PDA

View Full Version : 1865 Brooklyn Atlantics CDV for sale


edtiques
02-06-2013, 11:39 AM
This is a really nice piece of baseball memorabilia. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/slideshow/1865-baseball-card-worth-100000-2165601"]

Runscott
02-06-2013, 11:42 AM
This is a really nice piece of baseball memorabilia. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/slideshow/1865-baseball-card-worth-100000-2165601"]

Everyone but me is up in Maine preparing to bid, but thanks for posting.

GaryPassamonte
02-06-2013, 11:47 AM
Scott- I'm home where it's nice and quiet.

oldjudge
02-06-2013, 12:05 PM
My guess is that the card will go for no more than $30,000. What do you think?

Runscott
02-06-2013, 12:22 PM
I don't know, but I'm going out for a steak dinner on the money I saved by Saco not taking me up on getting the testing one.

Back in my own realm, I won this today - I'm pretty sure it's an 1865 Atlantics reunion game. I just need to find a way to get it in an SGC slab with the proper labeling, and it's steak dinners for the rest of the month.

rjackson44
02-06-2013, 12:29 PM
Scott just a pretty image wow

GaryPassamonte
02-06-2013, 12:43 PM
Jay,
I still think it will go for $40-$50 K, unless, of course, none of the usual suspects bid.

bn2cardz
02-06-2013, 12:45 PM
This is a really nice piece of baseball memorabilia. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/slideshow/1865-baseball-card-worth-100000-2165601"]

I am assuming that you missed this great read of a thread about this card... prepare to spend some time on it if you want to get through it all as it does have 338 posts.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=156708&highlight=1865

Matthew H
02-06-2013, 01:48 PM
I don't know, but I'm going out for a steak dinner on the money I saved by Saco not taking me up on getting the testing one.

Back in my own realm, I won this today - I'm pretty sure it's an 1865 Atlantics reunion game. I just need to find a way to get it in an SGC slab with the proper labeling, and it's steak dinners for the rest of the month.



Why does SGC have to approve of your photo? It's amazing.

Runscott
02-06-2013, 02:36 PM
Why does SGC have to approve of your photo? It's amazing.

Matt, I was being my usual smart-*ss self :)

atx840
02-06-2013, 04:15 PM
Matt, I was being my usual smart-*ss self :)

+1

talkinbaseball
02-06-2013, 06:12 PM
It's # 1 on the Yahoo website.


john

deebro041
02-06-2013, 06:13 PM
I don't know, but I'm going out for a steak dinner on the money I saved by Saco not taking me up on getting the testing one.

Back in my own realm, I won this today - I'm pretty sure it's an 1865 Atlantics reunion game. I just need to find a way to get it in an SGC slab with the proper labeling, and it's steak dinners for the rest of the month.

Nice pickup Scott! I was going to bid on this and forgot to set a snipe.:eek:

oldjudge
02-06-2013, 08:17 PM
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Rare-baseball-card-sells-for-80000-at-Biddeford-auction-house.html

The funniest thing is that the winner is a financial advisor.

yanks12025
02-06-2013, 08:24 PM
As a investment for his 4 year old son. So sounds like the guy doesn't even collect baseball. Wonder what rare card they will find next in a attic or old book.

Also can anyone ever see it selling for triple this amount like he thinks when he decides to sell it?

Matthew H
02-06-2013, 08:29 PM
You've gotta hand it SRA. I don't think the card would have brought 80k in any of the major sports auctions.

Runscott
02-06-2013, 08:34 PM
I'm glad they found something on Net54 that they could use:

"While it is similar to the card in the Library of Congress, the card found in Maine is printed from a different negative. The two images originally could have been viewed together through a stereoscopic viewer, which created the illusion of three-dimensional depth from two-dimensional images."

Matthew H
02-06-2013, 08:37 PM
This is the problem with auction hype. Now some guy spent 80k thinking it's going to triple and pay for his 4 year old's medical expenses.

packs
02-06-2013, 08:46 PM
Even if it doesn't triple the 80K would be gone if it weren't tied up in the card. I don't see it selling for less. Still a good investment.

Donscards
02-06-2013, 08:51 PM
I just got back from the auction card went $92,000 with the juice---it will be on ebay tomorrow check it out and u will not believe the price. Don

Matthew H
02-06-2013, 08:53 PM
I just got back from the auction card went $92,000 with the juice---it will be on ebay tomorrow check it out and u will not believe the price. Don

270k?

yanks12025
02-06-2013, 08:58 PM
Did the $92,000 include state taxes??

Runscott
02-06-2013, 09:04 PM
Thanks for that breaking news, Don. You've been all over this from the beginning. Did you get any interviews with the media today?

Jewish-collector
02-06-2013, 09:16 PM
When does he expect to sell it to triple his money ?

Runscott
02-06-2013, 09:16 PM
270k?

:eek: I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU :eek:

What was/is this guy thinking? Some combination of the following, I'm guessing.

1. The winning bidder feels that somehow all the knowledgeable collectors (except one, the underbidder) missed hearing about this item, but he was lucky enough to attend the secret auction and get a steal
2. The winning bidder knows nothing about baseball collectibles, but figured that as long as someone else was bidding, it was safe for him to place another bid
3. The winning bidder thinks there's someone on ebay who knows even less than he does
4. The knowledgeable collectors weren't at the secret auction because they will all be waiting on ebay, since that's where they feel most comfortable spending their money

So, knowledgeable collectors - Don got the scoop for you. Go fish in the bay tomorrow.

yanks12025
02-06-2013, 09:20 PM
At least the guy had a cute girlfriend. Lol

oldjudge
02-06-2013, 09:27 PM
This guy also was the winning bidder of the Nash N173 in the August Saco auction. I believe that he paid over $5000 with the vig which is 2-3x what I think it is worth. Now he is selling it on EBay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1888-OLD-JUDGE-TOBACCO-CARD-N173-GOODWIN-CO-BILLY-NASH-GRADED-5-5-RARE-/261090739910?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item3cca3886c6&nma=true&si=UskH6Yq8wFTCkNjQ9loNLO75wMY%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Can it be long before the Atlantics card hits Ebay. This gets funnier and funnier.

Jlighter
02-06-2013, 09:33 PM
At least the guy had a cute girlfriend. Lol

Is this her?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HUGE-5-FT-CHINESE-VASE-BEAUTIFULLY-HAND-PAINTED-AN-AMAZING-PIECE-/251036472266?pt=Asian_Antiques&hash=item3a72f093ca

yanks12025
02-06-2013, 09:41 PM
Is this her?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HUGE-5-FT-CHINESE-VASE-BEAUTIFULLY-HAND-PAINTED-AN-AMAZING-PIECE-/251036472266?pt=Asian_Antiques&hash=item3a72f093ca

I was going by the pic in the news article.

frankbmd
02-06-2013, 09:42 PM
:eek: I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU :eek:

What was/is this guy thinking? Some combination of the following, I'm guessing.

1. The winning bidder feels that somehow all the knowledgeable collectors (except one, the underbidder) missed hearing about this item, but he was lucky enough to attend the secret auction and get a steal
2. The winning bidder knows nothing about baseball collectibles, but figured that as long as someone else was bidding, it was safe for him to place another bid
3. The winning bidder thinks there's someone on ebay who knows even less than he does
4. The knowledgeable collectors weren't at the secret auction because they will all be waiting on ebay, since that's where they feel most comfortable spending their money

So, knowledgeable collectors - Don got the scoop for you. Go fish in the bay tomorrow.

I'm taking #3, Scott. He's even selling his racing mice on Ebay to pay the bill.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1950s-YONE-TIN-TOY-48-RACING-MICE-IN-ORIGINAL-BOX-VALUE-15-EACH-/261111956946?pt=Vintage_Antique_Toys_US&hash=item3ccb7c45d2

Ben Yourg
02-06-2013, 09:45 PM
I believe it went up to 80K

CW
02-06-2013, 10:23 PM
I was going by the pic in the news article.

I'm thinking that was the model that held the card during the auction. Oddly, the use of a model does make the card look more appealing... :)

http://media.pressherald.com/images/20130206_rare%20card_2.jpg

baseballart
02-06-2013, 10:27 PM
Being a jaded Canadian tax lawyer, I often think purchasers list items for resale so they can escape state sales taxes by using the resellers tax exemption. If someone pays the huge markup, great, but if not, the purchaser has saved the taxes

jhs5120
02-06-2013, 11:01 PM
You've gotta hand it SRA. I don't think the card would have brought 80k in any of the major sports auctions.

100% agree. Kudos to Troy and them for putting together a great auction.

kateighty
02-06-2013, 11:35 PM
LOL at whether she's the girlfriend or the auction model. I bet the guy drives a bright yellow Hummer.

oldjudge
02-07-2013, 12:48 AM
This guy has hundreds of lots listed on Ebay now, most of it low value material. This is all very strange. Not the typical MO of someone who goes out and spends almost $100,000 on a card, and a very esoteric card at that.

RCMcKenzie
02-07-2013, 05:03 AM
LOL at whether she's the girlfriend or the auction model. I bet the guy drives a bright yellow Hummer.


I think she's the auction model. If she's the girlfriend, I would have signed up and tried to outbid him.

Abravefan11
02-07-2013, 06:15 AM
Jason Leblanc and his girlfriend Melinda Yung.

http://media.pressherald.com/images/20130206_rare%20card_1.jpg

Leon
02-07-2013, 08:26 AM
There is a very good chance the card sold for what it did because of the publicity. (kudo's to SACO for that) If ya'll remember the Peck and Snyder that was on Jay Leno, from the nuns, brought about 75k in auction. The next time it sold it sold for approx. 30% less, if I recall correctly. At any rate congrats to Troy, Saco Auctions, the consignor.....and I guess the winner.

ullmandds
02-07-2013, 08:39 AM
I agree the price was most likely enhanced by all the hoopla...the price doesn't surprise me as much as the buyer?!

slidekellyslide
02-07-2013, 09:56 AM
I guess I don't understand the criticism here...a nearly unique card of a very important team sells for $92,000 which is chump change to the high rollers in this hobby and for the most part this is bringing ridicule in this thread.

ullmandds
02-07-2013, 10:01 AM
no criticism here...cards like this are tough to gauge where they will sell...as evidenced by the contest! the guy who purchased it seems like a nice guy who is trying to do the right thing to help his family...I think that's great!!!! I just find it interesting that a relative non-collector would invest a large sum of money on a relatively obscure rarity...for investment purposes! That's all!!!!

slidekellyslide
02-07-2013, 10:05 AM
no criticism here...cards like this are tough to gauge where they will sell...as evidenced by the contest! the guy who purchased it seems like a nice guy who is trying to do the right thing to help his family...I think that's great!!!! I just find it interesting that a relative non-collector would invest a large sum of money on a relatively obscure rarity...for investment purposes! That's all!!!!

I tend to agree with our Canadian friend that this guy is a collector who is using his tax number to avoid taxes by spending 5 cents a month to list his cards on ebay at astronomical prices.

autograf
02-07-2013, 10:07 AM
No criticism, but $92K for a nearly unique card is a chunk of change. Things go up, things go down. Who knows if this will go up to provide that medical coverage. Don't know.....risky proposition to bank things on in my book..........

ctownboy
02-07-2013, 10:08 AM
I don't know what type of financial resources the buyer has BUT, if I had a sick child that needed a lot of hospitalizations I don't think I would be dropping over $90,000 dollars on a nearly one of a kind card in HOPES that it triples in value. No, I would take that $90,000 and put it in a mutual fund (or a Certificate of Deposit) and just sit back and watch it.

Those might not be sexy purchases or "investments" but they ARE liquid and somewhat safe. Need cash quick for a medical emergency? Sell the mutual fund or cash out the CD. Can't really do that with the card.....

Since this guy is a financial adviser, I wonder what his advice would be to a client who came in and proposed to do what he just did?

David

Leon
02-07-2013, 10:11 AM
I don't know what type of financial resources the buyer has BUT, if I had a sick child that needed a lot of hospitalizations I don't think I would be dropping over $90,000 dollars on a nearly one of a kind card in HOPES that it triples in value. No, I would take that $90,000 and put it in a mutual fund (or a Certificate of Deposit) and just sit back and watch it.

Those might not be sexy purchases or "investments" but they ARE liquid and somewhat safe. Need cash quick for a medical emergency? Sell the mutual fund or cash out the CD. Can't really do that with the card.....

Since this guy is a financial adviser, I wonder what his advice would be to a client who came in and proposed to do what he just did?

David

I too think he is a collector and might be using the "for sale" gig as a way to avoid taxes legally. Just an opinion and I most certainly could be wrong. But betting that much on an unknown, and my understanding is to pay medical bills? Sounds kind of crazy to me....but hey, I too am crazy so who's to say!!

slidekellyslide
02-07-2013, 10:32 AM
Hey Peter, in my other life as a postcard collector I recently ran across this little gem in my collection. Send me your address in PM and I'll get it in the mail to you.

It is circa 1910 from Germany

benchod
02-07-2013, 10:53 AM
Cool postcard
What city is that?

Runscott
02-07-2013, 11:34 AM
I guess I don't understand the criticism here...a nearly unique card of a very important team sells for $92,000 which is chump change to the high rollers in this hobby and for the most part this is bringing ridicule in this thread.

It just happened and it was a big deal. We've been anticipating this auction for a long time, and if you look at the estimates given by board members (some, at least, I think you would agree whose opinions we all respect), they are not generally up in the $80K + range. Given that, you might expect some eyebrow-raising, which might come across to you (and I'm sure Don and Jim) as criticism or ridicule.

I like the fact that we have a discussion forum like this to throw our thoughts out, even if they might not always be politically correct, well-written, publishable or even 'fair' to the 'victim'. I also like the fact that, even though you are a moderator, you are one of the more opinionated board members and don't feel the constraints that some forum moderators on the internet might feel. Keep it coming!

The tax thing makes sense - I hadn't thought of that. In addition, this guy is more of a collector than he let on. Perhaps he just has a huge wad of discretionary income and simply wanted this card - we've seen that happen plenty of times on this board (and we've sometimes ridiculed it :))

slidekellyslide
02-07-2013, 01:27 PM
It doesn't really bother me and I kind of thought the hounding this board did on that photo really helped it in the end...IMO Saco owes a few people over here a thank you. I just don't understand the ridicule of the buyer in this instance because it basically is a one of a kind item of one of the most important teams in the dawn of the game. The predictions were meaningless and always will be when it comes to rarity.

Runscott
02-07-2013, 01:32 PM
I might be remembering this wrong, but I think the winning bidder stated that he knew nothing about this sort of item. To me, if you put that together with the lower final value predictions, and his stated reason for purchasing it, and you have kind of a questionable expenditure of money that would invite what you are calling "ridicule" (I wouldn't call it that). That's just my opinion - again, thanks to the moderators for allowing me to express it without....being ridiculed.

packs
02-07-2013, 01:38 PM
I don't see how its questionable though. It's one of a kind with the prestige of the only other copy being in the Library of Congress. Plus the cdv got a ton of press before the auction went live too, just like that Peck and Snyder that surfaced a few years ago. Even if a guy didn't know much about sports memorabilia, he'd still purchase a Wagner if it came around and he had the money. In my opinion this piece is a lot more special than a Wagner.

Jewish-collector
02-07-2013, 01:57 PM
The 92+ K wasn't "pocket change" to him. In one of the news articles, he said that if it was went for much more, he would not have been able to afford it.

Runscott
02-07-2013, 02:08 PM
If you followed it 'live' via the Youtube thing they had set up, there were some long pauses where the bidders were apparently giving their next bid some serious consideration. Don could probably tell us how many bidders there were, but when this item hit something like $40K, 'fair warning' was issued several times.

My speculation is that if the eventual winner hadn't been bidding, it would have gone for an amount much closer to the predictions given by board members. But if there were three bidders at the end, then it's a different story.

The guys here who gave their estimates (yesterday and previously), include some serious collectors and historians who know their stuff - I would not just toss their opinions aside. As I've mentioned previously, but it got lost in the wash - we've seen rare pieces go for huge amounts before, despite board member opinions. We've seen the same pieces sell for much less later on, indicating that perhaps we knew what we were talking about, and the winning bidder was indeed overzealous (or whatever).

oldjudge
02-07-2013, 02:48 PM
Dan/Packs--price, as you know, is a function of supply and demand. This is a rare piece, but there are countless one to five of a kind 19th century items. Virtually no one, including members of this board, knew the name of one player on this team before the CdV was found. The world record for a CdV price was a LOT less than this prior to this sale. I would contend that the demand for an item like this above a price of say $20,000 is negligible. This guy, who knows virtually nothing about 19th century material, paid more than any knowledgeable 19th century collector, with the means to easily purchase this item, was willing to pay. If you don't think this is a crazy transaction, or at least one that deserves more scrutiny, then I would suggest that you need to rethink the facts.

packs
02-07-2013, 03:51 PM
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Is there something subversive about his winning the card? What kind of scrutiny or questions do you think should be raised? If its a question of whether or not he paid too much, I don't think it can be answered since this is a one-of-a-kind piece and this sale is the baseline for its "value."

aaroncc
02-07-2013, 03:58 PM
He may have paid too much. But don't forget there was also a under bidder.

autograf
02-07-2013, 04:27 PM
The article said seven bidders. Would be interesting to know who bid above certain floors.......$40K....$50K.....etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if 1-2 of the bidders at or above those floors were in our midst...

jcmtiger
02-07-2013, 04:35 PM
This guy also was the winning bidder of the Nash N173 in the August Saco auction. I believe that he paid over $5000 with the vig which is 2-3x what I think it is worth. Now he is selling it on EBay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1888-OLD-JUDGE-TOBACCO-CARD-N173-GOODWIN-CO-BILLY-NASH-GRADED-5-5-RARE-/261090739910?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item3cca3886c6&nma=true&si=UskH6Yq8wFTCkNjQ9loNLO75wMY%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Can it be long before the Atlantics card hits Ebay. This gets funnier and funnier.

Jay, looks like he is not taking a chance of losing money with an EBAY auction. Just put a higher buy it now price.

Joe

RCMcKenzie
02-07-2013, 04:59 PM
Joking aside, The buyer looked to be genuinely glad to have won the card at auction, and the purchase is certainly a better investment than say, a new 7 series BMW sedan for the same money. For a better investment, I would think Exxon stock or municipal bonds, but those are not as much fun to own.

Jlighter
02-07-2013, 05:06 PM
He said he was buying it for his sick son. If he is selling it in the near future, which some people have indicated, then this would not be an investment. If he was planning to sell it in the distant future then it most likely wouldn't be for his sick son. Some questions still remain unanswered.

If he was buying for investment purposes then I would have bought one of the Planks recently sold at auction.

Runscott
02-07-2013, 05:26 PM
From one of the four threads posted on this today.

I get the feeling that if you don't say "Yes sir" a lot to Nash, that he's going to do his best to destroy you. Sorry Troy had to go through that experience. My phone conversations with Troy were always enjoyable.

hope the new owner didn't get taken to the cleaners...

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=16333

slidekellyslide
02-07-2013, 07:43 PM
From one of the four threads posted on this today.

I get the feeling that if you don't say "Yes sir" a lot to Nash, that he's going to do his best to destroy you. Sorry Troy had to go through that experience. My phone conversations with Troy were always enjoyable.

I wonder how much investigation Peter Nash did on Peter Nash? And when do you suppose we get to read about it on Haulsofshame? :cool:

slidekellyslide
02-07-2013, 07:52 PM
Dan/Packs--price, as you know, is a function of supply and demand. This is a rare piece, but there are countless one to five of a kind 19th century items. Virtually no one, including members of this board, knew the name of one player on this team before the CdV was found. The world record for a CdV price was a LOT less than this prior to this sale. I would contend that the demand for an item like this above a price of say $20,000 is negligible. This guy, who knows virtually nothing about 19th century material, paid more than any knowledgeable 19th century collector, with the means to easily purchase this item, was willing to pay. If you don't think this is a crazy transaction, or at least one that deserves more scrutiny, then I would suggest that you need to rethink the facts.

Jay, I know there are very few people with as much knowledge of the 19th century issues as you and a few other guys here, and I appreciate that, but when it comes to one of a kind items, an auction setting and a widely publicized item I don't think anyone can predict what that items sells for. Is it worth less than what he paid for it? Possibly...does the sale deserve more scrutiny? Not in my opinion...clearly there was a lot of hype here.

Jlighter
02-07-2013, 08:58 PM
Mr. Olbermann weighs in on the issue.

http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/2013/02/07/why-the-92000-baseball-card-isnt-a-baseball-card/

Runscott
02-07-2013, 09:41 PM
Mr. Olbermann weighs in on the issue.

http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/2013/02/07/why-the-92000-baseball-card-isnt-a-baseball-card/

Olberman argues that this item does not feature advertising, so it is not the same type of 'baseball card' cdv as the Peck & Snyder cards. By default, this makes it 'something else', which means it falls into the 'calling card' category of cdv (an ancient business card), and therefore, not a 'baseball card'.

Does Olberman really believe that members of the Brooklyn Atlantics were handing out this cdv at soirees as personal identifiers? It's more likely that if team photos were made for the players, they would have been created in a much larger format - this is borne out by team cabinet cards that were created in very limited quantities. Teams still have team photos ordered in sufficient quantities to satisfy the needs of their players;e.g-your ten year old child's soccer team. Nothing's really changed in that regard.

In my opinion team cdvs such as this one were probably used for advertising, even though there isn't a commercial business name on them. Perhaps they were offered to the public by Williamson (the photographer) to advertise his skills, or maybe they were used to advertise the team...by the team. If the team commissioned Williamson to produce a pile of these, and then handed them out to people, wouldn't that be advertisement, and thus qualify them for 'baseball card' status?

But there's only one of these (the loc version is a different animal). Assuming it's not an albumen photo removed from something else and affixed to an old mount (and that might be a big assumption), another possibility is that it's a prototype that Williamson created for a team representative, with the idea that if approved, such items could be produced in larger quantities, for advertising.

Another possible use: it wasn't uncommon for teams to have a pile of postcards created, and then use those to advertise their team, handing them out at games (Western Bloomers and other bloomer teams come to mind). Were these 'baseball cards'? I don't know that this ever occurred, but I can imagine a team selling cdv's of the team, at games. It was expensive to have photos made, and gate receipts weren't generally that big, so I doubt they gave them away, but I suppose it's possible.

Runscott
02-07-2013, 09:42 PM
I wonder how much investigation Peter Nash did on Peter Nash? And when do you suppose we get to read about it on Haulsofshame? :cool:

Peter Nash is a horror - I wouldn't wish a conversation with him on anyone. But it was impressive how he culled bits and pieces from our thread to use as if he thought it up himself. He 'forged' us :)

slidekellyslide
02-07-2013, 10:10 PM
Peter Nash is a horror - I wouldn't wish a conversation with him on anyone. But it was impressive how he culled bits and pieces from our thread to use as if he thought it up himself. He 'forged' us :)

He quotes Net54 all the time...I guarantee he's reading this thread.

Al C.risafulli
02-07-2013, 10:23 PM
He 'forged' us

LOL

-Al

Runscott
02-07-2013, 10:37 PM
He quotes Net54 all the time...I guarantee he's reading this thread.

He did a pretty good job of organizing items from our thread into something he could use to build his case. It's a lazy way of doing things, but for those who don't choose to read his thread, he created his argument, then got opinions of 'experts' to verify what we had stated (e.g-presented my argument regarding the re-use of the Williamson mount, but through the mouth of someone else with a title) and re-wrote it.

Nash basically writes his blogs the way lazy high-schoolers wrote term papers - you take a good paper, reorganize it, then replace bits and pieces with other sources that say the exact same thing. That way you build up your reference list big enough for the teacher to accept it.

drc
02-07-2013, 11:21 PM
We don't know if or how the photo was distributed, so we don't know whether or not it can be considered a trading card.

In the 1860s, some studio CDVs of famous subjects (Abe Lincoln, Queen Victoria) were sold to and collected by the public, and these can reasonably be considered trading cards. I would call them trading cards. But we simply don't know how/why this CDV was made or distributed.

I'm not of the opinion that something has to be a trading card for it to be worthwhile, but I wouldn't categorize it as a trading card-- not because it isn't, but because I don't know that it is. And I've never been much of a 'leap of faith' person.

Runscott
02-07-2013, 11:36 PM
We don't know if or how the photo was distributed, so we don't know whether or not it can be considered a trading card.

I think that's what I said, but maybe I was so long-winded that the message was lost.

drc
02-07-2013, 11:50 PM
I didn't read all the posts. I just zoomed to the end and posted my opinion.

Exhibitman
02-08-2013, 02:00 AM
"The nit-picking part here is that the definition of a “baseball card” has always been a card or similar item depicting a player or team that was designed to help sell another product."

Sez who? The Lord Commissioner of Baseball Cards? I must have missed that memo. I guess that means none of these are baseball cards:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/interestingexhibitcards/websize/Ruth.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/websize/1920s%20Heilmann%20PC.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous4/websize/1960s%20J%20D%20McCarthy%20Mantle.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneous3/W530%20153%20Jennings.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/saleholding/websize/W-Unc%20Ruth.jpg

drc
02-08-2013, 04:36 AM
I would say if there's no advertising/promotion of another product, but they were commercially sold as collectibles, that too would count as trading cards.

There will be a question by some about the size (another technicality), but Exhibits were sold as collectibles so would fit my definition of a baseball card in that aspect.

Keeping my opinion to myself, but a lot of folks on this board don't consider postcards to be trading cards, advertising splashed across them or not. They just consider pcs something different.

barrysloate
02-08-2013, 06:33 AM
Keith's article focused on one aspect of what constitutes a baseball card, and that is how the were distributed. Typically baseball cards are readily available to the public, whether found in a box of cigarettes, a wax pack with bubble gum, a penny exhibit machine, or through some type of promotion. Even Peck & Snyders would fit into that category as anyone could walk into their store and purchase one of their photographic trade cards.

But I do not believe the general public had access to a standard CdV. That Brooklyn Atlantics was likely made for the members of the team to give out to their friends and family. The average fan of the team probably didn't even know they existed. And add to it that they had no advertising, they had no commercial value whatsoever.

So while there are various characteristics of a baseball card, and a CdV fits most of them, they were privately distributed and therefore different from traditional cards as we know them.

Runscott
02-08-2013, 10:51 AM
they were privately distributed and therefore different from traditional cards as we know them.

they were certainly different, but given that there was only one, I would add an 'if' to your above statement. I gave some alternatives in my last post.

Runscott
02-08-2013, 10:57 AM
Sez who? The Lord Commissioner of Baseball Cards? I must have missed that memo.

It's understood :)

But I was kind of surprised that he proclaimed himself to be an expert on 19th century baseball cards - I've never seen any evidence of it.


Regarding cdv's, etc as advertisement. William T. Sherman wrote a letter to Napoleon Sarony, ordering cabinet photos of himself that he wished to sign at the bottom and give away. He complained that Sarony had used too much of the space at the bottom for his own studio information, and as such, it was a "Sarony advertisement". He threatened to use another photographer if Sarony wasn't willing to send him photos that did not have the Sarony information on the front.

Edited to add: “Enclosed is the check for $18. for the pictures sent—but the Special one—Imperial Mounted on a large sheet is not at all what I wrote for. Sheridan is dead, and could not if he would come to your Studio—the best photo I have of him is by C. Rankin of Washington and is on a panel 17 x 11 1/2 in which no margin at the top and sides but a good margin below for autograph, date & c. Such as a photograph should be. Gutekunst of Phila. promises me one of same size and kind of General Grant. Yours of me either 13,331 Cabinet—or 2945 panel 7 1/2 by 13 inches—No margins top or sides, but a full inch White Margin below—(without advertisement). Your photographs of Me are the best extant, but as issued are advertisements of ‘Sarony’ and not likenesses of Genl Sherman. I think you made a mistake and I tell you so with a Soldier’s frankness. ..."

Matthew H
02-08-2013, 11:08 AM
The way I read into it, KO is slightly upset that the 'thing' was marketed as a baseball card and that it brought first baseball card money.

Runscott
02-08-2013, 11:26 AM
The way I read into it, KO is slightly upset that the 'thing' was marketed as a baseball card and that it brought first baseball card money.

For once I would like to see him write up his opinion BEFORE the event, as opposed to getting on a pedestal afterward and proclaiming how things should have been.

aaroncc
02-08-2013, 11:42 AM
For once I would like to see him write up his opinion BEFORE the event, as opposed to getting on a pedestal afterward and proclaiming how things should have been.

I think his T206 Wagner is ugly. :)

cyseymour
02-08-2013, 05:07 PM
What about 2013 Topps cards? Or the rack packs I bought in 1983? Those weren't distributed in order to promote a different product. Is Keith Olbermann arguing that 1983 Topps cards aren't baseball cards because they weren't produced in order to sell candy/tobacco/bread?

Peter_Spaeth
02-08-2013, 10:51 PM
The many discussions we have had about what is and is not a baseball card just show that the question is really not objectively answerable. To me the Brooklyn thing is not a card but if it is to someone else so be it.

barrysloate
02-09-2013, 06:46 AM
There are several characteristics which constitute what we all agree is a baseball card:

1) It's a rectangular piece of cardboard that depicts a baseball player or several players.
2) It's typically distributed to advertise a product, such as tobacco, candy, or gum.
3) It's widely distributed to the greatest number of people possible.
4) If you collect the whole bunch of them you will be able to complete a set.

The Atlantics CdV certainly depicts baseball players, but it contains no advertising, was selectively distributed, and is not part of a set. So it does not have all of the traits we typically associate with a baseball card.

When I first started specializing in 19th century baseball memorabilia in the late 1980's, there wasn't a single collector who called a CdV a baseball card. But that definition has changed over time, and now most collectors consider it to be one.

What do I think was most responsible for that change? The slab. When the TPG started slabbing them, we started calling them baseball cards. It's just part of how the hobby has evolved.

Kenny Cole
02-09-2013, 08:19 AM
Does it have to be rectangular? What about a series such as Colgans? Are they cards or not?

benjulmag
02-09-2013, 09:09 AM
There are several characteristics which constitute what we all agree is a baseball card:

1) It's a rectangular piece of cardboard that depicts a baseball player or several players.
2) It's typically distributed to advertise a product, such as tobacco, candy, or gum.
3) It's widely distributed to the greatest number of people possible.
4) If you collect the whole bunch of them you will be able to complete a set.

The Atlantics CdV certainly depicts baseball players, but it contains no advertising, was selectively distributed, and is not part of a set. So it does not have all of the traits we typically associate with a baseball card.

When I first started specializing in 19th century baseball memorabilia in the late 1980's, there wasn't a single collector who called a CdV a baseball card. But that definition has changed over time, and now most collectors consider it to be one.

What do I think was most responsible for that change? The slab. When the TPG started slabbing them, we started calling them baseball cards. It's just part of how the hobby has evolved.

I think one could reasonably argue that CdVs that contain the studio name on the verso (the overwhelming majority) advertise the studio, in much the same way that, say, a Topps card advertises Topps (and the product it produces -- baseball player images).

In regard to the requirement that the depiction be of a baseball player (or players), I would add the qualification that the depiction be in a baseball context. For example an image of Cap Anson taken on a tennis court in tennis attire and holding a tennis racquet would not qualify to me as a baseball card, no matter how it was distirbuted and no matter what it advertised.

barrysloate
02-09-2013, 09:17 AM
Does it have to be rectangular? What about a series such as Colgans? Are they cards or not?

Colgan's Chips are interesting. They are quasi-cards. I would call them discs. In the end it probably doesn't matter. They're close enough.

barrysloate
02-09-2013, 09:18 AM
I think one could reasonably argue that CdVs that contain the studio name on the verso (the overwhelming majority) advertise the studio, in much the same way that, say, a Topps card advertises Topps (and the product it produces -- baseball player images).

In regard to the requirement that the depiction be of a baseball player (or players), I would add the qualification that the depiction be in a baseball context. For example an image of Cap Anson taken on a tennis court in tennis attire and holding a tennis racquet would not qualify to me as a baseball card, no matter how it was distirbuted and no matter what it advertised.

Yes, a Topps card advertised Topps....but they sold bubble gum. That was their primary business. In later years the gum became less important.

ullmandds
02-09-2013, 09:31 AM
I agree w/Barry in that the term "card" has become much more loosely assigned to things since slabbing. If we're going to call postcards, cabinet cards, discs, stamps, magazine cutouts cards...I would certainly consider a CDV with a studio's advertising...depicting a baseball team or player...a card...as back then...this is all there was?!

benjulmag
02-09-2013, 10:16 AM
Yes, a Topps card advertised Topps....but they sold bubble gum. That was their primary business. In later years the gum became less important.


Fair, but when bubble gum became ancillary to their primary business --baseball cards, or, better yet, were they to have discontinued the sale of bubble gum, did their player cards cease to be baseball cards?

My point is that I think the advertising requirement is satisfied if the product/service advertised is the commercial taking of photographs by the establishment distributing the "cards".

barrysloate
02-09-2013, 10:32 AM
Yes, the inclusion of the photographer's imprint on a CdV is in fact a form of advertising, and as I said a CdV is loosely akin to a baseball card. It has some but not all of the characteristics. And it's okay to call it a baseball card, even though not every collector agrees it is.

Runscott
02-09-2013, 10:39 AM
There are several characteristics which constitute what we all agree is a baseball card:

1) It's a rectangular piece of cardboard that depicts a baseball player or several players.
2) It's typically distributed to advertise a product, such as tobacco, candy, or gum.
3) It's widely distributed to the greatest number of people possible.
4) If you collect the whole bunch of them you will be able to complete a set.



As kids we all would have agreed with the above (people my age, anyway), but I think you're assuming a lot, thinking we all are in agreement now.

For instance, I don't consider postcards to be 'baseball cards'. I also don't consider any mounted photograph to be a baseball card - in my opinion, they are mounted photographs. We even have more specific terms for them, such as 'cabinet photograph', or 'cart-de-visite'. Even if they advertise something;e.g-'Peck & Snyder', I don't consider them to be baseball cards. Perhaps it's the 'distribution' aspect you mention, or that such items aren't generally part of a 'set' (at least, a set of any meaningful size). But to me it doesn't matter - I collect both baseball cards and mounted photographs, and it doesn't matter to me what anyone else calls them.

barrysloate
02-09-2013, 11:40 AM
Scott- I don't expect that everyone will agree with my definition of what constitutes a baseball card. We've had many debates on this topic, with varying opinions. The definition has widened over time for economic reasons too. A baseball card is worth more money than a mounted photograph. That's just a fact.

Runscott
02-09-2013, 11:51 AM
Scott- I don't expect that everyone will agree with my definition of what constitutes a baseball card. We've had many debates on this topic, with varying opinions. The definition has widened over time for economic reasons too. A baseball card is worth more money than a mounted photograph. That's just a fact.

Okay, I thought you were serious when you stated "we all agree", which sort of surprised me. Although, I do for the most part agree with your list of criteria.

Peter_Spaeth
02-09-2013, 12:06 PM
When asked "what is art?" Picasso supposedly replied, "what is not?"

bmarlowe1
02-09-2013, 12:55 PM
My understanding is that MLB does have a pretty strict definition of what a baseball card is and they are highly protective of their intellectual property with respect to this. If one tries to distribute what they consider a card depicting major leaguers (NL or AL) of any era in major league uniforms without a license they are not happy.

There was an unofficial SABR project to produce colorized cards of early players for distribution to members. Hundreds of different cards were produced (yes - they are a set) and they are amazingly good, glossy and all. In the end (at least so far) they could not be distributed.

Of course we can distribute images of players among the membership in many forms (newsletters, magazines, books, etc.) with no problem. Perhaps, instead of cards, we should try making a set of CDVs.

triwak
02-09-2013, 12:56 PM
I agree that the photography studio advertising its own business interests on CDVs or cabinets, is advertising a "product." I also believe that postcards are also selling a product - a postage medium. To me, its more important that the "cards" were made available to the public, and therefore collected. As someone said above, very early (prior to 1886), CDVs and cabinets were all they had. And postcards have been collected for over a century. Plus, both are simply COOL AS HELL!! (Which is why I collect in the first place).

Leon
02-09-2013, 12:58 PM
My understanding is that MLB does have a pretty strict definition of what a baseball card is and they are highly protective of their intellectual property with respect to this. If one tries to distribute what they consider a card depicting major leaguers (NL or AL) of any era in major league uniforms without a license they are not happy.

There was a semi-clandestine SABR project to produce colorized cards of early players for distribution to members. Hundreds of different cards were produced (yes - they are a set) and they are amazingly good. In the end (at least so far) they could not be distributed.

Of course we can distribute images of players among the membership in many forms (newsletters, magazines, books, etc.) with no problem. Perhaps, instead of cards, we should try making a set of CDVs.

Obviously I don't know all of the law but I would think that any card that doesn't have a trademarked MLB logo, or a team licensed logo, isn't something MLB could do anything about. Isn't that the way some unlicensed sets are produced today? I would tell them to stick it where they sun don't shine if they harassed me about cards without their logo.....

drc
02-09-2013, 01:03 PM
One essential part of a baseball card is that it is a trading card and was designed to be collected as collectibles by people in the general public. Thus, a studio photograph made for one team member or a family photo for the family is not a trading card.

Most CDVs were not trading cards. Though some were.

Some might reasonably argue that some postcards were designed to be, or assumed would be, collected as they have collectible images on them-- baseball stars, movie stars, etc. I'm sure there were people in the general public who collected postcards back them.

ullmandds
02-09-2013, 01:17 PM
I don't like to get caught up in all of the semantics of what determines what is and isn't a card?! A disc...is not a card...a stamp...is not a card...but...a CDV...whether it was made for the team/team members...and has a studio name attached...in my opinion...is a card. Remember guys...this is from a time period before there were any baseball "cards"...there was no definition! For whatever worth a "definition" really is anyway?!

drc
02-09-2013, 01:21 PM
It's true that a lot of the labels and definitions we use today are things we made up and used retroactively. And rose is still a rose as Romeo said to Richard III.

Having said that, I firmly don't believe any CDV with a baseball player on it counts as a baseball card. Just remember that baseball card is short for baseball trading card. It doesn't mean anything that is a physical card with a baseball graphic on it. Nor is any physical card a trading card.

But many 1800s CDVs of Queen Victoria, Abe Lincoln and such were sold to the general public as as collectibles-- and if someone wants to call those trading cards, I'd probably go along with that.

With many early sport and non-sport items, there are things you just don't know-- such as why and for whom it was made. Was a particular CDV of Robert E. Lee by a famous studio made for his personal use or intended to be sold/distributed to the general public? Sometimes you simply don't know.

oldjudge
02-09-2013, 01:36 PM
My definition is a little less restrictive than Barry's. I think a baseball card is a piece of paper/cardboard portraying a baseball image, that was not part of a publication, that could be acquired by the general public. The caveat of not being part of a publication was meant to exclude baseball pictures in a newspaper or magazine from this definition. This would allow for CdVs (I think these were also sold by the photographer in the case of famous teams), exhibits, cabinets, postcards, trade cards, etc. My and Corey's requirement about a baseball image raises an interesting question about the grand match tickets coming up in REA, since the image there is of Harry Wright, or Harry and Sam Wright together, as a cricket player.

drc
02-09-2013, 01:42 PM
When you get to early baseball cards, there's a lot of gray area, unanswerable questions, philosophy and personal sentiment. It's baseball card theory.

Many early CDVs of famous people were indeed marketed and sold to the public by the photographer, and famous people often handed out CDVs of themselves to general public fans. I've seen photographer advertising and order letters between famous people and studios that document this. Charles Dickens, as one example, ordered CDVs that he would send to fans who wrote to him. Those CDVs were definitely intended to be collected or otherwise kept as souvenirs or mementos. It also says you could own a Dickens CDV that was owned by Dickens.

barrysloate
02-09-2013, 01:53 PM
Jay- I agree regarding the Grand Match Harry Wright. Since it is part of a set of cricket players, you need go no further. That eliminates it from being a baseball card. It may be the first trading card ever issued, and it may be the first cricket card ever issued. Those are both likely. But it is not a baseball card.

But I bet it is about to be called one.:)

Runscott
02-09-2013, 01:57 PM
I don't like to get caught up in all of the semantics of what determines what is and isn't a card?! A disc...is not a card...a stamp...is not a card...but...a CDV...whether it was made for the team/team members...and has a studio name attached...in my opinion...is a card. Remember guys...this is from a time period before there were any baseball "cards"...there was no definition! For whatever worth a "definition" really is anyway?!

You just hit the nail on the head - these were 'before' baseball cards as we know them. I'm not going to Olberman you, but I don't think there should be an assumption that before there were modern 'baseball cards, that there had to be something else that we will now call 'baseball cards'. Just as, before baseball was created, we wouldn't be calling other games 'baseball', simply because there wasn't yet a game 'baseball' to affix that label to.

But, as you say, it's all semantics. Barry stated that if something gets to be called a 'baseball card', that it will be worth more. If that's true, I guess I would prefer that you all think that all of my mounted baseball-related photos are baseball cards, even if I don't think so. But I don't really believe that if Olberman declared certain cdv's to no longer be baseball cards, and his word was acknowledged by all of us as an utterance from the true authoritative voice of our hobby king, that the value of such cards would go down.

As long as SGC is willing to put these items in slabs, they will maintain their value. The slab gives them their credibility and additional value - if you don't believe me, look at the prices of baseball-related cdv's prior to SGC's first encapsulation of such items, and their values immediately after. It was a pretty phenomenal increase.

Runscott
02-09-2013, 02:02 PM
When you get to early baseball cards, there's a lot of gray area, unanswerable questions, philosophy and personal sentiment. It's baseball card theory.

Many early CDVs of famous people were indeed marketed and sold to the public by the photographer, and famous people often handed out CDVs of themselves to general public fans. I've seen photographer advertising and order letters between famous people and studios that document this. Charles Dickens, as one example, ordered CDVs that he would send to fans who wrote to him. Those CDVs were definitely intended to be collected or otherwise kept as souvenirs or mementos. It also says you could own a Dickens CDV that was owned by Dickens.

So, if a player ordered a bunch of photographs from George Burke, and mailed those out when requested from fans, they would be ... baseball cards? The only difference from the item you describe is the thickness of the paper. And a photograph is often thicker than a baseball card;e.g-Type 1 coupons are thinner than the postcard-stock photos that Burke produced for players in the '30s and '40s. Not all were postcard stock, but that was an option (I have some).

I'm just messing with you - for the most part I'm in agreement with Barry's list, but then again, I don't own any expensive baseball cdv's or postcards, so I have no financial incentive to define those as baseball cards.

drc
02-09-2013, 02:09 PM
Card, as in the physical item itself, is defined differently by different people. Some people don't call something a baseball card simply because they don't think the fits the physical definition of a card. Sweet Caporal pins fit all the rules for being a baseball card except for one small detail-- it's a pin not a card.

For the benefit of those who don't know photography or French, the word carte in carte de visite (aka CDV) literally translates to card. And that's the original 1800s term, not a modern retroactive concoction.

And to reiterate what I said in an earlier post, card and trading card are not one and the same. A trading card has to be a card, but being a physical card does not in and of itself make something a trading card. And baseball card is short for baseball trading card.

bmarlowe1
02-09-2013, 02:29 PM
Then there is Rucker's 1988 book, "Baseball Cartes - The First baseball Cards."

drc
02-09-2013, 02:33 PM
Lionel Hutz: "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story."

Peter_Spaeth
02-09-2013, 02:36 PM
Perhaps we should consult King Azaz's cabinet.

drc
02-09-2013, 02:58 PM
What only complicates things even further is back then they referred to Oscar Wilde as a card.

Exhibitman
02-09-2013, 03:34 PM
But I do not believe the general public had access to a standard CdV. That Brooklyn Atlantics was likely made for the members of the team to give out to their friends and family. The average fan of the team probably didn't even know they existed. And add to it that they had no advertising, they had no commercial value whatsoever.

That's not quite accurate, Barry, at least w/r/t CDVs' availability and value as a commercial product. Some photographers made and sold CDVs of famous people to the general public as collectibles. They definitely had commercial value. Charles Deforest Fredricks had a studio and gallery in NYC from which he retailed his line of famous people CDVs called "Specialite". They were available to the general public as a commercial product. Here is an example:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/rareboxingcards/1862%20Heenan%20CDV.jpg

barrysloate
02-09-2013, 03:58 PM
Thanks Adam. Some were, of course, such as the Cincinnati Red Stockings with the ad for Chadwick's Game of Baseball. Many weren't however. I don't believe the Atlantics would have been available publicly.

Runscott
02-09-2013, 04:11 PM
Thanks Adam. Some were, of course, such as the Cincinnati Red Stockings with the ad for Chadwick's Game of Baseball. Many weren't however. I don't believe the Atlantics would have been available publicly.

Barry, I'm not understanding how you are coming up with that assumption. There was only one produced (as far as we can tell, and as evidenced by the fact that it's a photo affixed to a recycled mount), so there's no proof whatsoever as to what it's intended use actually was - it could have been exactly the same as the Cincinnati Red Stockings cdv, something to be handed out by players to family members, or any of the other possibilities that I listed earlier in this thread.

oldjudge
02-09-2013, 04:33 PM
My definition excludes pins and bottle caps but somehow still misses the 3-D plastic baseball cards, which should be included. Maybe an ammendment is necessary.

barrysloate
02-09-2013, 05:16 PM
Scott- assuming I understand your question, because most of the Cincinnati Red Stocking cards that have survived contain various product advertising, such as the Peck and Snyder Sportings Goods store, or for Henry Chadwick's book The Game of Baseball, of course those were distributed to as large an audience as possible. When you have a product to sell, you want to get the word out to the public. In the case of the Atlantics CdV, because there is no product advertising, coupled with the fact that only a single one has survived (save the Library of Congress example), that suggests that a limited supply of them were available. Do we know for a fact the general public couldn't buy one of them? No. Is it reasonable to think they weren't able to? That's my opinion.

We don't know enough about how CdV's were distributed and circulated. Most were not available to the public. Some were.

Runscott
02-09-2013, 07:25 PM
Barry - Thanks, I completely agree with you.

Also, since the Brooklyn cdv has now been sold, I think it's okay for us to be very honest about our opinions - not just regarding it's 'baseball-cardness'. I'll revive the original thread and piss off half the board by giving mine. :)