Goodwin "Weiser Wonder" Walter Johnson postcard

[rhettyeakley]

I was looking through the Goodwin catalog today and was a little bugged by the write-up of their Weiser Wonder Walter Johnson postcard in there.

In the auction description they talk about how this was Walter Johnson's personal copy of this particular postcard as a major selling point. I don't have a problem with that but they also include a letter that written by the grandson of Walter Johnson stating... "This is to certify that the following lot originated from my personal collection of items relating to my grandfather, Walter Johnson..." signed at bottom by his grandson.

My issue is where does it say this ever was owned by WaJo--it seems clear that his grandson owned it but those are two very different things. Does this sound wierd to anyone else here?



---Also on a completely unrelated note about this postcard...

Goodwin is claiming this postcard was produced in 1907 and that it could arguably be Walter Johnson's rookie card. PSA has stated a date of 1901 on the flip!?!(wierd)
-My question is this, is the card postmarked 1907 on back? If not where in the world are they getting the date from?
-All the examples that I have seen from this set over the years have had postmarks of much later 1915-1918 or so, so what did Goodwin use to determine the date (which is a VERY significant feature of the piece were to really date from 1907.)
-The Walter Johnson story was well known back then and it was actually my assumption that these were likely produced after Walter had become a famous Major Leaguer to cash in on his notoriety.


Anyways, I was just venting a little as it seems like they are touting a few aspects of this card that are troubling to me. Beside those points above the card is a great card in and of itself and doesn't really need the extra fluff (if what I am assuming above is true).

I welcome your thoughts and opinions,
-Rhett

[fkw]

Wasnt there more than 1 type of card too? I dont have my book with me, so might be wrong.

I also thought they were all from the late teens when Johnson was more well known.

[rhettyeakley]

Frank, you are correct there are two "versions" one is the type in the auction and the other is a more sepia/B&W version of the same image.
-Rhett

[oldjudge]

Just a few observations:

1. I wonder if Henry Thomas wanted his address and phone number to be published in the catalog

2. Is there anything that PSA will not write on a slab? Since they dated the card 1901 (when Johnson was 13 years old during the baseball season), I wonder if someone had submitted it to PSA claiming it was Johnson's bar mitzvah photo if PSA would have listed that on the slab.

[PGACPA]

Hey Jay,
It's not just PSA whoring itself out. I recall purchasing a SGC 98 Old Judge Burns, Chicago from you that had "Pulled From Pack" on the SGC flip.
And all of those "XYZ Collection" flips....(I'm not naming names but we all know who they are) from both PSA and SGC...
All I can say is grading COMPANIES are in business to make a profit and they are not apologizing for it. Unfortunately we,the collecting community, have become slaves to this.
So when is the Jay Miller collection coming out? :rolleyes:
Bob C.

[rhettyeakley]

Jay, I'm sure he isn't very happy about having his address, phone #, and email address all published out there--major mistake on Goodwin's part not to cover up those details on the letter.

I'm sure PSA meant to write 1910 as opposed to 1901 but where did they get that date from? Have they found an example of this postcard that can be attributed to that early of a date as the example in the auction was not postally used (website has photo of back)?

[Bicem]

Nice observations Rhett! The sepia toned version (which I believe is more rare) sold in the Aug 08 Mastro (for $2600) and was postmarked 1918 (although also described as 1907 in the title). The later postmark date is what scared me off the item as I agree with you, these were produced much later than 1907 (and obviously 1901).

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotImages/51/79371a_lg.jpeg
http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotImages/51/79371b_lg.jpeg

[calvindog]

Suddenly I'm feeling bad for the current high bidder on this lot.

Btw, Jeff, don't you often send out postcards 11 years after you buy them -- instead of immediately?

[Bicem]

Btw, Jeff, don't you often send out postcards 11 years after you buy them -- instead of immediately?

do people really still buy postcards - save a stamp and just send me a text with a pic if you feel the need to brag about your vacation.

[slidekellyslide]

How does Goodwin know that a Weiser based company produced this postcard? There is nothing on the reverse to suggest that. IMO these Weiser cards were produced well after Johnson was an established Major Leaguer.

[Orioles1954]

Perhaps they were released as a commemorative campaign?

James

[HRBAKER]

Rampant speculation in an auction listing description, ah never!
Close your eyes, click your heels twice, it could be true.

[Bob Lemke]

My write-up in the Standard Catalog gives the "date" as 1909, and concedes the issue date(s) are conjectural. This is based on the fact that the earlier version (sepia) has the undivided postcard back that was current until 1908, while the bluetone version has the post-1908 USPS-mandated divided back.

The intro adds, "It is likely one or both of these cards continued to be produced or at least available after Johnson became a major league star."

[steve B]

I do wonder how they got the date for the description, but the mailing date wouldn't bother me much. It often has little to do with the date the card was made. It's nice if a dated card ws mailed the same year, but not necessary (to me anyway)

When I started collecting in the late 70's I'd sometimes run into stores that had a few linnen postcards of fenway park left. And those hadn't been made since the 50's. Postcards were often sold in boxes of 500, so if it took a store several years to sell them They'd be available for years after.

Steve

[rhettyeakley]

I thought the divided/undivided happened in 1907. Regardless, the back shown above with the undivided back isn't a true undivided back in that it has on the left side "Correspondence" which in and of itself indicated it IS adivided back. The "undivided" back postcards did not allow for any writing on the back of the postcard--you were to write on the front only, the entire back was meant for the address alone. Thus, there would never have been the words "Correspondence" written on the back of one of those. Just because it doesn't have a line seperating the two sides doesn't mean it was an early undivided back postcard.

I also want to clarify that I personally think this postcard is one of the cooler ones ever produced, and having family that live in Idaho I would love to own one one day, I just have a few issues with the dating and whether this card actually belonged to Walter himself.
-Rhett

[barrysloate]

I would make note of all the postally used examples and track the dates, even if only a few examples can be verified. If all the dates are in the 1918 era, then it is almost impossible that they were issued ten years prior.

[Rob D.]

I can't imagine trying to put together a catalog while dealing with the distractions some auction houses can be subject to these days.

Cut Bill Goodwin some slack, please.

[E93]

There are plenty of good explanations for why a postcard made a decade earlier would be mailed in 1918. There are not a lot of good explanations (other than a commemorative issue, which is not indicated) for why it would be produced in 1918, but not depict Johnson in a Washington uniform.
JimB

[ksfarmboy]

Mastro auction December 7, 2006, lot 1108 and page 187. This is probably the original. Jim the W is for Weiser. Will get image when I fix my scanner.

[ksfarmboy]

Here is the photo.

[Bicem]

the auction is on Legendary's site too Clint.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=68306

[ksfarmboy]

Thanks Jeff, that would have been a lot easier for me wouldn't it? :)

[bcbgcbrcb]

I too am very interested in all board members' opinions regarding this item. I had not previously included it among the five earliest Walter Johnson cards on the OldCardboard database for HOF Rookie Cards and am wondering if any more definitive information is available that would place it right before/after the 1907-09 Novelty Cutlery Postcard of Johnson?

[sox1903wschamp]

This is a really cool postcard and I would love to own it. With that said, I was watching the old game show "password" the other day and this thread made me think about that show and the fact that they could use this Auction as a clue for the word "Hype" :).

But kidding aside, I am in the camp that this was produced sometime after 1907. Unless an example is found postmarked earlier, it is hard for me to imagine they produced these when the picture was taken with the intent of selling very many. When he made it big, someone probably had the bright idea to produce these cards of the legend that passed through Idaho (IMO).

And to JimB's point, did someone need to state that they were producing a commemorative issue back in those days?

[Hankphenom]

Jay, I'm sure he isn't very happy about having his address, phone #, and email address all published out there--major mistake on Goodwin's part not to cover up those details on the letter.

I'm sure PSA meant to write 1910 as opposed to 1901 but where did they get that date from? Have they found an example of this postcard that can be attributed to that early of a date as the example in the auction was not postally used (website has photo of back)?

This is Henry (Hank) Thomas. And no, I'm not at all pleased about having my personal information published in their catalog. What in the world were they thinking? But I've been in this hobby/business for a long time, and unfortunately most auctioneers seem to be thinking almost entirely about their bottom line and consignors, buyers, and all other parties rank a distant second in their considerations.

As to the postcard itself. This came from my grandfather's scrapbooks, pasted there by my grandmother. I don't have the catalog, and the online item doesn't picture my LOA, thankfully, but I don't know why I wouldn't have stated clearly that this item had belonged to Johnson, as I thought I did for all items in that category. I have also sold items recently that I collected myself, and to my recollection always made the distinction in my LOAs. Perhaps I erred in this case, but as I said I can't see the LOA to know for sure. Lastly, I'm no card expert, mostly a memorabilia guy, but I always assumed the card was a later issue, possibly even as late as the 1920s when Johnson came into his greatest fame following the 1924 World Series. Wouldn't the graphics give the greatest clue as to the date of issue? It seems almost certain to me, however, to NOT be from 1907 or even the first few years of his career. Just my opinion. PSA's slabbing of a 1901 issue date tells you all you need to know about their expertise and diligence on the subject. Hope this helps. As I said, I'm not a card guy, but I do love the hobby despite it's many deficiencies and controversies, and I always enjoy the intelligent and honest discussions about it courtesy of the experts taking the time to contribute to this forum.

[prewarsports]

I have talked to Hank several times about Walter Johnson's tenure in Weiser. I live only about 45 minutes from Weiser and it is a cool little town. It was a booming town in 1910 but has about the same population today that it had in 1907. Interesting that it had more opium dens than photographer shops when Walter was there.

I have ALWAYS wanted this postcard because of where I live and my feeling that Johnson is far and away the best pitcher in the game.

I do agree with my brother though that this is certainly a 1915-1920 issue date but in the long run, it does not matter when it was issued. It is rare and desirable enough to collectors that only the die hard "Rookie" collectors would really care if this was issued in 1907 or 1915.

Goodwin did not need all the fluff on this item. Rare cards and pieces of memorabilia can many times speak for themselves and this is one of those cases.

Rhys

[Bicem]

Thanks for coming on here Hank and giving your thoughts, very cool of you.

[paul]

I thought this was discussed a few years ago, and the conclusion was that the pc was not from 1907. This was based on the same discussion of the divided back, which was a 1908 innovation. I agree with Rhett that a pc has a "divided" back even if there is no line in the middle, as long as there is a space for correspondence. These cards have that, so they can't be from 1907.

[rmacpa]

the following was excerpted from a website devoted to the history of united states postcards.

"Modern Postcard Era - Divided Back Postcards (1907 - Present)

The final major change in postcard design came with the new postcard regulations of March 1, 1907, which allowed the back of postcards to be divided down the center. The right side of the back was now for the address and postage and the left side was for the personal message that used to be written on the front of the card.

Because this is essentially the same basic design that is still in use today for postcards, March 1, 1907 is considered the birthday of the modern postcard. However, printers wanting to save money continued using their old designs for a time. So it is common to see postcards that were made after 1907 that still have some white space on the front for writing or to see the undivided backs with a line simply drawn down the middle."

[Hankphenom]

For those interested in Johnson's time in Idaho, here's a link to an article I wrote about it. There's another link in here to a longer article about his time pitching in southern California.

http://cwcfamily.org/wj/ww0.htm

[teetwoohsix]

Wow Hank,what a great article!!Thanks for the link!!!
Sincerely,Clayton

[Joe_G.]

I'm a bit late to the thread but just wanted to add that auction houses (and sometimes grading companies) over step their knowledge when describing (or grading) our collectibles. With the long winded flowery descriptions Goodwin and others feel compelled to deliver; they place themselves at risk of exposing their lack of knowledge. I can find errors in every Old Judge lot (about the only ones I look at).

The Sam Thompson N173 for example has several errors or questionable claims:

<b>1)</b> ERROR: "In total, 26 of the 27 Old Judge Hall of Famers are known to exist (there is no known Comiskey cabinet), . . ."

CORRECTION: Griffith is only known Old Judge HOFer without catalogued N173, Comiskey is among the easier examples.

<b>2)</b> Misleading: "this just happens to be the only recorded Sam Thompson N173 on the planet!" "This “one of one” museum worthy artifact portrays . . ."

Reality: Does publishing Thompson N173s in a book constitute being "recorded"? Thompson is considered mid-pack w.r.t. difficulty. The Old Judge book shows both brown and red mount examples of Thompson. I'm a black mount away from documenting Thompson in all available mount colors.

<b>3)</b> Misleading to some degree (I think): "His last year in the major Leagues, at the age of 46, he shared the outfield spotlight with Ty Cobb and Sam Crawford."

Reality: I don't believe Thompson ever took the field with Crawford and Cobb but was instead filling in for a short time for an injured Cobb. I would like to confirm this.

<b>4)</b> Strange: "Typical with most N173 cabinets, the yellow toned color has dissipated due to some 120 years of wear, toning and soling."

Just eliminate this, are they suggesting the photo or mount was once a bright or brighter yellow?

It's a great card that I would be bidding on if it were with Detroit. I don't think the description helps its case. Like the Johnson example, it would do fine on its own merit. I do however look forward to Goodwin's auctions; he seems to always put together an interesting offering.

[barrysloate]

Joe- as I like to say, why let a small detail like facts get in the way of a good story.

[slidekellyslide]

Misleading to some degree (I think): "His last year in the major Leagues, at the age of 46, he shared the outfield spotlight with Ty Cobb and Sam Crawford."

Reality: I don't believe Thompson ever took the field with Crawford and Cobb but was instead filling in for a short time for an injured Cobb. I would like to confirm this.



Actually I believe that Thompson did play alongside Cobb and Crawford for the final week of the 1906 season. I used to own a great snapshot of Thompson standing in the outfield of Bennett Park in 1906...the photo was from the Matty McIntyre album...it now resides with Sam Thompson's family.

Edited to add: I found an old newspaper on google's archives with a box score which shows Cobb, Crawford and Thompson in the lineup.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=swIbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FUkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2985,1667357&dq=sam+thompson+detroit+tigers+1906&hl=en

[Joe_G.]

Thank you Dan !!

I'm glad to hear the photo now resides with Keith. It is in fact because of Keith that I thought they never played side by side. Keith once thought that Sam, who remained playing baseball later in life with the DAC (Detroit Athletic Club), was only called up when Detroit was short on outfielders. So this clarification is greatly appreciated. I wasn't certain about this fact and that is why I prefaced my statement with "I believe". When I pour over old newspapers, I rarely make it to the 20th century.

Thanks! I'd really like to find a scorecard from one of those games, that would be a neat piece for a Detroit collector.

[PGACPA]

Don’t most of the big auction houses engage in this puffery to varying degrees? I think Legendary/Mastro whatever is the most verbose and wandering, with Bill Goodwin a close second. It does not really bother me; I actually find it amusing. It also does not alter my thoughts on bidding. If I need it or want it I am going to bid. Who cares if a player played with another or not, or whether he spit in an umpires eye or or got in fistfights all the time. My two cents.