1948-49 Leaf baseball question

jrdolan

PSA classifies this set as 1948 Leaf, while many others call it 1949 Leaf, and still others say 1948-49 Leaf. I understand that some of the set was isued in '48 and the rest in '49. Is there any concrete reference as to which cards were issued in which year?

I am particularly interested in #8 Satchell Paige, an extremely difficult rookie card in the Leaf set due to rarity. Should 1949 Bowman also be considered Satch's "rookie" card? (Disregarding the fact that he was already old as Moses at the time) Some catalogs do label it thus, but not PSA.

Any help or pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.

Stone193

<< <i>1949 Bowman also be considered Satch's "rookie" card? >>


Jr
The 04 Standard Catalog of BB cardz lists it as his RC.

Mike

WinPitcher

great questions,,,,i too always wondered abt the 48 49 leaf

helionaut

There was an article in Beckett Vintage or someplace like that a while ago. It was originally thought that it came out in 1948, maybe with another round in winter 48-49. But the article I read said that research indicates it actually came out in 1949, so that's the year most people attribute to it now. PSA set registry has it as 48-49, but I know I've seen slabs with either 1948 or 1949 on them. I don't think I've ever seen one labeled 48-49.

mrc32

Call it "Late 40's Leaf"

TCC

The Beckett Almanac refers to the set as 1949 Leaf and says, "Some cards were produced with a 1948 copyright date but overwhelming evidence seemed to indicate that this set was not actually released until early in 1949".

They list Paige's #8 card as a SP and RC. They also list Paige's #224 card in the 1949 Bowman set as a RC.

-Bob

Griffins

If the Leaf set came out late '48 or early '49, wouldn't have beat out the '49 Bowman set? That one certainly came out in Spring/Summer of '49.
A similar debate arose on the registry on whether Phil Rizzuto's rookie card was the '48 Leaf or '48 Bowman. In the end more people had the '48 Bowman and CU decided that it was the "official" rookie card. I guess if your holding it it's the rookie, if you don't it's not.
In the end, does it really matter what is his "official" rookie card? The '49 Bowman is nice and affordable (relatively) the Leaf is a near impossible short print that is very desireable. Personally I like his '53 Topps the best.
FWIW my Leaf Paige has a '49 copyright date on the back- the common series has a mix of '48 and '49 copyrights, as does the scarce series. Assuming that both series were not released at the same time I think '49 is a much more accurate date for this set.

jrdolan

Thanks for all the info and opinions. Yeah, many references do list 1949 Leaf and they also state that 49B is Paige's RC as well. The problem is that PSA's registry is about the only place that does NOT recognize it as such. If you're working on the Postwar HOF Rookies set, only the rare and vastly more expensive Leaf card qualifies.

I believe this is just plain wrong, since the Leaf Paige came out in the same year as the Bowman Paige, as Griffins' statement bears out. Yes, I do have the Bowman Paige and not the Leaf, so of course I have a stake. But I think the point still holds. First cards in either set should qualify as RCs in the registry.

As for which set beat the other off the presses that summer of '49, I don't think a few weeks or even months should matter. Look at today's rookies. Some are printed very early in the year, and more are issued in endless variation sets all through the summer and fall, and they are all designated RC for that year in SMR.

Griffins

<< First cards in either set should qualify as RCs in the registry.
>>

I agree, but unfortunately in the case of the Rizzuto rookie CU went with the majority of self interests, rather than what was right and fair.

jrdolan

I suppose the issue for PSA is one of weighting, so they feel they must pick just one?

The Bowman should not have the same weight as the Leaf, I agree. Perhaps they could list them both in the HOF rookie set, with their appropriate weights, say 10 and 7, and when one is registered the other listing disappears. You can later register the other by deleting the first, then both choices come back.

Makes me wonder what they're going to do when HOFers like Clemens and Bonds and Big Unit are inducted, with their various rookie cards. What if Albert Pujols gets in? Holy schlamoly, there could be a rather large registry set just for his many different rookies!

Griffins

I asked to include both Rizzuto's, but it was shot down. Not a big deal, but my point is that in the argument of what is a rookie card there are varied and inconsistant opinions.
Just collect 'em all.

jrdolan

edited to remove a correction that is no longer necessary!

Vargha

Anthony -- Don't forget that Rizzuto has two variations in the 1949 Bowman set as well.

NAME ON FRONT



NO NAME ON FRONT