Real "Cards" & Your Thoughts!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brad</b><p>I don't consider the following to be real "cards": Exhibits, Zeenut, Major League Die-cuts, Strip cards, Postcards, etc....<br /><br /><br />Do you consider this to be real "cards"?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>I dont consider V117's to be real cards <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>Nice!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Clarke</b><p>Yes, so don't buy any or bid on any.. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />What do think is a rookie card?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brad</b><p>IF you don't want to answer the question, don't reply! It's pretty simply <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I consider all of those you listed to be cards. I don't get hung up on semantics which is what this whole argument is about. They are all different in how they were distributed, but all of them are flat, made of paper and meant to be collected which fits my defintion of a "card".

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I consider postcards to be postcards, exhibits to be exhibits -- but why are Zeenuts not baeball cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Clarke</b><p>My answer was "yes". So zeenuts are zeenuts and Goudey are Goudeys.. right? All on your list are different kinds of cards. You could throw premiums, photos, and game cards all in your group to as to variations of cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>id say strip cards certainly meet definition of a baseball card as well as any other does. They were produced in around the excepted size of a baseball card and were used to advertise a product like all early baseball cards, am i missing something? Oh and zeenuts, cmon, there baseball cards too, as for postcards, they can have their own category, i thought they did, "postcards"

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>little off topic but btw husbandoftammy, great pickups on ebay today!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brad</b><p>Candy, Tobacco, Food cards are the 1st thing what comes to mind when thinking of prewar cards.<br /><br />Factory cut with borders, thick card stock.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>Brad, Zeenuts were produced with Candy, they had factory cut borders and they are on somewhat thick stock. True all cards NOT from 1911, 1912, and 1938 came with a coupon on bottom, however Zeenuts are as much a set of "baseball cards" as any American Caramel, Goudey, etc. set.<br /><br />I always find it funny how people choose what's a "card" or not. To me, if it pictures a baseball player, was somewhat "mass produced" or produced with the intent to be collected by people I could care less if it was round or square, Baguer sized or a magazine premium, flat piece of cardboard, silk, felt, or a pin I like them all, and collect them all. Period.<br /><br />The next thing you are gonna tell me is Colgans are not cards because they aren't between the size of t206 and standard topps size, oh yeah and they have somewhat rounded corners. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brad</b><p><br />Colgans "Cards"? I think don't think so!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>If Colgan's aren't cards then what are they?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brad</b><p>I don't know what category you'd put them under, "oddball"?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Does a card have to be square/rectangular to be a card in your opinion? I notice that you say a card has to be on thick stock - so are Cracker Jacks cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Colgans = the first pogs

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>Brad you probably have a tighter definition of what a baseball card is then most here. It probably has a lot to due with your own collecting interests. I only collect "square" baseball cards, no die cuts, colgans, pins in my collection but i understand why others collect them, and call them cards. Cant we all just agree that they all fall under the umbrella of "advertisments" using baseball players or themes and call it good? Atleast for prewar stuff that is...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Anything that the major grading companies (SGC/PSA) are willing to grade is good enough for me and that is how I make my decision. With SGC's latest oversize holder, the spectrum has increased dramatically to include W600's, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>Nothing distributed in Cuba, Puerto Rico or Venezuela are cards. Those are stamps people, so stop buying them! <br /><br />--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jimmy</b><p>Yes,<br /><br />I consider all the above cards except - postcards are in a different category for collecting they are not sports cards - Exhibits are cards unless they have the back similar to postcards - there are issues out there that would I would in the memorabilia category - but most items that are made of cardboard and are small in size are considered "real" cards<br /><br />Jimmy<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I consider postcards, exhibits, candy cards from boxes, etc. - all to be cards.<br /><br />My criteria for a card is: a commercial printing on cover weight paper - featuring a baseball player(s).<br /><br />The key is cover weight paper (card stock). If it is on text weight paper (like a supplement) - it is not a card.<br /><br /><br />Why is the tobacco company 'card' any more a card than a postcard company's card?<br /><br />Both set out to make some extra $ by using the the game of baseball and its players in a promotional printing.<br /><br /><br /><br />The difference between the two is just distribution - nothing more.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Besides me completely (politely) disagreeing with the very first post I think this is a great discussion (again). Everyone has their own idea of what a "card" is. I guess my question is "can a card that is cut from an ad piece be a card, or cut from a box be a card?". The last All Star full card, cut from a box, went for over 3k on ebay. I consider them cards. I am fairly lenient in this area. Also, many moons ago kids cut up 4 in 1 Exhibits to be individual cards...are those considered cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Kravitz</b><p> WHAT? You must be kidding that postcards are not cards. They were intended to be mailed or collected. post"card" ! Anyone think that this is not a card...?<br /><img src="http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/chiprop/RoseCoPCWagner.jpg"><br />Cards come in all sizes and shapes. This too is a card...<br /><img src="http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/chiprop/Wagner1904insert.jpg"><br />Or this?<br /><img src="http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/chiprop/COBBPC2UNC.jpg"><br />What a ridiculous argument! Baseball cards are cards that depict baseball players and are widely collected. I agree that newspaper and magazine clippings are not cards. However, there are a slew of images printed on thin paper, celluloid, cardboard, felt, and leather, that could be considered cards to some extent. Not everything needs to fit into a nice neat description of baseball cards to be a baseball card. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>When calling something a "baseball card", size, shape, material (cardboard) and intent (to me, meant to be collected) matters. Playing cards, business cards, baseball cards -- we all know that a card fits within a certain size range, and has a certain shape. I would call Ty Cobb's car dealership business card a "card", but not a baseball card.<br /><br />Zeenuts = cards.<br /><br />Strip cards = cards. If they are still attached as a strip, they are a strip of cards. Similarly, a full sheet is not a card, but it is a sheet full of individual cards.<br /><br />Postcards and exhibits = to me, these are types of cards, but they are a little big and many postcards were not produced to be collected (they were produced to be mailed), so this is a tough call. I have a bunch of exhibits. I like to call them exhibits, and when asked, I explain they are like postcards.<br /><br />Silks and pennants = not cards. If these are cards, then hats and jerseys can be cards too.<br /><br />Colgans = also a little difficult to call these cards -- if they are cards then pins can be cards too.<br /><br />Premiums and supplements -- many of the R series premiums are more like photos than cards. Butterfingers are printed on stock only slightly sturdier than newspapers. Dixie Lid premiums come punched and were meant to be put in binders. Kashins are very "card like", in the way an exhibit is sort of a card. I have many of these premiums, but I would not call any of them cards, and I don't want to call them cards. I'd call them photos, or even posters, before calling them cards.<br /><br />I have a bunch of 1930's Wheaties cereal box cutouts. They were meant to be cutout and collected, but they are not cards (too big). When asked, I explain that they were cut from cereal boxes and collected like cards.<br /><br />Cards cut from boxes -- I suppose the smaller blank-backed notebook and box cutouts are cards, in the same way the 50s Wheaties, 60s Bazooka, 60s Post, and 70s Hostess panels are cards. If they are "card sized" (whatever that is) and were meant to be cut-out and collected, then in my book it's a card. (Maybe the notebook cards don't qualify, because they were not meant to be cutout?)<br /><br />But call them what you want to call them -- if Rose postcards and Colgans are cards, then great. I can be convinced.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Kravitz</b><p>If you would consider Rose Co. PC's cards, then where do you stop with larger issues? All PC's must then be considered cards too. Exhibits are cards. They depict baseball players, meant to be collected, sized right (this I don't understand), and collected. I can see where felt and leather could be on the fringe, but it doesn't have to fit in a standard holder to be a card. What does size have to do with anything? G&B are small and w600's are big, but how does size determine what a card is? I guess it matters what the word "is" is.<br />Edited to say - that I believe that images that were meant to be cut out of a box or sheet could also be considered cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>As to size, its real simple, if this is a card: <br /><br /><img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/psabk1025.jpg"><br /><br />Then there can be no argument that these are cards as well:<br /><br /><img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/1910PC796PlankfMedium.jpg"> <img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/File0776LargeMedium.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>Dan -- good points. I think at some point size has to be one of the considerations, because there are differences (I believe) between cards, cereal box backs and posters, etc. <br /><br />JK -- if size is the only, or primary, determining factor, then you are correct, those postcards are clearly cards. Very nice cards.<br /><br /><br />Opinions will differ as to where one draws the line for how big a "card" can be. I know the Don Mattingly poster that was hanging in my room as a kid was not a card. But is a Kashin a card? If it isn't, it's a card-sized premium. Is a 1967 Topps Pin-Up a card? If it isn't, it is a card-sized poster.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>I'm not so sure that postcards were/are meant to be collected. I think their primary purpose is to be sent to friends or family with an inscribed message. Like a greeting card. Are Hallmarks cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Lots of things that weren't meant to be collected are collected today. Postcards have been collected since...I don't know when, but I bet it's been about as long as they've been around.<br /><br />There are so many different postcard issues that IMO were clearly intended to be not only used, but collected also. Eastern Exhibit, Sporting News, Dietsch, Rose, et cetera.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jimmy</b><p>I really think that postcards are in a different category, I talk with a lot of postcard dealers and they do not even sell baseball cards in their main inventory – postcard collecting is one of the oldest hobbies around and most like stamp and coin collectors they are separated by hobby – yes I agree if you collect sports you would collect the baseball, boxing and other postcards that are out there and classify your interest as the item to be a card. I think postcards are more on the memorabilia side, look at ebay auctions or dealer online stores. When the first postcard was graded? surely not when PSA or even SGC started grading sports cards.<br /><br />Jimmy<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>Not speaking for anyone else here, but imo, one of the reasons for many peoples' rather narrow definition of "baseball card", is simply a hold-over from the complete and total monopoly that Topps had on cards when we all grew up. They all were pretty much identical in shape, size, stock, etc. I know that whenever I show my collection to friends (all in their 30's and 40's), most of them get wigged out when they see these tiny little T206's and E-cards, and their first question is always, "Are these cards?" I then have to launch into my history lesson about CDV's evolving into cigarette package stiffeners, yada, yada, yada... until I convince them to overcome that old Topps and Bowman bias. Expand your minds, folks. The various shapes, sizes, materials, and marketing purposes are what make things so damned interesting to me. But of course, collect what you like. Be well!<br /><br />Ken

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>very well said!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>The standard definition of card is a usually rectangular piece of stiff paper or thin cardboard used for writing or printing.<br /><br />As a reference, most 1800s trade cards are on stiff paper, not cardboard.<br /><br />Notice the dictionary definition of card is usually, not always, rectangular.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>David, using that definition, if I took a photograph of barry bonds and had it printed on normal kodak paper, would it be a baseball card?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Card and trading card are two different things. A trading card has to be a card, but it also has to have other qualities (commercial/advertising item sold to the public as a collectible, etc). So, your snapshot of Barry Bonds is not a baseball card.<br /><br />I pointed out the card definition to show that round card, like the Colgan's Chip, isn't automatically excluded as a card-- even by the dictionary. In fact it has so many other baseball card-like qualities (advertising, sold in product like a Topps card) that I would call it a baseball card.<br /><br />There are closely related but different collectible areas. For example, scraps (die cut pieces of paper to be pasted on things) are typically considered their own area of collectible. Those 1800s R & S die cuts are scraps.<br /><br />Also, realize that many of the terms we used today weren't the terms and definitions used today when the items weren't originally collected. For example, some people get hot to trot over the term rookie card as applied to to 1950s cards, but it was either not used or considered of little significance in the 1950s. In other words, the definitions are often modern concoctions applied retroactively. These categories can be good and useful, but aren't inborn to the memorabilia itself.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brett</b><p>Postcards are postcards and baseball cards are baseball cards <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Just because a sports related item has appeal, you don't automatically catagorize it to be something its not. I understand the temptation, but truthfully I believe it sells the item's actual identity and association short.....ie. "what, is the item too good to be merely memorabillia of an alternate category simply because a baseball player adorns it?"<br />Postcards aren't baseball cards, at the closest they're baseball ephemera. Their primary intent was as a vehicle to send a message to someone that could be read and enjoyed. Giving it artistic quality or interest value simply was meant as a way to differentiate the company and sell more postcards, not for the benefit of collectors - of whom there were some no doubt, but who were collectors first and would have collected anything they had interest in. I don't believe for a minute the printing companies produced postcards with the collector of the time in mind and for the purpose of creating an ongoing series of interest that could be traded and enjoyed and would have material value based on limited production and far greater collector demand. Supposing otherwise is really a wishful daydream by todays collectors to justify their current position on this topic - I believe. I also believe most postcards with sports themes (especially baseball) have really only been 'discovered' in recent times because of their jump in value, and were kept originally by the owners because of the message on the back - not the picture on the front. It is today's collector who has turned the vast majority of such postcards into 'baseball cards'. Rose company blurr the distinction because of the beauty and full color rendition, but one great example does not a category make.<br />Pins aren't baseball cards, because of the piece of metal on the back called a pin. They are in fact universally called pins. That's exactly what they are and could be included with baseball or sports related memorabillia.<br />Leathers and pennants are memorabillia, some sports related and others differently adorned. But cards they are not.<br />Exhibits are baseball cards. They are made of card stock and produced purely for the collector of the time to purchase and keep or trade.<br />Premiums - which are really just photos, and photographs aren't cards. The second you see one it is obvious that the intent was photographic and artistic in nature, not advertising, not trading, not the formation of teams and players to checklist and collect, but an example of rewarding its circulation with a novelty item - in this case an attractive picture, that is more accurately labelled mass produced art.<br />Zeenuts, they're cards.<br />Candy box cut outs, cards.<br /><br />And I've definitely written too much, so I'll stop.<br /><br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Daniel,<br /><br />There are some problems with your analysis. First, with respect to postcards, you state:<br /><br />"I also believe most postcards with sports themes (especially baseball) have really only been 'discovered' in recent times because of their jump in value, and were kept originally by the owners because of the message on the back - not the picture on the front."<br /><br />If so, how do you account for the vast number of postcards that were never used? I would suggest that they were saved by the purchasers and collected. I have owned several PC's but not once have I owned one with writing on the reverse. I realize plenty have writing on the reverse, but many that survived do not. I believe many postcards were produced with ball players because the companies understood that people collected items with ball players and, as you say, it would lead to more sales - much in the same way tobacco companies put cards into their products to sell more tobacco. This brings me to my second point. You acknowledge exhibits are cards. Please take a close look at the walter johnson exhibit posted above. Its from a set produced by an exhibit company with PC backs (although my particular card happens to have a blank back). If an exhibit company can produce a card that doubles as a postcard, so too could a postcard company create a postcard that was intended to be collected. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>I agree JK that 'cross' interest was both possible and likely back through pre-vintage times, but that doesn't get away from 'primary' intent. Much as today if you had a company - let's say Topps, and a successful product like baseball cards, might you create a card that could be used as a postcard as well - as a novelty? Absolutely. You're making your money from a defined market with semi defined demand and a somewhat definable yearly income. Postcards? Well, demand has really dropped with electronic media and telecommunications, so you don't exactly want to plan your business model around surviving off the vagaries of peoples interest in this dying medium when it runs secondary in your planning, design, marketing and market place annalysis. An interesting addition to your business that doesn't cost you much to duplicate? Sure. Good business sense? Not so sure. <br />Now the reverse. In the 1905s through 1940s, you have a company that produces postcards and the demand is definable - in the millions and millions and millions, people across the world mainly correspond through the written word, and postcards, letters, lettergrams, are THE media. Sure you know baseball cards have been successful additions to the tobacco market and candy market (other foods as well) - although HOW successful is debatable with the disappearance of most of those tobacco companies, but how do you measure the collector community of the time and the likelihood that the expenses you incur in producing postcards that double as baseball cards will be comfortably turned into profit by a collector whose tastes you probably don't fully understand, and format that is different clearly to that used in most baseball cards in T, N, etc. form? Do you really build a business around that.<br />And if we're being honest, we should also acknowledge that 'collecting' stuff has been legitimized/given a fresh face in only recent decades, and that before then most such collectors were more likely to be considered horders and eccentrics. Stamps and coins were fairly accepted, furniture for the hoy poloy, but after that........how many people collected and shared their love of dutch porcelain? Or silver matchsafes? Or any of the other collecting hobbies so much more widely enjoyed today.<br /><br />Per your comment regarding blank postcards, I would simply hazard a guess at this. There were probably 100-200 postcard collectors of the time, who put together GIANT collections, that through the years have been broken down and re-sold in various catagories. That doens't mean I don't think loads of people didn't scrap book and keep all kinds of ephemera that interested them including postcards in them, but my genuine belief is that the number of hardcore pc collectors who specialized in baseball or sports was relatively miniscule, and that the last 10 years has produced the real 'backbone' of that part of the hobby community.<br /><br />JMO<br /><br /><br />Regards<br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>There were far more than 200 hardcore postcard collectors in the first half of the 20th century....it was also not uncommon for people to collect antiques. There are antique journals that date back to the 1800s.<br /><br />I believe the following postcard was produced to be collected, but had the side benefit that it could also be mailed.<br /><br /><img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/nudan92/hornsby1.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/nudan92/hornsby2.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>This subject has gone round and round since before I first came here on a weekend furlough from the looney bin. Most recently Hal Lewis disproved the adequacy of my most recent attempt to define a baseball card; with his Hank Aaron driver's license. <br />All I am left with is that the opinion of adults has nothing to do with this subject. The determination of "what is a baseball card" is done in the field, by real collectors (you know, the original ones - kids).<br />So whatever they choose to treat as a card, is one. And whatever they treat as a picture is that. And how you assess their intent, I have no idea. But they know. So ask someone who was once a kid.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>My wife insists every time I look at my cards that I'm STILL a kid, so for what it's worth...they ARE cards!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>It's all semantics and it doesn't matter in the end. Who cares? Collect what you like and call 'em how you see 'em.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>How do you know the number was far &gt; than 200 (pre war) for PC ONLY collectors...? Again, not referring to generalized ephemera collectors of which the numbers were large, but those that put together and maintained, and traded for PCs to fill series. And how would they know what cards constituted a full set? There were no checklists that I am aware of for the mass produced postcards, and current lists have been assembled more on what is known to survive than what is known to have been produced.<br />Just interested (sincerely) in what else you could add, as you hint at more concrete understandings than I am aware of.<br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I think everything listed in the first post (except maybe those generic 1920s diecuts) are baseball cards. But I have a different questions. Is an E271 Darby really a baseball card. To me, it's a box, or half a box. I know a lot of cards are cut from boxes, but with Darbys there is no obvious line between box and card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Daniel, postcard collecting was huge in the early part of the 20th century. There are albums that date to the pre-WW1 era that were specifically made to house postcards. I see them at estate auctions all the time. Just because people didn't know the checklists of all the postcards didn't mean they weren't collected. There was no T206 checklist yet Jefferson Burdick still collected them. Also just because postcards had utility didn't mean they weren't collected too. Baseball cards were utilized as pack stiffeners in packages of cigarettes.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Daniel,<br /><br />I will turn your question around on you - how do you know there werent more than 200 collectors. Frankly, I think your argument is full of assumptions that are made without any real factual support. Some of your statements:<br /><br />"There were probably 100-200 postcard collectors of the time, who put together GIANT collections, that through the years have been broken down and re-sold in various catagories."<br /><br />In a country of, I would guess, approximately 100 million at the turn of the century you really think only 200 people collected pcs? On what basis do you make such an assumption? That is nothing more than pure speculation.<br /><br />"Now the reverse. In the 1905s through 1940s, you have a company that produces postcards and the demand is definable - in the millions and millions and millions"<br /><br />Admittedly, I am no expert in post cards, but I think you are making an huge assumption here. First of all, as to many postcards such as the sepia plank, Im not sure we know a thing about the company that produced the cards. You have assumed that a postcard company produced it, but there are no markings on the card to indicate that - so we really have no idea if the producer was a postcard company or some other business - for example, a sports store that gave them away to customers (I admit that the lack of advertising makes this unlikely, but we simply dont know). I think the same is true of most of the postcards if you check the old cardboard links. For example, was Rose Co. a postcard manufacturer or was it a clothing store? I dont know, but I bet someone here does. Other company's that put out postcards - the sporting news, exhibit manufacturers, novelty cutlery, detroit free press, wolverine news, etc. I would argue that none of these companies were in the business of producing postcards and simply wanted to make a product that appealed to collectors and non-collectors alike. Heck, I think its hard to argue that the sporting new's postcards werent meant as collectables when all their other card offerings were meant to be collected. Finally, if there were one such giant postcard company manufacturing cards of bb players, why is it that the list of postcards on old cardboard's website doesnt reflect that? You would expect numerous issues from one company if your theor were correct.<br /><br />"but how do you measure the collector community of the time and the likelihood that the expenses you incur in producing postcards that double as baseball cards will be comfortably turned into profit by a collector whose tastes you probably don't fully understand"<br /><br />Again, I think you are assuming profit on the sale of the postcards themselves was the motive. I doubt that was sporting news' motive - Im betting their motive was advertising and sales of its publications. <br /><br />"the format that is different clearly to that used in most baseball cards in T, N, etc. form? Do you really build a business around that."<br /><br />Again - your assuming the business was making postcards. Again, take a look at the sporting news -they put out supplements (m101-1s, m101-2s and m101-6 through m101-9s); cards (m101-4s, m101-5s); pcs (pc 757s), etc. The differing formats didnt stop them from trying it and they clearly built a successful business.<br /><br />"And if we're being honest, we should also acknowledge that 'collecting' stuff has been legitimized/given a fresh face in only recent decades, and that before then most such collectors were more likely to be considered horders and eccentrics. Stamps and coins were fairly accepted, furniture for the hoy poloy, but after that........how many people collected and shared their love of dutch porcelain? Or silver matchsafes? Or any of the other collecting hobbies so much more widely enjoyed today."<br /><br />Frankly, I think this is the biggest assumption of the bunch. What makes you believe people didnt collect things at the turn of the century? As noted above, antique collecting was widely accepted. Im betting many things (albeit different things than what might be collected today) were collected/saved etc. back then. While bb card collecting may have been in its infancy, the game was very popular and had a growing following. There is no reason to believe that kids didnt collect cards, pcs, supplements etc of their favorite players. In fact, didnt lionel carter collect cards from the 30s straight out of the pack? Those cards were produced to be collected, but do you really think there was a fundamental change between 1910 and 1935, a mere 25 years, that changed human nature? Humans by nature are horders, collectors, gatherers. Always have been and always will be. Now if you have evidence/facts to the contrary other than speculation, I'd love to hear it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>After making what is perhaps my longest post ever, its nice to see that Dan Bretta was able to state what I would have liked to have stated in a couple sentences. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Well Dan and JK, if I'm the one who's made assumptions, exactly what course have you both taken? What facts apart from some albums you've seen suggest widespread collecting of Postcards with specific interest, eg. not just ephemera and lovely pictures, but collections taylored to sporting interests through the years 1900 - 1945. That some baseball related PC's have survived at all is not exactly a great story to tell.....<br /><br />In fact, while I may seem to be just posing worthless theory in your minds, what proof of any kind has survived of widespread baseball related PC collecting? And that the collectors of the day indeed saw them no differently to the other formats baseball cards were released in? Please enlighten me. You can't take pot shots at my assumptions without supplying reasonable explanations of your own.<br /><br />But again, I'm the only one who's making the assumptions here <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>.<br />And I never said people didn't collect things, in fact I think I was clear that people in large numbers collected various things. But why not a known set of stories to shed light on the early times of PC collecting which in Dan's opinion was HUGELY popular, and the evolution of baseball specific PC's being aquired. Clearly one of the most popular pastimes of the era would be reasonably or somewhat documented, or stories available via collectors down through the ages, much as the more classic baseball card collectors we know through our own hobby lore. How many baseball PC's did Carter or Nagy keep? Tell me that the old time collectors thought of Postcards as baseball cards, kept them in their own collections, traded them, etc., and the argument is much more interesting and compelling. As I understand things, that is not the case here.<br /><br />But, I do absolutely want to learn what you know to be true, so instead of just saying I'm making assumptions that most probably are flawed, how about supplying some of your own facts that present a better case rather than your own assumptions?<br /><br />Some facts:<br />Population of the USA in 1900: 78 mill plus a little<br />Took until nearly 1920 for the pop to reach 100 mill.<br />At the turn of the century, three in five in the United States lived in a town having a population of less that 2,500 - how many of those in rural community living took up the rather expensive past time of collecting baseball related PC's, blithely ignoring their utilitarian usage?<br />Circa 1900 - 1910, the average workweek was twelve hours a day and six days a week. In the United States there was no income tax, and no social security, unemployment insurance or public housing for the aged or disabled. Families were obliged to take care of their aged and their handicapped, and grandmothers baby-sat the children of their sons and daughters. <br />Typhus was prevalent, and tuberculosis was rampant. <br />In the first decade of the century, fresh beef was around 13 cents a pound, equivalent to about $30 a pound relative to 1990 dollars. Soap was 5 cents a bar, equal to $11.50 in 1990 dollars.<br /><br />Yes there was wealth and success being created, and sure there were people able to collect what they wished. But I always wish people would look back on history as it was - rather than apply todays conditions and market largesse (not to mention almost disgusting levels of consumption for consumptions sake) to times of yesteryear.<br /><br />These times we live in are not your great-grandfather's times, and it always helps to remember that.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Respectfully<br />Daniel<br /><br /><br /><br />Not everyone who kept postcards was collecting, some were personal, some had business meaning, some were just aesthetically pleasing, etc. <br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1181882491.JPG"> <br /><br /><br />Dated 1920<br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Well, I made one assumption that was wrong. I thought you were talking of postcard collecting in general. I didn't know you were talking of specialized postcard collecting. You may be right that there were less than 200 people who specifically collected baseball postcards. <br /><br />I apologize for my misunderstanding, but you come across as very touchy quite often. I don't see anything in either my post or JK's that could be taken as a personal affront to you.<br /><br />Relax....it's just cardboard. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Daniel,<br /><br />What in my post is a personal attack? That I dont get. As for assumptions, well, I think most of my points are backed up by circumstantial evidence at a minimum. <br /><br />Finally, even assuming there were only 200 mega pc collectors back in the day, what makes you so certain there were that many more collectors of T, E, M, W, etc. cards? In other words, even if you buy the assumption of very few pc collectors, you have to make another assumption to reach your conclusion - namely that there where significantly more collectors of traditional cards (which, at the time, were in their infancy and were not traditional in any sense).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>I wasn't being touchy, as I saw it neither of you engaged me in what I wrote but instead just poo poo'd it. My thoughts on the issue were crap because they were assumptions, but in the end that's about all you have to give yourselves.<br /><br />And with regards to T's and Candy, and all the other give-aways, I think the 'give away' part of it would make it comfortably more likely to be collected. While you think the assumption that postcards had to be paid for is some sort of leap of imagination, I think it the most likely scenario. This was a medium you didn't have to give away, people actually needed it to get by in general life. Telephones were available to very few, and keeping contact with friends and relatives was largely by hand written form. Why would you give away something that people will pay good money for because they actually NEED it?<br /><br />Still, I will gladly listen respectfully if you have actual historical information you could share.<br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>sporting news pcs - giveaways.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>The official figures from the U.S. Post Office for their fiscal year ending June 30, 1908, cite 677,777,798 postcards mailed. At that time the total population of the United States was 88,700,000.<br /><br />I would guess that at nearly 8 postcards per person, people very likely bought postcards in bunches at an opportune time - then used them as the occasion arose. It seems likely that if you bought 8 but weren't super concientious about keeping up correspondence with the relatives, two or three cards might survive each year free of penmanship. Adding further to the survior rate of these unblemished pc's is the scenario that sports related PC's tended to focus on players and teams of particular years and their accomplishments. Thus, It might seem silly if you didn't get around to posting the 1908 Cubbies winning the championship in the correlating year, you'd just keep it rather than send it on to someone for whom the meaning might be lost by the non-recent nature of the subject.....<br /><br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan kravitz</b><p>If the theory is that a card needs to be used as advertising ... No different than a 1912 Garter, also used to sell clothing. Where do you draw the line? Postcards are 100% baseball cards! Expand your mind. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><img src="http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/chiprop/FrankChancePCfrt.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/chiprop/FrankChancePCbk.jpg">\<br /><br />From REA <br /><img src="http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/chiprop/garter.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Daniel,<br /><br />A little research on the web and I found the full paragraph that your numbers came from. The came from a website discussing the history of postcards and under the subheading "Undivided Back Era, December 24, 1901 - March 1, 1907". The particular paragraph states:<br /><br />"At the end of this period in time, the hobby of collecting postcards became THE GREATEST COLLECTIBLE HOBBY THAT THE WORLD HAD EVER KNOWN. The official figures from the US Post Office for their fiscal year ending June 30, 1908, cite 677,777,798 postcards mailed. At that time the total population of the United States was only 88,700,000!" (emphasis added).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.emotionscards.com/museum/historyofpostcards.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.emotionscards.com/museum/historyofpostcards.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Why is it that you chose to leave out the collecting part of the paragraph? Regardless, how is it that collecting postcards could be the greatest collectible hobby in the world at the time, but you refuse to believe that they were specifically purchased to be collected?<br /><br />Edited several times to try and fix the link.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Would the USPS deliver an Exhibit card if I stamped and addressed it?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>My friends and I used to use flotsam like pop tart box sides and so on as postcards. <br /><br />--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>because in both that specific article and every other I researched on the web, the suggestion is that people 'collected' them through the very process by which they were intended. That is, they were mailed to friends and family who kept the items as keepsakes for what I am sure is very many reasons, and this is what is meant by the term collecting at the time. No doubt the aesthetics and boom in sending postcards created a 'fad' interest for a number of years (referred to as the golden years of postcards) where people the world over kept and collected the items in scrapbooks and other mediums, memories of travels taken and new friends or family made, a short and filable "movie 8" of its time.<br /><br />I have yet to read nary a sentence that describes people collecting postcards of the time as we understand collecting today. That is, buying the postcards themselves purely for the intent of creating a collection, based on specific areas of interest, and not for the purpose of sending greetings on beautifully rendered artworks to friends which was the primary intent and vehicle of the item.<br /><br />No doubt some indeed were pure collectors (I read of a Jewish collector who amassed postcards with specific religious themes), but I would argue nearly all were postcard collectors then much as they are today, and that postcards even with sporting interests were viewed as such - and not baseball cards to be collected by children and idle men. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Further reading also makes an interesting point regarding blank baseball postcards. <br />"On December 24th, 1901, the U.S. Government allowed the use of the words "Post Card" or "Postcard" to be printed on the undivided back of privately printed cards and allowed publishers to drop the authorization inscription previously required by law. Writing was still only allowed on the front of picture side of the card but right at this time, other countries began to permit the use of a divided back, allowing the front to be primarily for the picture or artwork and the back left for the address and any message. England was the first to allow divided back cards in 1902, France followed in 1904, Germany in 1905 and finally the United States in 1907. These changes brought in the "Golden Age" of postcards as millions were sold and used."<br />The reason I think this date interesting is that quite a number of the postcard issues in our hobby appear dated to the 1907-09 period, and may well have been prepared to take advantage of the upcoming relent on messages printed on the back of the card. Because of the timing, it seems quite possible some people simply didn't jump on the bandwagon straight away or were unaware of the new govt. tolerances and decided they couldn't pen anything of worth across these often darkened black and white baseball images we find on many period baseball themed postcards. Or maybe they just liked them too much and kept them for the memory invoked.<br />And those Rose Co. cards, well, they were just too damn beautiful to butcher with fountain ink! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />Again, for me this is very different to the active pursuit of sets of cards that are focus specific, finite in number per the issue, 'checklistable' at the time in some manner or other so that individual examples can be chased, <br />and is part of a longer (many years as opposed to a summer interest with the dashing Mathewson or Cubs immortalized in poem) penchant that is fuelled by manufacturers producing issue after issue, year after year, to sate the collector interest.<br /><br />I haven't and am not interested in hiding anything in this discussion JK, I've done my share of reading on the subject and come to my own set of understandings - and am equally pleased to think on and incorporate other ideas that are shared openly and generously by others.<br /><br />That's all I'd ask, but seemingly you are itching more for argument and one upmanship than real discussion that can arise from this post.<br />A shame as far as I see it.<br /><br /><br />Sincerely<br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Im not itching for an argument or one upsmanship. What you seem to continually overlook is that most of the baseball pcs do not seem to have come from a postcard company that was looking to sell them for profit. Most seem to have been produced by companies looking for a way to advertise something - just like tobacco and caramel cards. There is no reason to beleive that just because those companies took two stabs at making their advertising desireable (pc and baseball) people didnt collect them as sets. Again, I point to the Sporting News PCs as a primary example that you have yet to address. <br /><br />That's it for me on this thread. So please have the last word, I promise not to argue or one up you any more.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>they're real, and they're spectacular. <br /><br /><img src="http://www.internetville.com/images/albums/userpics/10001/1903GiantsfrontA.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.internetville.com/images/albums/userpics/10001/giantsW601.jpg"><br /><br />