" for the "C" (copyright) symbol, but as these were much less common, it took me far longer (actually years) to find the card that fit my collection with this variation.

David

[LuckyLarry]

from the Standard Catalog

[Kutcher55]

Thanks both. That makes sense. My Ted has the 1941 btw. Of the 47 cards I have between 1-48, 25 of them, or 53% have the 1941. If we take that and the research done by Dave H, that would suggest that the 1941 cards are slightly more prolific in the early series. Not enough data to conclude that so it would be nice to hear other people’s set breakdown — at least those like me who were unaware of the variation.

[LuckyLarry]

I just thumbed through my set. 31 of the 48 cards have @1941

Larry

[Kutcher55]

I am messing around with Excel, trying to determine the relative scarcity of #49-72 vs 1-48. If both the first printing in 1941 and the second printing in 1942 was the same size in total, based on an estimate that the '@ 1941' comprise ~60% of the total final population of 1-48 (using the above 3 data points to estimate this), this would imply that overall 49-72 is 2.5x more scarce than 1-48 (inclusive of the "@" and "@1941" population). However, we only could conclude that if we make the very big assumption that both print sizes were the same.

But we have another piece of data: Based on the pricing of commons in various price guides I have seen, the 49-72 series doesn't provide that level of difference in value -- typically from what I have seen the later series commons sell for 1.25x to 1.5x that of 1-48. Which would suggest that the second printing (the "@" only cards in 1942), which contained 1-72 might have been somewhat larger than the initial printing of 1-48.

I guess I would conclude that the second printing was between 1 and 1.5x as big as the first printing. If it was more than 1.5x bigger we would have more '@' in the 1-48 population during our informal survey because it would overcome the fact that there were 50% more cards to print (1-72) in the second printing.

This all assumes that they printed a uniform # of each card # in each printing and there were no SPs.

Clearly I have too much time on my hands on a rainy Wednesday.

[brianp-beme]

Only 20 of 48 with 1941 for me. Interesting that I only have 3 1941 cards for the number range of 25 through 48.

I wonder if others have more non-1941 cards in that 25 through 48 range as well? Or perhaps me and my collection is just odd.

Brian

[Kutcher55]

That is interesting. My breakout has a similarly odd profile. In cards 1-24, 18 of my 23 have '@ 1941' (missing Greenberg). In cards 25-48, only 8 of 24 have '@1941.'

That fits with earlier poster comment that 75% of the Ted Williams (#14) cards he surveyed had @1941.

It hints at either a third printing or perhaps there were SPs or DPs in this set after all. Curious if others show a higher % of '@ 1941s' in 1-24 as compared to 25-48.

[spec]

Like my neighbor, Lucky Larry, 31 of my 1941 Play Balls feature 1941 with the copyright (1-24 plus 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38).

[Kutcher55]

Cool! This means beyond much doubt that there were at least three separate print runs of this set. My theory is there was an initial run of just cards 1-24 with ‘@1941’. Then there was a subsequent and possibly smaller print run of cards 1-48 also with ‘@ 1941.” And then finally a larger delayed print run of 1-72 without the ‘1941.’

This would be supported by the fact that there are few stars in #25-48 so perhaps the second run was smallest of all and maybe the one most interrupted by war activities. The only thing I don’t like about the theory is that #49-72 would only appear on 1 of 3 print runs so you would think those cards would be more scarce than they seem to be. But perhaps this was a slightly larger run than the first two. Or, maybe they overprinted 49-72 in the final run to help catch those cards up a bit?

Either way there had to have been at least 3 print runs.

[LuckyLarry]

numbered 1-24: 23 of these 24 cards have @1941 with only #4 Paul Derringer missing

numbered 25-48: 8 of these 24 cards have @1941

Larry

[LuckyLarry]

Here the wantlist of a friend

1941 Playball with 1941 copyright: NEED 17 20 22 26 27 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 43 45 47

1941 Playball w/o copyright: NEED 1 2 4 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 21 23 24 30 31 32 42