N28 Allen & Ginters NOT from 1887 ??

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

OK, you win!

The Kalmazoo Bats NY Giants portrait cards can be considered from 1886 just like the N167's.

Makes no difference to me...

since I own NEITHER.



Anybody own this one from an old Lipsett auction??

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

So does EVERYONE now agree that the N28 Allen & Ginters are from 1888 and NOT 1887 ??

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

(Hee!) idea, there are several Old Judges of Kelly with Chicago--and he was out of there in '86.

As far Wagner not being great in his first few years--o yes he was! From the minute he joined the major leagues (I looked it up when we were picking teams by decades, and I wanted to use Wagner for the 1890s).

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

The players in N28 are as follows
Charles Bennett-same team in 87 and 88
John Ward-same team both years
Tim Keefe-same
Joe Mulvey-same
Cap Anson-same
Jack Glasscock-same
Bob Caruthers-sold to brooklyn on december 13,1887 from st louis
Charles Comiskey-same team
Mike Kelly-same team,joined boston feb 16th,87
John Clarkson- changed to boston on april 3rd of 1888


Since Caruthers is pictured in street clothes with no team designation you would have to go by the latest date possible picturing a guy with a team designation,meaning the Clarkson card was made after 4/3/88 and all the others should fall into this category as well.It could be at the time they didnt have a Caruthers picture with him on Brooklyn so they used street clothes

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

John:

Several different Brooklyn teams over the years have worn "checked" uniforms like the "street clothes" that you show Carruthers wearing in that card...

so maybe that IS supposed to be him in an 1888 Brooklyn uniform??

I agree with you. The N28's MUST have come out AFTER April 3, 1888.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Julie:

Even though you are correct in stating that King Kelly was NOT with the Boston team until February 16, 1887...

the Old Judge cards that show him in his Chicago uniform ALL say "$10,000 Kelly" on them...

which means that they had to have been printed AFTER he was sold to Boston in 1887 for $10,000.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Plus the old judges have copyright dates printed on them as opposed to the other cards discussed in the thread which dont

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

N167 Old Judge, Kalamazoo Bats Portraits (NY), and Welton Cigars would all qualify as Rookie Cards. I think that Jay and Keith Olberman may be hoarding all of the Kalamazoo Bats cards. I was the underbidder on the trimmed Kalamazoo Bats Keefe in the Mastro Collectors Auction. In hindsight, I wish I had bid higher, knowing how rare they are

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Hal,

If you consider the Henry Reccius Wagner to be Wagner's Rookie Card, then you really can't consider the E107 Breisch Williams Cy Young to be Young's Rookie Card (as you do on your website). The Just So Tobacco Young is every bit as legitimate (and probably more so, since it is from a set) than the Reccius card. The fact that you don't own the Just So Young is not a sufficient enough answer to ignore it. I think you need to continue to search for an E107 Breisch Williams Wagner to hedge your bets. If the E107 Cy Young is a Rookie Card, then so is the E107 Honus Wagner.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Andy:

Until a "Just So" Cy Young card is ever graded and AUTHENTICATED as being "REAL" by either SGC or PSA...

my position will be that I have never personally seen any such card and have serious doubts about whether one was ever produced.

If someone wants to prove me wrong by having the card graded and then selling it to me...

I would at that time be willing to reconsider my position.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Hal,

The Just So Cy Young card exists, and it is owned by a collector who has no interest in getting it slabbed, so that isn't going to happen. It didn't end up in the Standard Catalog due to speculation. I have an article that talks about it's discovery that I can fax to you if you are interested. It has a picture of the Young card, though what I have is a copy, so it is crude. I have produced a mock of what the Just So Cy Young looks like below. You must realize that this is your lamest excuse yet.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

My excuse is "lamer" than a mocked-up Cy Young card you threw together with photo-shop and a laser printer?? HA!

Did I say anything about your excuse for not considering the Reccius Wagner to be a "real" rookie card -- even though your excuse is solely motivated by your desire to protect the importance of your E107 Wagner?

Aren't you the very person who is paying a professional organization to essentially CREATE an entire "Just So" Burkett card by using an Actress card and a portion of a Burkett card?

You can't possibly think that those same experts couldn't have used the SAME METHOD to CREATE a bogus "Just So" Cy Young card.

After all ... they could have used ANY image of Young that they wanted, since NO OTHER SUCH CARDS existed for comparison sake.

Remember ... making a counterfeit card is a LOT easier when there is NOTHING that has to be copied.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

And after seeing what those "restorers" did with Jay's Keeler cabinet...

I'll bet that a LOT of these "silent collectors" are VERY AFRAID of having their old stuff examined by SGC or PSA.

What if MOST of the stuff they own has been restored unbeknowenst to them?? They would be cutting their own throats.

Every week on EBay somebody auctions off another T206 Wagner card...

WITHOUT having it slabbed and authenticated.

How are these clowns any different than these "mysterious" collectors who don't want their stuff inspected by unbiased experts??

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Hal,

I'm not questioning the importance of the Reccius Wagner or the importance of the E107 Wagner. The importance of the E107 Wagner is not affected by whether or not you or others consider it to be a Rookie Card. It's significance is that it is the most important player from what many consider to be the most important post 1900 set.

Both of the Wagner cards can be considered Rookie Cards, depending on one's own definition. I stated earlier that this is subjective. My only point was that if someone considers the Reccius Wagner to be a Rookie Card (which it very well may be), then the Just So Cy Young (which is definitely real) has to also be considered a Rookie Card. If you choose to consider the E107 Young to be a Rookie Card, then the E107 Wagner is as well. I just don't see a grey area here. It is black & white.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

No doubt.

If the "Just So" Cy Young card is legit...

then it would be his rookie card.

UNTIL...

someone takes an old image of Cy Young and a real Old Judge card and sends them to the professional restorers to CREATE an 1890 Old Judge rookie card of Cy Young.



I am just VERY skeptical of a lot of these "mystery" collectors who have some fabulous items but don't want them slabbed and authenticated.

It just sounds pretty "hokey" that someone can own a baseball card that is worth $100,000...

which means that it is probably INSURED...

and I don't think insurance companies are real keen on insuring pieces of cardboard for $100,000 without having them AUTHENTICATED.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I hope Hal's skepticism extends to the Spalding card. I just keep thinking that if I click my heels together three times it will go away.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Of COURSE it extends to that card as well, Paul!

Has it been examined yet by unbiased experts to see if it is legit? Not that I can tell.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

There are LOTS of collectors who were around before the grading companies, who just don't believe in them. It took me several years to come around.

I can almost guarantee you that the owner of the Just So Young (and 4BH Kelly, P&S Atlantics, P&S Creighton, etc. - what a collection) has insurance on his collection.

I will post a jpeg of the Just So article when my free space clears up.

[Archive]

Posted By: HW

A couple of points

I agree that the N28 set was not issued until 1888. It is amazing that the 1887 date was used for so long. My eary Sports Collector Bibles list 1888 as the date for the N29 set, but does not list a date for the N28 set. Instead it just labels the N28 set as being the "first series" from which people probably assumed it was issued a year before the "second series" N29 set.

I remember seeing a picture of the Just So Cy Young in either SCD or the Trader Speaks. (If my mind is not failing me) I believe that it was discovered in the same group that included many of the other nice examples that are known today. I think that several of these were one of a kind (like the Young), but the find also included several players (Boyd, Childs, McKean?) that were already known. The examples of these players matched up perfectly with the known examples, which makes the chance of them being counterfeit very remote.

Also, if the Just So of Cy Young is in the collection that I think that it may be in, it will never come up for sale. Also, if I am right on my assumption of where the card is, its owner is much more knowledgable than any grader at either PSA or SGC.

Lstly, congratulations on the Reccius Wagner. It is an important card.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

hal,

there are a lot of oldtime collections which contain many key cards and/or unique items that have not and never will see a grading company slab for a variety of reasons, 1st and foremost these collectors do not intend to sell, EVER! 2nd they could care less what some grading company put on a sticker, they enjoy them as they are and i will tell you some are not very well displayed or protected(direct sun, PVC, etc).

now i know that as some point this material may see the markets and get slabbed, but i think you'll find 99.9% of it is totally original. i would not let the keeler cabinet or andy's restoration lead you to believe that old time collectors drawers are breaming with put together rarities.

and to answer your last part, most of these old time collections are not insured(not a wise idea) as they were not valuable when collected 20-40 years ago and even to this day some of the collectors have no real idea of their holdings.

to wit: the oregon find of old judges. think they would have sought out lloyds of london before they sold these, hell! they almost threw them away.

scott

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

most of the just so's were in a group that came into a show in ohio, it may have been the old stongsville? show. i know a collector/dealer that was there and did not have the cash or forsight to buy them and is still kicking himself to this day.

scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Andy:

If the owner of the "Just So" Cy Young card is also the owner of all the Peck & Snyders and the 4BH Kelly...

then this is the "mystery" collector whose name is known to only a select few people (such as Barry Sloate)...

and those people dare not mention his name without losing their rights to visit his fabulous collection.

Have you been lucky enough to see his collection in person and do you know his identity?

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Hal;

I may not have a huge important collection like yourself with lots of one-of-a-kind items. But I have to disagree with you. I’ve been collecting for years and by the time I was 14 I had over half of the T206 set along with a host of other harder to find pre-war items. Up until getting back into the hobby about 2 yrs ago I never owned a graded card. In fact the only graded cards I own are the ones I have bought in the past few years. I’m sure there are many huge old time collections with very rare items that reside in them. I started in the 80’s as a kid with no budget and I was able to put together a sizable collection (with some luck) imagine what the people who started 20yrs before me managed to put together. I’m on the lower end of the scale but if little old me with no money could put together a sizeable collection why cant you believe the older collectors out there could have some amazing stuff.

I’ve been to your website many times and love your collection I’m not sure who’s life I fantasize more about living your no budget card collecting or Hugh Heffner. You have some statements on your cards about them being the highest graded, or the finest example in the world. I’m sure if many of these collectors who you don’t believe exists went to grading companies you would have to redo your site.

By the way you can get insurance without having your cards graded I did.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

I guess that I am one of the "lucky few" who know the identity of the mystery collector. However, I have never spoken to him (I'd love to someday), nor have I had the priviledge (sp) of viewing his collection (also hope to someday).

Just So Tobacco Cy Young:

- The owner of the card is far more knowledgable about scarce vintage cards than anyone at any of the grading companies. Also, I believe that several hobby heavyweights (Barry Sloate?, etc) have viewed the Just So Young in person, so it does exist.

G&B Spaulding:

- The owner of this card has more G&B's in his collection than all of the grading companies have seen, COMBINED. He has to be the expert on this set. I also know that one of the most respected "dealers/collectors" in the hobby handled this card once. This person also knows MUCH MORE about vintage cards than everyone at the grading companies. I believe that the deal was private, so I will refrain from using his name here.

One Last Point:

- Don't put too much stake in the Grading Companies. They serve a useful purpose, but there are MANY Collectors (and many who post on this board) who have far more vintage card knowledge than the grading companies will ever have.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

But Mr. Wonka:

I also collected old cards back in the years before grading companies existed...

and a lot of them turned out to be "trimmed" or "restored" when they were sent in for grading a few decades later.

Wouldn't it be incredibly naive to think that people were not TRIMMING cards to make them look better even as far back as 1909??

How about in 1929? 1959? Of course they did.

I'm just saying that SOME percentage of ungraded cards out there have GOT to have "problems" that would keep them from being slabbed and which would reduce their values significantly.

THIS DOES NOT mean that I wouldn't LOVE to have some of those cards (like Andy's trimmed "Just So" Burkett)... but it does explain why some valuable cards will NEVER get slabbed and therefore authenticated.

[Archive]

Posted By: HW

Hal,

I agree with you about many vintage collections containing trimmed cards in them. Lew Lipset sold a collection of vintage cards a couple of years ago where the cards were trimmed decades ago in order to fit into display pages.

I do not think that there are many outright counterfeit cards in these collections. In fact, I do not think that there are that many counterfeit cards in the hobby other than the reprint that were made by TCMA, Dover, Fritsch, etc. Generally, these are pretty easy for an advanced collector to spot.

I have heard many horror stories where an advanced collector had their cards graded only to find that their T205 Cobb had its corner colored in. I am not aware of any instances where an knowledgable collector had a fake card in their collection, though I am sure that it has happened.

My point is, I can see your concern about the condition of some of these legendary hobby rarities, but I would bet that the amount of outright fakes is extremel small.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I agree.

but Andy knows I'm a lawyer and I like to argue my points...

which is the only reason he "prods" me with stuff like this.



Hey Andy: Just for you, I am going to re-do my whole web site ...

and I am going to say that EVERY card I have is the "only known example" and "super-duper rare" and "worth more than the Hope Diamond."

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Hal doesn’t your website already say all of that?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

The simple fact of the matter is that 99% of the people who visit my website have NEVER seen a baseball card older than 1952...

and all think that my Sammy Sosa or A-Rod cards are the most valuable.



They have absolutely no idea what the little black-and-white "photo thingies" of old people in funny outfits are....

so I have to make the vintage cards interesting and exciting to them.

After visiting my site, they have a newfound appreciation for VINTAGE baseball card collecting and they finally understand how grown men (and Julie) can be so wrapped up in it!!

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

Just visited your web site for the first time. A very impressive collection. My favorites have to be the Shoeless Joe bat, and the Wagner card.

If you find another cabinet card with Spalding and Wright on it wiull you keep it and this way have separate rookie cards for them? (Outside of getting the G&B Spalding).

Once again, a mighty collection; thanks for sharing it with everyone.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

So your making the hobby more exciting. Ohhhh I thought you were just bragging a little.

I agree the hobby needs to be more exciting so how about guys “The Nude Men & Women Of Baseball Card Collecting”.

My vote for “Mr. December” Leon I already here he is one of the sexiest guys in the biz.

[Archive]

Posted By: Stevenwouldanswerifheonlyknewhow

......OK, I'm lost

Were Hess cards issued in 1886-8 as well?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

No ... that's Elmer FOSTER ... who played for "New York" in 1886, took 1887 off apparently ... then played agains for New York in 1888 and 1889.

What John was saying earlier in this thread is that Elmer only played for the NY METS in 1886 ... and then returned with the NY GIANTS in 1888 (on the Hess card)


It was Tom FORSTER (with an extra "R") who ONLY played for the New York Mets in 1886 and then NEVER played for ANY team from New York ever again.

[Archive]

Posted By: Thequestionman

....thanks for unconfusing me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

Since the n172 Old Judge set was issued over a few years -- 1887-90, I believe -- and different versions of players were issued of players during that time (some with team changes as well) it stands to reason that certain Old Judge's might be Rookies while others are effectively the first ever "traded/update" cards.

For example, HOFers Clarkson, Kelly*, Thompson and McCarthy all switched teams during this time and I believe are pictured with both the earlier and later team in the Old Judge set: Clarkson and Kelly are shown with both Chicago and Boston; Thompson with Detroit and Philadelphia; and McCarthy with both Philadelphia and St. Louis. In each case, assuming the Old Judge is deemed the players Rookie card only the card showing the player on the first team would really be the "Rookie card". It would also be the case that any Player's League card would not be a Rookie if there is another card of that player in the set that does not indidcate a Players League affiliation since the Players League only came into existence following the 1889 season.
__________________________________________________ ____________________
* Kelly cards with Chicago but identifying him as "$10,000 Kelly" must have been issued after Chicago sold him to Boston for $10,000. Otherwise, the "$10,000" is meaningless and would not have been printed on the card. (As a lawyer I am required to have a footnote).

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Brian:

Absolutely correct, and there are more HOF's than you listed who switched teams:

Hamilton
Clarkson
Brouthers
Hanlon
Kelly (with footnote)
McCarthy
Rusie
Thompson


PLUS...you also have to be careful because some of the OJ's are actually MINOR league cards:

Beckley - St. Louis Whites
Kid Nichols - Omaha



I have been careful in purchasing OJ's over the years to make sure and get ONLY the ones that could be considered their FIRST major league cards.

Unfortunately, PSA mislabeled my McCarthy as "St. Louis" instead of "Phila."... even though it says "Phila" right on the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Hal--Let me put one of the discussions to rest. I know who has, and have seen, the Just So Cy Young. It is undoctored and beautiful. I also believe that Giant/Met K-Bats were a different issue than the Phillies/Athletics K-Bats.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

No, what you saw was the "D. T. Young" card that came in the "Just So" set.

Everyone knows that "Down Town Young" was just a journeyman second-sacker who hit a buck-forty-eight and got send down from Cleveland to Toledo at the end of the 1893 season.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

I don't really think of Hanlon's Old Judge (or Sparky Anderson's 1959 Topps card for that matter) as his "Rookie Card", because he plainly wasn't a Hall of Fame player. He was a Hall of Fame manager who had a fair playing career before Managing. The same would hold for, among others, Connie Mack, Tommy Lasorda and Casey Stengel.

Obviously, as with all things Rookie card related great minds may reasonably differ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe_G.

You have to give Hanlon a little credit, he may be in the HOF for his managing accomplishments, but he was a solid player as well. Over his 13 year career he managed to finish top 5 in the League at least once for walks, stolen bases, & home runs. He was a solid player / team captain during his playing days. Give him a little love, certainly a better player than the other HOF managers you've listed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

"The Old Perfesser" wasn't a great player (certainly not HOF caliber), but he was more than serviceable. He was a good fielder (he personally taught Mickey Mantle how to play the outfield wall caroms in Ebbetts Field before the Yakns played the Dodgers there in the World Series) and he was a great World Series performer himself.

Plus, how can you not love a guy who comes up with quotes like:

"Being with a woman all night never hurt no professional baseball player. It's staying up all night looking for a woman that does him in."

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

Should the 1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth card be considered his rookie? Although it shows him on his minor league team, he spent more than half the year in the Big Leagues.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hey guys- let me yet again clear up some of the mysteries of the endlessly debated Cy Young Just So. Yes, it does exist, I have both held it and have a photocopy of it. The hoard of Just So's that it came with ( a total of seven) was purchased by this "mystery" collector after he read an article about them in SCD and hounded the family for years until they finally agreed to sell him all seven. Since he is a good friend of mine he consigned the other six to one of my 1998 auctions and five of them ended up in one collection; it would have been part of the "Southern Gentleman" collection that Mastro had in 2000 but they were sold privately by the owner before the auction. They are now dispersed around the hobby.
Also, disparaging the validity of the cards in my friend's great collection because they have not been slabbed is a silly and fallacious statement. He has been both a sophisticated and knowledgable collector for his entire life and believes that he can make his own determination about whether his cards are both authentic and untampered. I know them well and can trace most of them back to their previous owners. I can tell you they are all real and those with obvious and visible flaws- he knows that the Creighton and Brooklyn Atlantics are trimmed- are no secret to anyone. They don't need slabs that read "authentic." THEY ARE AUTHENTIC, no more need be said. And interestingly, cards are not even the focus of this great collection- they might be just the tip of the iceberg of perhaps the greatest historical collection ever assembled.
I hope those who are doubting the authenticity of the Cy Young are doing so tongue in cheek, because take it from me- and I've been around the baseball card block a few times- it's real and it's spectacular (I know at least a few Seinfeld fans get my drift).

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Barry, those are the cruelest words in the English language. For those of you who are not Seinfeld fans, "they're real and they're spectacular" translates roughly to "they'll never be yours, you can't touch, and you can't even look."

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

You are correct. It refers equally to both the Cy Young Just So and to Teri Hatcher; they are both unattainable. But at least you can see her in all her glory in "Desperate Housewives" (not a very good show, but she is as beautiful as ever).

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

I would post pictures of the N. Y. Giant HOFers from the K-Bat set(Ewing, Keefe, Ward, O'Rourke and Connor) but they live in the bank. There are pictures of several in the Copeland catalog, including the unique Ewing and Ward. Most of the N. Y. Giant cards came from an amazing find by Ron Oser. BTW, there is no known Welch although there was a Jos Wood image from which a card could have been made. Perhaps one will someday be found.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

As I remember it, it was they are real, they are spectacular, and they could have been yours if you had just believed, but now you will never see or touch them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Surely EVERYBODY on this site knows me well enough by now to know whether or not I was just being facetious about the Cy Young card.

In fact, when have I ever NOT been joking?

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

Hal,
Visited your web site again and couldn't find the 1932 U.S Caramel Lindy Lindstrom card. Looks like someone hacked your site and replaced his rookie card with a measly PSA 7 1933 Goudey. Thought since you are a lawyer, you can investigate and have charges brought against the cur that did this. LOL

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe P.

......... psssst
.......................psssst, .... Gator.

Ova heah.

Why dontya liten up an get a sensa huma?










heh heh heh