Goodwin Auction is open + Peck & Snyder Discussion
 

I have no items consigned in the Goodwin auction but as a thanks to Bill I just want to let folks know his auction is open. Goodwin Auctions is now an advertiser on Net54baseball and it's appreciated. This is one of, if not THE, best looking auction I can remember them having.

http://www.goodwinandco.com/


Also for the record, as many board members will attest to, I will be more than happy to help if there are any issues with board advertisers. I am not saying that I can always get you an answer you want but I can at least help get an answer. As recent as today I had a "thanks" for doing so. Good luck if anyone goes for anything in the aforementioned auction!!!

(I changed the title to better reflect the thread. Great discussion....)

A small, but really impressive auction!

Will be fun to watch that Tango Eggs Cobb...any guesses on a the hammer price?

Great 19th century items
 

Bill he's some terrific items particularly the Harry wright 172 and delahanty cards

The auction does have some great cards, but the Wright is not one of them. An Old Judge with a badly faded photo is nothing to get excited about, regardless of the technical grade.

Looks like it's mis-cut at the bottom as well, or was that common for OJ's? Shouldn't that affect the grade?

Having an angular cut is not particularily unusual. The card's problem is the photo, not the cut. For photo clarity, the most important factor when judging Old Judge cards, it is a 2, not an 8.

The peck and snyder is interesting. There are two distinct types for the Cinci card. While both are typically dated 1869 is the general consensus that the type offered in the auction was issued earlier than the other type?

Jay, sure looks like they graded on centering and corners, did not even look at clarity of photo.

Joe

I have never heard that but I have never heard of a lot of things. I am privy to several different backs on the small ones. The large ones I think I have only seen 2 different colors but not backs.

That's the problem with grading OJ's the TPG's don't seem to take clarity/fading into account at all when it is the single most important aspect of the card.

no worries. In a few years, TPGs will change their grading criteria so they can get a bunch of new submittals. Of course though, any card submitted can't be demoted in grade, only raised, so the submitter has nothing to lose! well, except the cost of grading :eek: In return, you'll get your same card, but with a different number on the slab.

:)

I am not certain when the type offered by Goodwin is dated. However, for the other type -- the full P&S trade card, the issue date varied from 1869 to 1870. The first version, black with the baseball ad on the verso, most likely was the first issue, released during the 1869 season. The second version, black with the ice skate ad, most likely was issued during the winter of 1869-70. And the third and final version, red with the baseball ad, most likely came out during the 1870 season (the team composition did not change in 1870). 1870 was the year P&S also issued the Athletics, Mutuals and White Stockings trade cards. Of these three, two (Athletics and Mutuals) were issued with colored inks -- blue for the Athletics and green for the Mutuals. Thus it is logical that the 1870 reissue for the Red Stockings would be in a red ink. Supporting this view that the red version was issued in 1870 is that the photo contrast on the red ones is noticably inferior than on the blacks. Constant use of a negative to make prints would over time degrade the negative, thus reducing the quality of the resultant print. Thus it makes sense the red versions would have weaker photo contrast than the earlier black issues. Be careful in evaluating claims by auction houses that sell red ones that the photo contrast is so outstanding. Over the past 25 years I have seen exactly one red version which had photo contrast matching the best blacks. That was over twenty years ago and unfortunately that red one was trimmed.

I love that Plank card. Is it just me or does it seem like the frequency of the Plank offerings are even less than the Wagner's. Anyone want to guess what that card goes for? I say $129,000.

Does anyone else disagree with this being Fred Clarke? Sure doesn't look anything like him to me. If this isn't Clarke has anyone seen a Fred Clarke Hermes Pin?

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...in-Fred-Clarke

Clint Hromek

Clint - see here fro a related discussion:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=111717

Corey--That's an interesting theory, and may be dead on. Is there any hard evidence to date the Cincinnati cards? You have been doing this a lot longer than I have, and I don't claim to be an expert on these. However, I have had a few blacks and a few reds, including both backs, and mine have had very consistent photo quality across all types. Maybe I was just lucky.

Jay- Corey and I have had numerous discussions about the Cincinnati P & S and I agree with all of his points. We are certain that the Jim Creighton was the first one issued although we have no agreement on the date. The Cincinnati one was next and it was extremely popular, so it's not surprising that it would have been reissued. The two different ads on the reverse of the black ones reflect the changing of seasons and the different marketing the store needed to do.

The color mounts seem to have been introduced in 1870, and no question the Cincinnati team was still very popular, so it likely would have still been issued as late as 1870. Assuming the same negative was being used, the quality of the photograph would have been compromised by this time. The Reds winning streak didn't end until June of 1870, and which point the popularity of the club waned. And likewise, the run of Cincinnati trade cards issued by the company also ended.

There really isn't a lot of documentation about this but it appears to make sense.

I think the frequency of Planks and Wagners goes in waves. REA had three Planks in their auction last May. From my experience over the long haul they pop up with about equal frequency though for a couple years it may seem like more Wagners, then for a couple years it seems like more Planks.
As for final hammer, I think you are in the ballpark. Could be a little more. I doubt it will go for much less than that.
JimB

Jim- can you actually recall a time when more Wagners were auctioned than Planks? I can't. I think Planks show up more frequently.

Barry,
You may be right. I have a vague recollection that about 8-10 years ago that almost no Planks came up for two or three years while one or two Wagners were coming each year. But my memory is not great. I have certainly never seen an auction with three Wagners in it! Didn't REA even have four Planks one time?
JimB

I have been thinking more about the number of Wagners out there. REA estimates roughly 50 in the latest auction write-up. That number makes sense. That means if roughly two are sold every year, that on average the average Wagner stays in its temporary home for about 25 years.

Also, since people like Rob Lifson have been following new finds since the late '60's or early '70's when there were less than 10 known, I would think he would be in a good position to make a reasonably accurate estimate.

I know some estimates are as high as 80-100, but those numbers always seemed high to me. I just think they would be seen much more frequently if the number was that high. If there were a hundred and two a year are publicly traded, then the average owner would hold their copy for 50 years! That seems very high on average.
JimB

Jim--I think there are several people with multiple Wagners and those will come out as groups. Call me skeptical, but I'd bet the number of Wagners that exist is closer to 100 than it is to 50.

Barry-The fact that you and Corey agree certainly means that the theory makes sense. I was just wondering if there was anything beyond a theory.

I believe REA had five Planks a couple of years ago, and three last year. Has there ever been an auction with more than one Wagner?

Barry or Corey,
Wouldn't the Atlantics or possibly the Lowells have been issued before Cincinnati? Their heyday was prior to Cincinnati. Also, isn't there also an Olympics version that was advertised by P&S that has never been found?

Gary- the Atlantics was likely the second trade card they issued, in 1868. Cincinnati would have been third. And the Lowells was an 1870 issue.

Jay- as I said, most of what we know about P & S has been pieced together by the experiences of collectors. There is still more to learn I'm sure. One interesting fact is that we do not know who took that photograph of the Reds. I've never even seen a CdV that has the photographer's name.

I thought Andy Peck took the picture with his Brownie camera.

Jay/Gary
 

Jay-A few years ago there was a thread on this issue. As I recall, reference was made to an 1870 P&S advertisement in which the 1870 trade cards (including the Red Stockings) were mentioned as being available. Thus, since that would establish that the Red Stockings trade card was being offered in 1870, and that since colored inks were introduced that year for the Mutuals and the Athletics, it follows that they would also use the colored ink that year for the Red Stockings. As to photo quality, I suspect the black ones you compared the reds to were not of the finest contrast the blacks are known to come in. Either that or you have seen red ones I haven't yet seen.

Gary-I have no recollection of an extant P&S Olympics. There are P&S Athletics and Lowells. The Atlantics is definitely 1868, and I thought the Lowells was 1868 as well.

From the little I know about tracking Wagners, and me seeing about 40 different at one time, per the Net54 dinner a few years ago, I have to believe there is close to 100 Wagners in the hobby. With what I have seen I will not be convinced otherwise. I usually think of there being as much that I "haven't" seen as much as I "have" seen however the internet has evened out much of the experience on seeing cards. That being said, with the popularity of the Wags, the price wouldn't go down whether there is 20 or 150. The demand is huge....

The ad is from 11/25/1871 and lists seven P&S team cards with no mention of the Creighton. The Olympic card is one of the seven listed. Isn't it possible that all seven were issued contemporaneously, with the Creighton an earlier issue. The cards weren't exactly flying off the shelf, since the ad is from late 1871. Reference the 12/1995 VCBC pg. 2.

The teams listed in the 1871 ad would have been those available at that time. The Creighton would have been out of print years prior to it. And if they did produce an Olympics then it is likely none has survived.

Gary- I just went back to the article you cited only to discover I wrote it! Would you believe I have no memory of it? Well it does confirm the Lowells is an 1868 issue, so my above post needs to be corrected. Boy, do I forget things.

Let me show my ignorance-why couldn't the Creighton been issued after the others. Creighton died 10/18/1862. Why couldn't it have been issued for the ten year anniversary of his death?

It is odd that all but the Creighton were available in 1871. If the Creighton was "sold out" why is there only one surviving example, while there are multiples of most of the other cards? Could it have come later as Jay points out? Why not?

Well the fact is we don't know the date of it, so anything is possible. I saw the verso a really long time ago (probably around 1990) and as I recall the ad for the store seems to be quite a bit less ornate than the ones we are familiar with. It just looks older. That is of course not scientific but we don't know its origin. As far as why only one survived, there may not be a good explanation for that. Maybe it was the first attempt by P & S and it was issued in a very small print run. Who knows?

Seems illogical that if P&S was still in the business of issuing trade cards in 1872, they would select a fellow who died 10 years prior over more popular (and therefore more commerically viable) contemporary baseball teams/individuals. Also too, the verso of the P&S Creighton is considerably less ornate than what P&S later used. Seems illogical that as time went on they would become less skilled at self-promotion. In the end, as has been discussed a number of times, nobody knows for certain the precise year the Creighton card was issued. But based on everything known, I believe it is more logical to believe it predated the other known P&S's.

My best guess as to when the Creighton was issued is sometime between 1865 and 1867. Creighton could have been honored at any time after his death, and would have been an excellent first choice for the series.

I believe there is a thread that shows Peck and Snyder did not become business partners until 1868. If the Creighton has a Peck and Snyder ad, it must have been issued 1868 or later.

I have nothing to add but want to thank Corey, Jay, Barry, and Gary for discussing P&S history. Sounds like the theory has evolved a bit since the 1995 VCBC article. This would make for a magnificent OC article especially if you can include some color images. I love this stuff even though it's out of my scope.

While the front of the Creighton has been published several times, I don't believe the back ever has. And since it is unique, containing both a biography of the fallen star as well as an unfamiliar P & S ad, it would be worthwhile to see. Maybe there is a clue there.

Well here's some interesting information. I just received a phone call from someone who has a photocopy of the back of the Creighton (not the current owner). He says that while there is a short bio on the back, there is no advertising whatsoever. If that is true, then we can't even say with certainty that this is part of the Peck & Snyder set, although it still could be.

Mark Rucker was the original owner and he first published a picture of it in his book Baseball Cartes. I went back to the text earlier today and he does call it a Peck & Snyder. So at this point there seems to be a whole lot of errors, among them those included by me in my VCBC article.

The simple solution would be for the current owner to take a look at it and confirm one way or the other. And a scan would be even nicer.

I will post a scan of the verso on Monday. In the interim, I can tell you that the verso does in fact reference Peck & Snyder as publishers of the card and and lists their address as 120 or 126 (the last number is partially missing and therefore cannot be definitively made out) Nassau Street. As to when Peck & Snyder began publishing together, perhaps that information is on record at the New York Historical Society. I know one time when I was researching a photograph (the (in)famous "Creighton" tintype), the studio that published that image was on record at the Memphis Historical Society. The caveat (which was told to me after Barry and I published an article about the tintype) is that records at historical societies can be very incomplete. Therefore, just because it shows the first reference to a business as being a particular year, that does mean the business could not have been in existence prior to that date. So such a date should be regarded as the latest the business could have formed, not the earliest.


EDITED to add that I continue to doubt very much the card postdates 1867. If in fact it was produced during the 1868-1870 run of P&S trade cards, it makes sense it would still be available for purchase in the early 1870's when P&S was advertising the availability of its other cards. In addition, given the complete lack of advertising on the verso, it is possible the Peck and Snyder association when the card was released was different than it subsequently became.

Thanks Corey. I think it would be interesting to see the back, and it would clear up this mystery.

I've found a reference that shows Snyder joining Peck in 1868 at 105 Nassau St. It also states Peck and Snyder did not move to 126 Nassau St until 5/1/1870. If this information is accurate, the dating of the whole series could be wrong. It would seem that any P&S with a 126 Nassau St advertisement would have been issued later than 5/1/1870.

Great work!

It seems odd that Peck and Snyder would honor the 1869 Reds a year late, but could it in fact be a photograph of the 1870 team? I would need to check the roster to confirm that. Or maybe they simply issued a card in the spring of 1870 with an image of the 1869 team, similar to the way current baseball cards review the previous season. Perhaps we are beginning to solve some of the mysteries of this issue.

Barry-Perhaps the cards were advertisments to show that the store had moved locations. That would place them on spring/summer of 1870 which would make sense for a Cincinnati issue. If the Creighton has the new address then it could have been isssued either before or after the team cards, but certainly after the move.

The reverse of both the black and red versions of the Reds I've seen list 126 Nassau St as P&S's address which would indicate an 1870 issue date. However, a CdV version of the 69 Reds shows 22 Ann St as the P&S address. I believe Ann St was an address used between the 105 Nassau St address and the 126 Nassau St address. If this is true the CdV versions with the P&S advertising ( and possibly the purplish ink on the reverse ) would predate the more elaborate P&S cards.
At first glance it would seem that P&S issued the CdV version first, sometime before 5/1/1870 because of the Ann St address. Probably due to the success of this promotion P&S decided to expand their scope and issue more elaborate versions of the Reds as well as the aforementioned other teams on the 1871 sales list. This makes sense bcause the Reds were at the height of their popularity in 1869/70 and the most famous team in America.
Where the Creighton card fits into this I don't know. It seems the probabilty for it being issued before the team cards is small if the back has an 126 Nassau St address. It was more than likely issued at the same time or, as Jay suggested later. The odd thing is that it isn't on the 1871 sales list. This suggests that it may have been issued later.

That would be major news if we have just confirmed that the CdV's predate the trade cards. Of course, there are several versions of the CdV. If memory serves, I recall seeing one that had an ad for Chadwick's book The Game of Baseball on the reverse. Since that was first published in 1868, might that one be even earlier than the ones with the P & S ad? We don't know. But it sounds like we are making a breakthrough right on this thread.

Hope everybody is reading this.

Article from March 5, 1894 N Y Times on the sale of part of Peck and Snyder operation to Spaulding. The article appears to state that the store has been at this location for 30 years. What does that imply? Note: follow up article is on the death of Ned Williamson.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...DB405B8485F0D3

Amazing stuff, Guys! I only wish I could acquire one - any version would do nicely!!! That's the number one card on my wish list, but I'm afraid this one in Goodwin is gonna far exceed my budget.


Edited to say: Actually, I was thinking of the rather pristine example in the upcoming REA. Hmmm.... This one has possibilities?

Well that would suggest since 1864, but "30 years" could be a round number. It would be useful to look at all the different backs on the Peck & Snyders to see what address is listed, as well as any other pertinent information. Then perhaps we could create a timeline.

It is certainly possible that each of the known teams was issued to the public in the subsequent year, so that the 1870 Athletics, Mutuals and White Stocking were first made available in 1871, etc.

Is there any way we could get a scan of the reverse of the 1868 Atlantics team card? Since this is the earliest image, a 126 Nassau St reverse would further enforce the idea that all P&S team cards may have been issued in the same year, with the possible exception of the P&S Reds CdVs.

I just went to Google maps. Assuming the numbering hasn't changed on these streets, 105 Nassau is on the corner of Nassau and Ann. 22 Ann is about 50 yards up Ann Street from the intersection, and 126 Nassau is less than 100 yards from the corner of Ann and Nassau. Thus, Peck & Snyder was pretty much at the same location (within 100 yards) throughout their history, even though they shifted between buildings. Therefore, both the Times article and the move to 126 Nassau Street in 1870 could both be accurate.

Here is the verso of the Creighton P&S. The hand-written reference to Culver Service was added at a later date.

Thanks Corey, that's really interesting. First, my source who told me there is no ad on the back is wrong, and I don't know where he got that information from. Second, since this too lists the Nassau Street address, and assuming the information is correct that the company moved there in 1870, then the Creighton is considerably later than we thought. Likewise, it may be possible that the whole set was issued at the same time (with the exception of Cincinnati, which was likely the only one popular enough to be reissued to satisfy demand).

This is still a work in progress, but fascinating. And boy, did they squeeze a lot of text onto the back of that Creighton.

Corey,
Is the information printed on the card back? It looks like a part of a newspaper article that was affixed. This information does point to the Creighton being issued post 1870. The question remains as to why the reverse is so different to other known P&S cards. Could the Creighton have been more of a novelty item? It would be interesting to compare this to the reverse of the Atlantics P&S.

Some observations: there is heading at the top of the bio that is missing save the lower portion of the letters. It would be great if somehow we could figure out what it says. Also, the text refers to George Flanley as the current captain of the Excelsiors, but the team last played in 1867. Flanley was a member from at least 1862 until 1867, but I don't know what year he was made captain. There appears to be a year to the right of this notation, but the last two digits are trimmed away! Finally, if this is a newspaper clipping glued to the back, why is there a Peck and Snyder ad at the bottom of it?

The verso is not a newspaper clipping but in fact is printed on the card. If Flaney's last year with the Excelsior's was 1867, then that would suggest the latest the card could date from. When did the Excelsior's disband?

Also, the fact that P&S started referencing the 126 Nassau Street address in 1870 means nothing as to whether they could have been there previously. Maybe that was their first location, then they added another down the street and then consolidated back into Nassau Street. That would hardly be the first time a business did such a thing.

Corey- that's a good point, and critical.

We really do need an accurate timeline regarding where Peck and Snyder was, and when they were there, in order to figure this out.

Peck and Snyder did not join together till 1868; this is a fact. Therefore, forget trying to date the card pre-1868. Also, the George Flanley reference as "now Captain" sounds not like he is captain when the card was issued, but rather at a point in time they are talking about in the text.
My view is that all the team cards were issued in 1870 or later and that the Creighton card was issued as a commemorative, possibly on the anniversary of Creighton's death in 1872.

That's certainly a possibility Jay...and why are only four people partaking in this discussion? We're splitting the atom here, and nobody is watching.

At this point I would have to agree with Jay. There are archived threads on this forum from 2004 and 2007 discussing Peck, P&S, as well as the addresses of each chronologically. These are referenced to the Beadle Guides and the Library of Congress. On the web,19cbaseball.com gives a chronology of Peck and P&S also. The information gives 5/1/1870 as the date of P&S first being at 126 Nassau St. I realize this would need to be corroborated, but the information is there. Finally, John Thorn wrote a biography about Creighton for SABR. At its conclusion he references the Creighton card, although he calls it a CdV. He speaks about Mark Rucker and his viewing of the card's reverse in 1983 while working on the 19th century issue of the National Pastime. He states that the biographical text on the back of the card was glued on. Maybe John could come on and elaborate on that.

If it were glued on, wouldn't it have been done by Peck and Snyder contemporaneous to the issuance of the card? Where would they get a biography of Creighton that both fit the dimensions of the trade card, and had their company advertising on the bottom of it? How could they find a newspaper clipping like that? More mysteries abound.

Corey, was the top left corner of the Creighton restored at some point?

On page 78 of John Kashmanian's "Baseball Treasures", there is a Peck and Snyder advertising poster that lists the business residing at 105 Nassau Street. So that is now a third address for them. The poster appears to be circa 1870, but the date can't be pinpointed.

If in fact the back was glued on, then for all we know the card could date to 1862, when Creighton died. As Barry said, given that the text perfectly matches the verso, it seems a remarkable coincidence that it would not have been intended to go with the card.

As to the date, at this point we don't know. If Flaney was no longer captain after 1867, or if the Excelsiors were not playing later in the decade, that would suggest the card does predate 1868. Likewise, published records of individuals being in business a particular year does not mean they could not have been together earlier, perhaps in a different collaberation. Perhaps the reason the verso does not have more explicit advertising is because the Peck and Snyder association then was different than it later became. We simply don't know.

EDITED for accuracy

On page 106 of the same book is a picture of Peck's New and Improved Pocket Base Ball Scorebook. The book is dated 1866, and was published by Peck & Snyder of 126 Nassau Street. But that date was "entered according to an Act of Congress" in 1866, so it could have been published later. But another useful piece of the puzzle.

Barry, I'm trying to determine if the biography on the back was originally associated with the card. The Peck and Snyder reference at the bottom of the biography could just be a coincidence. Maybe the biography was written in one of Peck an Snyder's catalogs, the P&S reference was just there, and the biography was later affixed. The possibility exists that this is not a P&S issue at all. Along those lines, it could have been issued any time after 1862.

Gary- what I'm thinking, and this could change, is that Peck and Snyder had the Creighton image glued to a blank card, and then affixed a pre-printed ad to the back themselves. I think the chances of finding a biography in a newspaper, for example, that fit the exact height and width of the card, and fortuitously included the company name and street address at the bottom, is remote at best. If that biography was not part of the original mount, as has been suggested, then I believe P & S had it specially made to fit onto the back. I admit it makes little sense to have constructed this card in two steps, but I don't believe that back was randomly found at a later date.

Andrew Peck was a Mason. The Masons published a book of biographies of their prominent members which can be found via Google. Andrew Peck's bio states that he started his sporting goods business in 1866 and joined with Snyder in 1868. No confusion here. Anything that says Peck & Snyder is 1868 or later.
Corey--It should be obvious if there was a second layer glued to a pre-existing trade card. Is the card one or two layers thick?

The thing that bothers me is that if this is a P&S issue, why isn't it listed on the 1871 sales list. It would have to have been made after 1868 because of the P&S reference. Why doesn't the back display an ad similar to the team cards? If this is a P&S issue, it is an anomaly. Is everyone reading this still convinced the Creighton is a P&S issue?

Jay, I don't have the card in front of me to inspect the verso.

Given the fact that the biography perfectly matches the card's dimensions, it seems just too amazing that the biography as currently printed was not meant to affix to the card. If in fact it was pasted on, that would mean P&S was in the infancy of its collaboration, or that they were a duo under a different form of collaboration than they subsequently became, and did not have a business card.

I have learned from experience not to be too taken by first-published references to a business. Records then, especially during and in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, are simply one, albeit an important one, part of the evidence. When we first began discussing what the verso might say, we were hoping that it might contain clues to the dating of the card. Well it has, in regard to the Flaney reference and the current existence of the Excelsiors. This information too is relevant and should not be summarily dismissed.

As has been noted, if the card was produced during the run of the other known P&S's, strange that it would not be advertised along with the others. And as to whether it would have predated or postdated that run, given what the verso says, the lack of advertising, and the diminishing interest in Creighton the further away from his death, I simply do not see how anyone can at this point make a definitive statement that the card cannot predate 1868.

Maybe my question about the clipped top left corner got lost with all the P&S discussion...

From Rucker's Cartes (1988) & Wong's Smithsonian (2005)

http://i.imgur.com/d9XpF.jpg

I see conflicting facts here. On one hand the address of 126 Nassau Street suggests the card was issued later than we originally thought, perhaps in the 1868 to 1870 range, maybe even later. But the physical appearance of it looks much older than any of the team cards, kind of the same way a CdV made in the 1860's looks older than one made in the 1870's. Right now I'm thinking we are still missing some crucial information.

Jimmy
 

I don't have the card in front of me to examine if it has been restored. I doubt it though and can say I never had anything done to it. When Mark Rucker published it in his Cdv book, I seem to recall that he first had the images shot in black and white, then put a sepia overtone on them. If in fact this is what was done, the resultant images could create misleading impressions as to what might have been done to them.

Thanks Corey.

Added scan from Alvarez' The Old Ball Game (1992) - (Center)

http://i.imgur.com/B6qZy.jpg

It seems strange that if the biography was made specifically for the card that the lettering at the top would be chopped off. I know of no other CdV, cabinet, or card from this era that has this type of adhered backing as issued. The lettering is either printed or nonexistant. It just doesn't make sense that P&S would go to all the trouble of writing a detailed biography and then glue it on. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but this card does not seem to be a P&S to me. It could very well predate the P&S issues. Is it the same size as the other P&S cards?

This reminds me of the Wagner strip/proof dilemma.

Btw, I agree with Gary on this one.

Gary,

I'm pretty sure the card is trimmed, which is why some of the print is missing. Most trade cards extant are trimmed and that is what helped them survive--being cut down to fit into photo albums.

Also, it might have been cheaper for P&S to glue on lettering than to make a business card with a verso that can be used for only one specific front image.