View Full Version : Baseball QUestions
Archive
08-01-2006, 08:36 AM
Posted By: <b>Sean</b><p>hey guys im back when i was gone i did ALOT of reading and i mean ALOT so here they are im sorry there alot of questions<br /><br /><br />1. What is the EXACT year of the peck and snyder james creighton card according to this website 1865? <a href="http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/chrono.html#ack" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="<a href="http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/chrono.html#ack</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/chrono.html#ack</a</a>" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/chrono.html#ack</a</a>>" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/chrono.html#ack</a</a>></a>;<br /><br />2. are baseball CDV consider baseball cards?<br /><br />3. are baseball trade cards consider baseball cards?<br /><br />4. what was the earliest baseball CDV?<br /><br />5. what was the earliest baseball trade card?<br /><br />6. in a little pretty pocket book does anybody know who the 3 men playing are?<br /><br />7. in the baseball scene in a little pretty pocket book what is the city/state their playing at GUESS London England?<br /><br />8. Does anybody have a photo of the 1863 jordan and co harry wright GRADED by PSA?<br /><br />9. who has a better T206 Set Kirk Harris COllection or Dan L. Collection?<br /><br />10. who has the best Old Judge Set?<br /><br />11. what is the EXACT date to the Currier & Ives Baltimore Base Ball Emporium CDV<br /><br />12. Besides <br />"Baseball Cartes, The First Baseball Cards". are there any other books that tells anything about hal lewis baseball card 1861-64 one? and does anybody have a pic of that<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />P.S. does anybody know if DAn Kravitz sended my cards yet
Archive
08-01-2006, 08:41 AM
Posted By: <b>Sean</b><p>sorry about the double of the link to the website
Archive
08-01-2006, 10:14 AM
Posted By: <b>Sean</b><p>anybody have answers to these question very helpful if you do have them please!<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
Archive
08-01-2006, 10:33 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Sean- that's a lot of questions, not all that can be answered precisely. Collectors generally consider trade cards and most CdV's to be baseball cards. Nobody knows the exact date of the Jim Creighton Peck and Snyder. I don't know whose T206 set is better. Hang on, I'm catching my breath......what were the other questions? I have to go back and look. The Little Pretty Pocketbook includes just an illustration, they are not identifiable and they are certainly children. And finally...you know there is no such word as "sended"- come on, spend an extra minute to check what you wrote before you hit the "send" button.
Archive
08-01-2006, 11:18 AM
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I consider trade cards as baseball cards. CDVs are baseball cards if they have advertising them or were sold commercially to the public. All baseball CDVs are collectable, but not all are baseball cards.<br /><br />The Peck & Snyders fit the bill of baseball cards, as the were used commercially. Some have ads on back, and the CDVs are known to have been sold to the public. Someone, I beleive Hal, posted a Peck & Snyder advetisement for ordering the CDVs. There are earlier than Peck & Snyder CDVs, but none that I've seen that are known to have been sold to the public or used as trade cards.<br /><br />Some will say that all CDVs should be considered baseball cards, as they are baseball and the are cards (cartes is french for card). However, by the same argument all baseball player business cards and season passes would also baseball cards. <br /><br />The problem with real early baseball items, ala 1840 trade card, is that it's difficult to impossible to be sure the sport depicted is baseball. By my definition, if you aren't certain it's baseball, it shouldn't be labelled as a baseball item. For example, if you find a 1849 trade card that depicts a game that might be a baseball game but also might be round ball, the item is not considered the earliest baseball card-- despite what an auction house might advertise ... It's similar to someone trumpeting a 'newly discivered card that is Nolan Ryan's true rookie card, but we aren't certain it's Nolan Ryan in the image.' You gotta be sure it's Nolan Ryan before you can call it Ryan's rookie card.
Archive
08-01-2006, 11:23 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1154366562.JPG">
Archive
08-01-2006, 11:38 AM
Posted By: <b>Jerry</b><p>Unbelievably great CDV, Hal<br />Thanks for posting
Archive
08-01-2006, 11:53 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>At the far right in the black suit is Hall of Famer Henry Chadwick, the "Father of Baseball."<br /><br />The players are a combination of Brooklyn Resolutes and Philadephia Athletics. <br /><br />Mort Rogers and Dick McBride are probably the only two players in the photo who anyone has heard about.<br /><br />Rogers because he went on and later published the "Mort Rogers' Scorecards" that are famous amongst collectors...<br /><br />and McBride (seated at far left of bottom row) because he became a star pitcher in the early 1870's:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/stats/mcbridi01" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/stats/mcbridi01</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/stats/mcbridi01</a</a>>
Archive
08-01-2006, 12:12 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>McBride pitched for the Athletics for something like 14 seasons. He was already pretty important when this photograph was taken.
Archive
08-01-2006, 01:54 PM
Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>i think the answer to #6 is no...they cannot and will never be identified.<br /><br />pete in mn
Archive
08-01-2006, 02:17 PM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I have a copy of the The Little Pretty Pocket Book...<br /><br />and the three men in my copy bear an uncanny resemblance to Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Paul Revere.<br /><br />Then again, they could also be Moe, Larry and Curley.
Archive
08-01-2006, 03:41 PM
Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p>Great piece, Hal.
Archive
08-01-2006, 04:05 PM
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Sean: regarding what counts as a baseball card - each collector determines that for himself. There is no rulemaker who establishes the guidelines for collecting in this hobby.<br /><br />Which of the above do you think are baseball cards, and which, in your opinion, are not?
Archive
08-01-2006, 04:17 PM
Posted By: <b>Sean</b><p>well ill answer your question in a sec after i get my answer to these 2 what is the earlies baseball CDV and earliest baseball trade card
Archive
08-01-2006, 05:45 PM
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>While you are at it, Sean, take a look at Leon's Newsboys card in the National Pick Ups thread, and let me know if you agree with me that it is not a baseball card.
Archive
08-01-2006, 06:27 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Sean- the earliest baseball CdV we know is the 1861 Brooklyn Atlantics; the earliest trade card pictures Jim Creighton, probably around 1865. Hal's CdV is wonderful and early but my best guess is it is no earlier than 1864, and perhaps even a year or two later. Other than Chadwick none of the players have beards, a good sign that it might even be post civil war. The very earliest players often sported rather long beards. Not scientific, just an observation.
Archive
08-01-2006, 06:34 PM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Barry has proven that my card is from 1855... since the players had not even BEGUN to grow their long beards yet!<br /><br /><img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>
Archive
08-01-2006, 06:40 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That's it-they all had five o'clock shadow and hadn't even grown them yet. The fact that CdV's weren't invented until after 1855 should never stand in the way of a good story!
Archive
08-01-2006, 06:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Jimmy Leiderman</b><p>I can't find any match between the Athletic and the Resolute prior to the one they played on July 28, 1864.<br />These clubs played two games against each other in 1865, June 15 and July 01 being the dates.<br /><br />I think Mort Rogers started playing with the Lowell B.B.C. in 1866.<br /><br />Barry, do you have any more info on this?
Archive
08-01-2006, 06:58 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I don't, and your dating it to 1864-65 I think is right on the money. One curiousity is there are well under 18 players pictured. Where did everybody else go? It seems like a formal pose yet was assembled haphazardly.
Archive
08-01-2006, 07:31 PM
Posted By: <b>Jimmy Leiderman</b><p>Barry, I remember reading that there's another known copy of this CDV.<br />Could this be a Resolute of Brooklyn CDV with the addition of Dick McBride instead of a mixed clubs one?<br /><br />
Archive
08-01-2006, 09:20 PM
Posted By: <b>Sean</b><p>did the p&s creighton card sold for advertising or sold commericaily to the public???????<br /><br /><br />same thing with the 1860-61 brooklyn atlantics card did it sold for advertising or sold commericaily to public?? because if it was it would be my first baseball card in my case<br /><br /><br /><br />thanks
Archive
08-01-2006, 09:36 PM
Posted By: <b>Seth B.</b><p>Isn't 11:20 past your bedtime there? <br />Your post is nearly unintelligible. Peck and Snyder was a sporting goods company so the difference between advertising and commercially available is something I can't quite make out. It wasn't available in packs of five with a stick of crunchy gum, if that's what you're asking.
Archive
08-01-2006, 09:43 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>By 1869, Peck & Snyder was giving away or selling cards with team pictures on them. I think these would be true baseball cards by anyone's definition. I don't know whether the 1861 team card or early 1860s Creighton was given away, sold, or what. Perhaps one of our 19th century experts has an answer.
Archive
08-01-2006, 09:44 PM
Posted By: <b>Sean</b><p>no i said were the p&s creighton card and the 186-61 Brooklyn Atlantics Card sold for advertising OR!!! sold commericaly to the public
Archive
08-02-2006, 05:08 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The 1861 Atlantics was not a trade card and contained no advertising. It was probably made to be distributed to members of the team. Jimmy- yes, there is a second copy of this CdV. I've seen it and it is in virtually mint condition. That is the only reason Hal's copy came into the market, as the owner of that one was able to upgrade. Your point about McBride joining the Resolutes photo is what we always assumed- it's tough identifying the players and it is unclear if other Athletics are pictured.
Archive
08-02-2006, 06:18 AM
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Hey Barry,<br /><br />As for that image lacking 18 players, and being formally posed yet haphazardly conceived...<br /><br />I think that at that point in time people are so conscious of being photographed, new technology, and all, it being seldom done, that the subjects would be a bit honored and would conduct themselves with a higher level of propriety and decorum. So they'd look stiff.<br /><br />Makes me wonder about what would be the earliest true action photo that made it to a baseball card... Not the staged N172 stuff. Maybe the Triple Folders? I don't know. And Sean, I'm sorry if that hijacks your baseball questions a bit.<br /><br />Frank.