Collecting 19th Century Woodcuts vs. 20th Century Original Photos
 

In terms of supply and demand for the serious vintage baseball collector, would the 19th Century woodcuts be the equivalent of the 20th Century original photo?

For example, there is an abundat supply of original photos of 20th Century stars such as Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, etc. In a similar manner, there is a good supply of woodcuts of many 19th Century stars such as Cap Anson, King Kelly, John Ward, etc. However, finding an original photo of one of those guys would be nearly impossible.

The bottom line here is that I am trying to decide whether to keep my 19th Century woodcuts as my player representations for my HOF collection or replace them with cards or something else more widely accepted within the hobby? Keep in mind, my objective for my collection is to own the earliest image of each HOF'er and in many cases my woodcuts pre-date the player's earliest card by several years.

If you're referring to the NY Clippers. I'd almost consider them to be the equivalent of cards...They're not too big, and were numbered at one point, weren't they?

David:

Yes, the NY Clippers were one of the key woodcut issues that I was talking about. You're right, thery are the closest to cards as they are listed in the SCBC and there was a series of around 68 different ones issued over a two year period from 1879-80. Of course, there were many more before and after and a book was recently published which was dedicated to over 500+ NY Clipper baseball woodcuts.

Initially the 1879-80 series were numbered but the numbering dropped off after the first several were issued, I don't think they even made it up to #10.

Here's a scan of one of those.........

Very nice Phil. The Harper's are another mess all-together, especially since I only deal with full-issues, or at the least, full-pages. Currently I count mine, but will eventually upgrade to individual items. Cards/NY Clippers/Pins/whatever. Once I upgrade though, I still plan on keeping the Harper's as display items...They look awesome matted and framed.

I'm still undecided on the July 25, 1874 Athletics, and the May 3, 1890 "Opening of the Baseball Season" woodcuts. I'll have to say that I don't like the ones that have been cut into original card-like pieces. BUT they were eventually re-printed as cards by TCMA in the '70s, so I might give them card-like consideration..Again, my preference is the whole page though..

Agreed, David, full-pages are better, sometimes full issues can be cumbersome though. Almost all of the 1874 Philadelphia woodcuts that I have seen are full pages, not so with the 1890 since that one spanned about 8 pages total.

"The bottom line here is that I am trying to decide whether to keep my 19th Century woodcuts as my player representations for my HOF collection or replace them with cards or something else more widely accepted within the hobby? Keep in mind, my objective for my collection is to own the earliest image of each HOF'er and in many cases my woodcuts pre-date the player's earliest card by several years. "

Why not just collect the cards while keeping the woodcuts?

Michael

PS - I'll gladly take your woodcut collection for free if you want to give it up!

Michael:

Believe it or not, I have thought about doing exactly that. The primary thing stopping me is the money, in just about every case, the cards will be much more expensive than the woodcuts.

I'm with Michael on this one...but I'll have to one-up him (since I'm later to the post) by actually "paying" for your woodcut collection if you do decide to part with it...I'm guessing it'll be the HOF "rookie" collectors out there who are most interested in your woodcut collection.

Thanks guys, tempting offers......... I think that you're right, Derek. It seems that only HOF Rookie collectors or at least "one-time" HOF Rookie collectors have an opinion on this subject. No one else has chimed in yet.

Do what you enjoy, but something cut out of a newspaper is not a card.

Well, I have decided to make a compromise with myself. :)

I am going to keep the scarcer woodcuts that I really like (including the 1879-80 NY Clippers) and replace the others with cards or some other type of collectible.

I almost always agree, with regard to cut-outs NOT being cards. But in the case of the NY Clipper and Harper's woodcuts - doesn't the collecting custom of the time matter? In other words, if people in the 19th century routinely cut the woodcuts out, and then collected and displayed them, perhaps even traded them, does this not impart a card-like quality? What did the publishers intend? I'm on the fence. Sure would save the modern collector money, haha!

Ken, I completely agree. Just because "cards" eventually became the standard, it shouldn't lead us to automatically discredit or diminish any significant equivalent that came before.

Ken-When I was a kid i cut baseball pictures out of the newspaper and glued then in a scrapbook. They were newspaper clippings, not cards, and I never thought of them as cards. BTW, we never traded these, and I doubt people in the 19th century traded them either. They are fine to collect and interesting images. However, they are not cards. This doesn't diminish them or elevate them, they are what they are which is cut outs from a newspaper. The same goes for those who cut team pictures out of guides and have them graded. This is fine, but they are not cards either. Good business for the grading companies, but crazy if you ask me.

It imparts a collectability, but as Jay eloquently said, it's not a card. And I happen to like woodcuts and think they are underappreciated.

I like them as well, and I appreciate that they are under appreciated.

Doug

Hi Phil, I think that's a good approach. As both Doug and Barry have mentioned, the woodcuts are under appreciated and as a result also under valued especially compared to 'cards.' That doesn't mean that they are less collectable and as you know, the tough ones are highly desirable and very rarely come up in auctions.

I collect both cards and woodcuts. I definitely look at the woodcuts much more often than my cards. While I consider both an art form, I think size matters :p and the larger woodcuts (whether cut out of NY Clippers) or a full page print are truly impressive.

Derek - since Phil and I both live in NJ, I get them for free! Especially since you are from Boston, we don't take too kindly to your kind around these parts!

I would keep the woodcuts. Is there such a thing as "too big of a collection?" A majority of the time, the woodcuts are more interesting to look at than cards.