1912 Boston Garter Joe Jackson

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bobby Binder</b><p>Have not seen but heard from more then one reputable source the existence of a 1912 Boston Garter Joe Jackson. I know that the backs have a check list and he is not on it. Can any one else document this claim? Was told that one may be available for auction in the near future and would have to believe that this card would bring in around $750K

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>I'll believe it when I both see it and have been told by someone with adequate expertise that the card is real.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>1913- absolutely; but I doubt 1912. I don't think any unchecklisted player has shown up, but don't quote me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Millerhouse</b><p>I concur with Barry. Have never seen or heard of either a 1912 or 1913 Boston Garter that did not appear on the checklist on the back of each respective set. Would seriously doubt the existence of one sight unseen.<br /><br />Dan

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>bruce Dorskind</b><p>Bobby<br /><br />Although the idea of a 1912 Boston Garter Joe Jackson would represent<br /> one of the mostexciting hobby discoveries in recent memory... <br />it does not seem possible, or even plausible.<br /><br />The 1912 Garters have a 12 player check list. Eachl of those palyers have<br />been seen either on individual cards, the one known uncust sheet;<br />or the two card advertising piece...six different samples of which<br />were uncovered by a legandary, albeit low key board member,<br />on a business trip to Atlanta in 1992.<br /><br />In 1975, one of the Hobby's 10 greatest all time collectors, Buck<br />Barker of St. Louis Missouri authored a Trader Speaks cover<br />story on Boston Garters. In our conversations with Buck and Barry<br />Halper (arguably the greatest collectors) of all time) on the Garters<br />both gentlemen spoke at length about the rarity of the Garters,<br />and how few pieces they had seen. There was no hint of any<br />example of a player who was not checklisted.<br /><br />The Boston Public Library is also a great source of historical baseball<br />information. In our visits there (back in the early 1980's), the<br />data on the George Frost Company (makers of Boston Garters)<br />which included a US patent filing... did not indicate any evidence<br />of a player card other than those check- listed. <br /><br />That said, here's hoping that the "rumor" is true and all of us<br />can enjoy another story about the legandary Mr. Jackson.<br /><br /><br />Best,<br /><br /><br />Bruce Dorskind<br />America's Toughest Want List

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Bruce- is it possible there is a proof of Jackson that was never issued for circulation and therefore did not make the checklist? That is the only reasonable scenario.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>Speaking of the Boston Garter set can someone tell me the size dimension of the cards? I think there quite a bit larger then a normal size card. I do believe the 1912 and 1913 are the same size. The 1914 are smaller, but I really like the '12 and '13 issues more, '12 being my favorite. I've heard the 1912 set is quite a bit more valuable then the 1913. Is this due to mainly the 1912 issue being scarcer or is there another issue at play?<br /><br />Edited to add:<br />also does anyone know the size of the 1886 H812 New York Baseball club issue? I really like the one i've seen, does anyone have any in their collection they can post?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Here you go Dylan:<br /><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/o/h/h813/h813.asp?cardsetID=1059" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/o/h/h813/h813.asp?cardsetID=1059</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/o/h/h813/h813.asp?cardsetID=1059</a</a>><br /><br /><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/o/h/h812/h812.asp?cardsetID=1058" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/o/h/h812/h812.asp?cardsetID=1058</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p><br />The 1912 Boston Garters are approximately 8 1/4" tall by 4" wide. The 1912's are more valuable as they are much scarcer and have awesome lithography. There are only 2 known H812's that are not trimmed. My recollection is there are about 7 others known but the bottoms (see Barry, no apostrophe) are trimmed off. I got mine, the only known one with Sanders Advertising, from a Lipset auction several years ago. It came from his personal collection. I consider this one of the most rare (I hate using "rare" but it applies here)catalogued sets. They are about 4 3/4" by 3"....regards <br /><br /><img src="http://luckeycards.com/ph812welch.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Excellent punctuation, and a beautiful card! A+ for both <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Zach Rice</b><p>I was browsing through auction catalogs a little bit ago and this thread sparked something I had read so I decided to go dig them out again. In REA's 1995 auction, a complete set of H812s were sold. All cards were trimmed and had remnants of being glued to something on their backs. Rob Lifson mentions, in the set's description, that the group of 8 represents all known cards from the set, including the only examples of card number 5 and 8. This leads me to believe that he had knowledge of existing examples of the other six cards in the set besides the ones being offered in auction. That means that cards number 1,2,3,4,6, and 7 all have at least two known. Two of those cards could be the Welch and another non-trimmed example mentioned above. If that was the case, and the auction's description was correct, then there are at least 14 existing examples floating around out there.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>My guess is the ones sold in REA in 1995 are the same ones I am talking about...whether it was 7,8,9 I don't recall exactly, though I thought it was 7 trimmed and 2 untrimmed. The untrimmed one is Deasley (sp?), btw. ....I am sure there were as many as Rob said there were in his auction so maybe it was 8 and 2. I would be a little surprised (not totally) if there were 2 sets of these and they were trimmed like are being described, in different groups.