Contesting REA Lot#132

[jerrys]

Sorry the image is max (82k) accepted on this site.

These Rose Co. postcards with Springfield (Mass) players pictured on them brought some speculation when they first appeared in March
of 2004. Numerous spontaneous theories were expressed on this Board at the time. After a short-term interest the topic vanished as did any mention of them thereafter.

Nine years later eight of the thirteen of these postcards are being offered in the current REA Auction - Lot#132. These postcards have been born again with a greatly revised history and fantasy! The lot description claims these postcards are "exceedingly rare PC760 Rose Postcards". Why do they not appear in sports card price guides? Why are they not authenticated? Obviously because they are not real!

All ACC designated cards are 100% factory made. None were made outside the factory. Simply because a group of baseball players attached their pictures on Rose Co. blank postcards does not automatically associate those postcards with an ACC designation. Hence implying that Springfield player postcards are "Rose Co. Postcards" and have a legitimate connection to the Burdick PC760 Series is not true.

I was unable to convince REA.

Setting a precedent by honoring homemade cards attached with an ACC designation is disastrous for the hobby. Guaranteed that the balance of this group will be in an auction soon. Perhaps others will show up. This sham should end - sell the cards for what they are - homemade postcards using Rose Co. blanks - without any reference to an ACC designation.

Mistakes are made by everyone - just needs correction.

PS The rest of the auction is great.




http://luckeycards.com/rose240.jpg

[Cardboard Junkie]

Why wouldn't REA listen to you? How did they reply to your assertion? I'm glad you pointed these out. Dave.

[HRBAKER]

Jerry,
You did what you could.
Those of us who collect these know there have been doubts about these for years.

[e107collector]

Jerry,

You bring up a good point - Why aren't these cards graded? I wonder if they were ever sent in for grading at SGc?
Tony

[HRBAKER]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=64751&highlight=rose+postcard

[slidekellyslide]

Without a doubt these were made by the team and not the Rose postcard company...I think it's cool that more of these have shown up. Saying that REA assigning these cards an ACC # is disastrous for the hobby is a bit of hyperbole though. :rolleyes:

In 1907 Lincoln (or Ed Gagnier) took generic baseball postcards and converted them to player cards. I have only found two and they are both Gagnier.

<a href="http://s22.photobucket.com/user/nudan92/media/1878-1946%20Lincoln%20Baseball/gagnier1.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/nudan92/1878-1946%20Lincoln%20Baseball/gagnier1.jpg" border="0" alt="1907 Gagnier postcard photo gagnier1.jpg"/></a>

[jerrys]

This is an excerpt of the reply I received from REA when I inquired about lot# 132.

"They are clearly Rose postcards and if one had to pick a catalog # for them it would have to be PC760 I would think but it is certainly an unusual issue to catalog for auction and I can see that someone else might do it differently (maybe create a "PC760-B" or something like that?)."

I disagreed with this opinion and responded so. There was no further communication.




Thx: Jon Jake Tom Barry Adam Leon Philip Barry

[Jacklitsch]

"Nine years later eight of the thirteen of these postcards are being offered in the current REA Auction - Lot#132."

Firstly, I would like to clarify this statement. The eight cards in the REA auction are not from the original thirteen we purchased in 2004. I still have ten in my collection and the other three are presumably still in the collection of one of our group who purchased the cards.

To make Jerry happy I will refer to these cards as "Homemade on Rose PC blank stock and not part of the Rose company issued set".

What I find interesting is that there was at least two of these sets created at the same time. I have compared the REA lot with mine and the pictures are exactly the same. Parentetically then I dispute that these are Type I photos as stated by REA.

The set is interesting to me, notwithstanding that it is not part of the issued set, in that it does in fact include identifiable players. Both Shano Collins and Harl Maggert are pictured as is Joe Connor brother of HOFer Roger Connor. I have confirmed that all of the players pictured were in fact on the 1909 Springfield MA Ponies team.

Here are pics of the thirteen from the original "find".

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/jacklitsch1/Springfield%20Rose/7.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/jacklitsch1/Springfield%20Rose/6.jpg

Here's Shano Collins:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/jacklitsch1/Springfield%20Rose/collins.jpg

[HRBAKER]

Well that might support the speculation that the team created these in some way. Potentially there may have been as many sets as there were different players with each player having a set. Most likely we'll never know.

The cataloging would matter in a couple ways though; to someone who is trying to "complete" a set of PC760 and for someone deciding what to pay for each or all (to the extent that whether they are regarded as a part of the set plays into their valuation).

[cfc1909]

this is pretty much the same thing as the e222 AWH cards. They were home made by Arthur William Havens. They are recognized by the catalog and should be.

Tim Cathey wrote an article for Old Cardboard explaining the details. These were the first t206 reprint. They are still highly desirable and collected by collectors today.

Probably other issues are similar and deserve an ACC designation. Burdick did a fine job with these type of issues.

[Jacklitsch]

While these cards may be considered "homemade" it appears to me that Rose & Company had to have something to do with their creation (other than just supplying blanks) because of the similarity of the name fonts, to-wit:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/jacklitsch1/Springfield%20Rose/MaggertSmall_zpsd88e2e63.jpghttp://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/jacklitsch1/pattenSmall_zps4297c718.jpg

[drc]

It's plausible and perhaps likely that a local photography studio made the postcards for the team. Local photography studios purchased from factories their blank photo postcard paper and cardboard mounts for cabinet cards and CDVs. They usually didn't make those supplies themselves. It's plausible a studio purchased blank Rose postcards to make photo postcards for the team.

Also, it was not an uncommon cabinet card style back then to have an oval or circular area in the middle and the photographic portrait cut out and pasted in it. The image is often handcut.

[Cardboard Junkie]

While these cards may be considered "homemade" it appears to me that Rose & Company had to have something to do with their creation (other than just supplying blanks) because of the similarity of the name fonts, to-wit:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/jacklitsch1/Springfield%20Rose/MaggertSmall_zpsd88e2e63.jpghttp://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/jacklitsch1/pattenSmall_zps4297c718.jpg
I see NO similarities between the two different fonts..other than they are both in English.

[slidekellyslide]

I don't think it matters who made them...the second "find" of these cards IMO boosts their legitimacy. Don't need an ACC number to be legit.

[Cardboard Junkie]

If we don't know who "fathered" them, then they're "illegitimate".:D

[smtjoy]

No dog in this fight but I think they are cool but the fonts are not alike imo.

[jerrys]

The Rose Co. did not manufacture any Springfield postcards, that is what I wanted to establish. These cards are in no category - every card ever made does not have to fit in a category. The ACC designation tag should be removed from these postcard's identity. That would be the happy part. But the deception continues. What more is there to prove? Correcting the description is the right thing to do, the professional thing to do and the kindest. If nothing is done the winner of this auction lot will be unhappy to find these postcards rejected by the grading service.


Jim have the other three?


The definition of legitimacy in this case is belonging to the PC760 Series. Quantity is irrelevant.


Images shown on lot#132 are spotted unlike the images from Mrs.E. And the Collins has a crease. I did wonder if they were poorly handled to get that way.

98234

98235